< December 14	December 16 >

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 Little emperor syndrome. Daniel (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Child's slave[edit]

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

This article seems to be about a flash-in-the-pan Chinese-language phraseology used mostly in 2013–14, related to a popular piece of media released around that time, and is not really a notable concept in itself then nor now. This is an issue I see to one degree or another with a lot of China-related articles, where a unique phrase is used to birth a new sociological concept not necessarily related to the wider world—of course, with the root of the issue being there aren't a lot of reliable sources that actually link such concepts in China to those elsewhere. So it's equally a 'greater world' issue as much as it is a wiki issue.

Regardless, there aren't really any results or sources that would lend this concept reification or notability since that time that I could find in either English or Chinese, the ones that are there are exceedingly paltry and do not constitute notability in itself imo. This isn't proof in itself, but the corresponding zhwiki article is three uncited sentences. Remsense留 23:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Remsense留 23:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You raise some interesting points, but on the other hand the phrase 孩奴 and similar terms like 房奴 (housing slave) continue to be discussed as a matter of linguistics. For example this[1] uses it as an example of internet slang. I know that's a thesis, but it's not paywalled so it's handy. In this article[2] mentions are quite brief, but current, and it says most people recognize the term. Does this article have merit as a linguistic phenomenon even if it's not the hottest slang ATM? Oblivy (talk) 01:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oblivy, the use–mention distinction plays a role once again—is the term in itself notable, or does any article for it have to awkwardly describe both the term and the phenomenon, since the former may not be notable, as much slang isn't, and the latter may not justify its own article as a manifestation of a greater sociological phenomenon?
I hadn't found that article, thank you for linking it—I would really appreciate additional input from people that may have a local feel for whether these "things" are really "things" distinct from western analogues. This is definitely the realm of my personal opinion, but there are a lot of articles for "Chinese terms" that could use this kind of scrutiny, and reading them often feels icky, like they're reports from Victorian expeditions to far-off lands. Remsense留 01:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant excerpt from WP:NOTDICT says:

In other cases, a word or phrase is often used as a "lens" or concept through which another topic or closely related set of topics are grouped, seen or renamed. In such cases, coverage about a word, phrase or concept should treat it as such. The main coverage of the topics that were modified, grouped or renamed by the "lens" is typically elsewhere in Wikipedia. World music, Political correctness, Gay agenda and Truthiness illustrate this.

Remsense留 02:13, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another nomination with a lack of a valid rationale. So what if the topic is a "flash-in-the-pan"? Wikipedia:Notability is not temporary, and the concept does not have to have sources about it in every single part of the world for it to be notable. I also found this entire piece from Beijing Review on the concept and this, both published in 2010, indicating there was significant coverage out of the 2013-14 period. Admittedly, most of the sources that appeared in my search was about American slavery and not this concept, so there is not a whole lot about the topic. But there seems to be enough to make a small article out of it, and not being internationally known or currently covered is no excuse to not have an article on it. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 20:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I am aware notability is not temporary, my point being that the 'flash' as it were did not generate enough coverage of the concept itself to constitute notability, and moreover that some false notion of notability may be generated simply by the term being in Chinese, and perhaps the material should be incorporated into a general article for the concept. Remsense留 21:37, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the nom is referring to WP:SUSTAINED, which is a valid argument in a general sense. (I don't know enough about the subject to know if it's rightfully applied though.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, I am voting Merge per BlackcurrantTea's reasoning. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 15:43, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I am firmly for deletion if the current cites the only WP:RS available. Without scholarly secondary analysis of the phrase, this should be deleted. As written, the article fails WP:GNG for WP:SUSTAINED and WP:DEPTH as well as WP:SIGCOV with a possible detour into WP:NOTNEO. I strongly disagree with HumanxAnthro's characterisation of WP:NTEMP in this instance. The question is whether this flash-in-the-pan ever had enough of a 'flash' to establish notability in the first place. Further, the lack of a valid rationale argument is simply false. Remsense discussed notability and sourcing, both of which are perfectly strong policy-based arguments. I also have a quibble with using general recognisability as a indicator of notability as Oblivy does above; flash-in-the-pan is familiar to nearly all English speakers, yet does not have a page in this encyclopaedia. However, I cannot !vote to delete at this time because I am unable to do proper WP:BEFORE research. All sources are in languages that I do not read and the cites in the article are all from a very, very narrow timeframe. If no one can provide solid RS with strong analysis and a wider range of dates, I will change to deletion before this AfD closes. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wuuuuuuuuutttt? I just brought up two articles from mainstream sources on the topic from 2010. Also, I have absolutely no idea what "strength" you saw. Remsense's only-cited policy page was NOTDICT, which does not even apply because the article IS about the concept and not just the phrase. His only notability complaints, to put it simply, were that there were not sources about this concept in other parts of the world. I would love to know what guideline prohibits a topic if it only exists or is covered within a specific nation state, because a lot of articles about animes are pretty much in trouble if that exists. Also, while WP:ACADEMIC coverage of the topic would help tremendously, it is not the end of the world if that does not exist. All that needs to happen for WP:GNG to be satisfied is a few independent sources (newspapers or magazines) to WP:SIGCOV the topic, and with the Beijing Review article and citations currently in the article, it seems to have satisfied that. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 01:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although not enthusiastically so. The deletion rationales are pretty all over the place right now. Sustained isn't an issue. Notneo seems to give way to sustained. Sigcov is addressed with Chinese sources.
@HumanxAnthro Good catch on the Beijing Review and China Daily Articles. That means we have coverage in 2010, later in 2013-14 in analysis of internet usage, and then in 2019 or so in the PKU article. That's pretty sustained.
There were two academic studies in Chinese in the 2010-2011 range:

岳玉阁. “论‘孩奴’现象对幼儿生命成长的不良影响.” 教育与教学研究 25.10 (2011): 120–122
徐安琪. “‘孩奴’炒作现象的负效应和辨正.” Dang dai qing nian yan jiu = Contemporary youth research 8 (2010)

And this 2023 article[3] gives it a passing footnote mention (bringing in the Beijing Review article) in the context of pressures on Chinese fertility.
I "quibble" with whether I actually advocated for using recognisability as an indicator of notability, BUT I do wonder whether the almost total lack of discussion of this concept in English sources means that it's really a Chinese-only phenomenon.
That all having been said, the China Daily article is 100% about this term, and there are multiple Chinese-language papers which use it as either a centerpiece or a significant example of online speech. I think that's enough.
Although not required by WP:NEXISTS it would be nice if some of this work could make it into the article... Oblivy (talk) 02:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am increasingly ready to prefer merging or withdrawing entirely with the additional sources found during the discussion. I apologize if my initial arguments were presented confusingly, but my reasons for skepticism in articles like these are inherently multi-faceted, due to a number of contributing factors.Remsense 留 02:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Little emperor syndrome due to the similarity in concepts: The one-child policy, the child's being the centre of the family and attention, high parental expectations, and spoilt children. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 13:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- BlackcurrantTea, precisely! Thank you for naming the article specifically, something I've neglected to do. Remsense留 19:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Little emperor syndrome per BlackcurrantTea's reasoning. It resolves my concerns in teh the comment I made above. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 19:45, 19 December 2023 (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!} 18:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oumou Tangara[edit]

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

The subject, a Malian women's footballer, has not received enough coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions in squad lists and match reports (1, 2, 3, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This could be better off as part of a List of Mali women's international footballers. Geschichte (talk) 11:16, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NBLP and WP:SPORTCRIT due to lack of sources. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:58, 16 December 2023 (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!} 22:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Gracies and the Birth of Vale Tudo[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. I've tried looking for reliable sources, it's all just IMDb-style pages with a short synopsis and cast list. The article as it is now is just a clone of the IMDb page. There's been no media or critic engagement and no notable viewer engagement. The history of the article has just been obvious WP:PROMOTION, WP:COI, and some WP:CV. Spagooder (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Martial arts. Shellwood (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Doesn't seem to be any reliable sources out there that give more than a passing glance. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks references with only 2, and didn't find anything with good faith google search. Doest seem to pass WP:GNG.Lethweimaster (talk) 12:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not sure the article's only reference is a reliable source. I do know my own search did not find sources to convince me that either WP:GNG or WP:NFILM is met. The article also appears to have SPA and COI issues. Papaursa (talk) 20:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gracie_family#Documentary_coverage; I have incorporated a limited amount of text there using the Trip magazine source. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just double-checked the Trip article and it's a puff piece on the family, only production/release info is the director's name. Spagooder (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2023 (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!} 22:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mondera Chakroborty[edit]

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

Non notable film actress (yet). There is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are Independent of the subject. Most of sources are either passing mentions or primary (e.g. interview). Acted in two films but not yet released. Fails every criteria of WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 22:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Dance, and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of passing WP:NACTOR. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 14:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I noticed that many edits by the article creator Mateuka have been reverted. It might be wise to review other WWI articles on battles they have created if this is indeed a hoax article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William Dadiani II[edit]

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

A hoax for which there are no sources at all. The creator has linked it to various existing battle articles already in the encyclopedia. Mccapra (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Germany. Mccapra (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: 100% a hoax. I have read numerous books on the WW1 East Africa Campaign, and all of them agree that Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck and Kurt Wahle were the only high-ranking German officers in East Africa. Lettow-Vorbeck would have killed for another general; he had to put lieutenants in command of entire frontlines due to his extreme lack of officers. Applodion (talk) 22:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax, and neither a good nor an entertaining one. Get it outta here. Ted52 (talk) 20:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Horizons (strategy)[edit]

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

Completely non-notable campaign. Governments come up with many such schemes/"strategies"/campaigns all the time, does not make them automatically notable. Other than the publication of the strategy in 2009 here, I cannot find much external coverage. Search results include this unrelated charity.

Overall poor-quality article on non-notable topic. Elshad (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Psychiatry, and England. Elshad (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- No indication in the article or WP:BEFORE searches of WP:GNG. No WP:PERSISTENCE or WP:DEPTH and sources are WP:PRIMARY. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:27, 18 December 2023 (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. At 15+ years on Wikipedia, it looks like this article could be in the Top 10 of Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia if anyone wants to take the trouble to make an entry there. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Powell[edit]

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

I can't find any information that suggests that this person existed. Google searches of her full name, the title of her best known work, and the title of the single reference for the page all return mirrors of the article and nothing else. Onorem (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Poetry, and France. ~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)neko-chan^nyan 22:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that we are so late to the party, Andy Dingley. ☺ It looks like you were quite right all those years ago. I've checked Worldcat, Google Books, and the OUP search, and I cannot find any indication that the book cited by the article's author exists. This appears to be a hoax. Uncle G (talk) 02:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My tea leaves and goat liver are infallible. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:52, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree that this appears to be a hoax.

Jahaza (talk) 03:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Andy Dingley (talk) 09:52, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a hoax.Pam D 14:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a hoax. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to be one for the 10+ year list. Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2023 (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!} 20:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yuantang (language game)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject fails GNG. The prior AfD was withdrawn as clearly no sources were added and I don't care what zh-wiki says. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Games, and China. Shellwood (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – here are three scholarly sources:
- 兴宁“鸳塘话”研究——兼论兴宁苑塘罗氏家族的兴衰史 by 陈靖云
- Exploring Xingning's Yuantang subdialect, a secret variety of the Hakka dialect / 從興寧“鴛塘話”探析客家話的秘密語 by Sheng-yu Teng / 鄧盛有
- 射字游戏及其应用 by 刘本才 and 李春

Over at zh:苑塘话 there's another source listed, but I haven't found a link to it:

罗建平. 举世无双的神秘罗氏族语:苑塘话. 客家风情, 2003.

This should be enough to demonstrate notability. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if I'm allowed to vote – I had withdrawn the original nomination after being convinced by the viability of the sources provided, but since then I haven't gotten around to improving the article, and didn't want to add the sources to it if they weren't being used yet. Remsense留 06:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "I don't care what zh-wiki says" is such a flippant attitude to take when it cites scholarly sources and is an affront to WP:BEFORE _dk (talk) 06:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep: The first source given by Mx. Granger is from a journal started by a Chinese national museum which IMO is reliable. Based on the abstract, it should be considered as a secondary source as it provides an analysis/synthesis based on local chronicles and ethnographic materials. I don't have access to the full text, but based on the title and abstract, they should clearly have significant coverage. --94rain ^Talk 06:34, 22 December 2023 (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!} 20:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

River Road Estates, California[edit]

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

Non-notable housing development/subdivision fails GEOLAND Reywas92^Talk 21:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. Reywas92^Talk 21:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why everyone over at RfD wanted to restore this non-article is a mystery to me. Completely non-notable subdivision; nothing to be said about it; article is a waste of space. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not meet the GNG. Let'srun (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree, just a subdivision. I checked newspapers.com, newspaperarchive.com, and California Digital Newspaper Collection and didn't find any unique coverage.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:19, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subdivision with no coverage to suggest it passes WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:05, 19 December 2023 (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!} 20:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

San Joaquin River Estates, California[edit]

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

Non-notable housing development/subdivision fails GEOLAND Reywas92^Talk 21:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. Reywas92^Talk 21:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See my comments about River Road Estates, above. Another GNIS copy-paste job. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing is here to indicate notability. Concur with the nom regarding GEOLAND. Let'srun (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2023 (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!} 20:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Madera Country Club Estates, California[edit]

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

Non-notable housing development/subdivision within Madera Acres, California fails GEOLAND Reywas92^Talk 20:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. Reywas92^Talk 20:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I went and added some sources about this place from a few newspapers. The area is notable for being part of a real estate boom in the 1960's and 1970's. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 23:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yeah Reywas92 is right this isn't notable. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 05:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Besides MOS:DECADE, I maintain that routine local coverage of housing development doesn't mean the individual development is notable, especially when it's within an existing community with an article; better to have a history section in Madera Acres, California than to suggest a subdivision like the one I grew up in needs its own article. Reywas92^Talk 23:21, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See my comments on River Road Estates, above. Lots of places had real-estate booms in the 1960s and 1970s; if that's our standard for notability then pretty much every housing development built in those years is notable. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2023 (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!} 18:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Bamako[edit]

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

The articles say nothing about embassies, instead reduplicating extant articles about bilateral relations. Biruitorul ^Talk 20:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because [insert reason here]:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, Oman, Chile, Colombia, Dominican Republic, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all created in a spree with no consideration for notability, and all are unnecessary content forks. LibStar (talk) 02:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect all to their respective X-United States relation pages. Sgubaldo (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2023 (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 High-speed rail in the United States. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

North Atlantic Rail[edit]

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

While there was a brief flurry of press coverage at the initial announcement (mostly just regurgitating the press release), there is no indication of any enduring notability. There's been no coverage since 2021 - even their own website stops at July 2021. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, and Rhode Island. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's still being discussed; in Gnews, [4] an opinion piece, but the first few I pull up are from Conneticut and all over New England. Oaktree b (talk) 21:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: That piece is from June 2021, during the initial spurt of interest. The only Newspapers.com result in the past two calendar years is a single letter to the editor (not a reliable source). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This [5] although the project has morphed into something else. Oaktree b (talk) 22:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: That's the update to NEC FUTURE, which is an Amtrak project. Same region as North Atlantic Rail, and some of the same corridors, but completely separate organization with no relation. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's rather odd to see this under "Planned" in Template:High-speed rail in the United States when it's just a concept in its infancy. I don't think this has gotten enough sustained attention by the actual planners to have an article. Reywas92^Talk 05:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to High-speed rail in the United States. Although this has been described at length in Newsday and mentioned in Bloomberg, that's about the only significant coverage that this project has received in reliable non-primary sources. There are also less significant mentions in sources like Boston.com, as well as the above mentioned opinion pieces, but at this point I think there is a case for merging the article for now. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to High-speed rail in the United States would indeed be the wisest choice because, while it is still in the planning stages, it nevertheless stands a chance of coming to fruition. And if it does not, it can still be mentioned as one of the high-speed rail proposals that were put forth. TH1980 (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (selectively) to High-speed rail in the United States. North Atlantic Rail is short and still needs serious trimming. It makes the SPINOFF unjustified. gidonb (talk) 02:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to High-speed rail in the United States per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:48, 22 December 2023 (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 List of Doomsday Clock characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rorschach (Reggie Long)[edit]

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

This version of the character is not independently notable. Some trade sourcing came out while the publication was ongoing (Polygon, CBR, IGN, a post-2013 WP:NEWSWEEK article), but no coverage in the five years since. Other citations are primary, like directly from the source material. If the article is not deleted, it should be merged and redirected into Rorschach (character). – Muboshgu (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If not kept, then merge into List of Doomsday Clock characters not the Rorschach (character) article, that article does not need this stuff, it's about a specific character.★Trekker (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notability isn't temporary. If it was notable in 2013, it's always notable. The Polygon sources and IGn Latin America are fine, the rest are good. Oaktree b (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see this as having ever having been notable. And the graphic novel came out in 2017, not 2013. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Polygon is just an extended plot summary. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment not voting yet but I felt it good to note that this article has been proposed for merging with Rorschach (character) since May of this year. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge since the article does not estabilish notability for this version of the character. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Doomsday Clock characters - I have to agree with the nomination that the sources on this character were largely the result of comic/pop media sites reporting on/reviewing The Doomsday Clock as it was being released. There really is not much that I can find that was written after this period that goes into any analysis of the character specifically. In fact, the only articles I'm finding that mention this version of the character since The Doomsday Clock finished are largely just statements about how this version of the character was not used for later Watchmen media, such as the TV series or later comics. This leads me to agree that the only notability this version of the character had was simply the notability of The Doomsday Clock itself, and he does not pass the WP:GNG on his own merits. I also agree with StarTrekker that, as the characters only significant appearance was in The Doomsday Clock, the character list for that series is more appropriate of a target for a merger, rather than the Rorschach (character) article. Rorshacma (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to character list, per Rorshacma. I wouldn't object to a mention at the related Rorschach (character). This doesn't have WP:SIGCOV for a separate article, but can be covered within another article (or two). Shooterwalker (talk) 03:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Doomsday Clock characters and mention him in Rorschach (character). Not independently notable but I see no reason not to mention him there.
Industrial Insect (talk) 17:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just as an FYI for the above two comments, the character is already mentioned at Rorschach (character) in the "Events of Doomsday Clock" section, so that looks to be taken care of already. Rorshacma (talk) 19:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into either List of Doomsday Clock characters or Rorschach in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. If I recall correctly, @Muboshgu: previously started a discussion about this merge on Rorschach's page. --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:47, 22 December 2023 (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!} 19:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gugak FM[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Has been tagged uncited for over a decade. Previous deletion discussion said that ‘government-licensed broadcast radio stations have been held generally notable’ but that does not show this one is notable. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and South Korea. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: mentioned in [6] and in [7], but no significant coverage to establish notability. Owen× ☎ 21:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC) Changed to keep per sources found by Freedom4U. Owen× ☎ 03:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really wary of deleting a national FM radio network like this. The kowiki article is little help, though it does cite a couple of articles on new transmitters for this service. There appear to be two articles in the Korea Herald from its launch in 2001, but I cannot access them. I also see it sometimes transliterated as "Kugak FM", and it gets mentioned in some of the academic literature—apparently this was an idea on the table going back to 1998. Someone with Korean language fluency and access to sources in the 1990s and 2000s could save this page. I don't have a !vote right now, but I'm skeptical of deletion. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sammi Brie Your hunch was right—Google and Korean-language topics are often a terrible combo when looking for sources. I've left three SIGCOV sources in my vote below. I'd be interested in the Korea Herald article too, would it be possible to provide a link ot it? ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 01:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm also on the fence.

Looking on Google Books, there's a number of mentions of Gugak FM in English. This book [8] seems to have a reasonable discussion of it, although I can't access it beyond the preview.

I think maybe the article could be rescoped to cover the parent Gugak Broadcasting Foundation [ko], which possibly has more notable coverage as it covers a wider number of stations, but I don't know who's willing to do that work (I'm not).

I'm not sure how much popularity the radio station or its parent have, although they are mildly important for Korean culture. I also doubt anyone is likely to come around in the near future and flesh out the article if we do keep it. Complicated; if it's deleted I'll be very slightly disappointed but I don't think it'll make much of an impact. toobigtokale (talk) 12:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Btw I lean delete if nobody is willing to step up in near future to fix up and save it. So many more substantial Korea-related articles are in need of fixing, think it's unlikely anyone will ever fix this organically at this rate toobigtokale (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage here of them expanding to Busan, here going in-depth into their opening logistics, and here on their celebration of their thirteenth year open. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 01:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok nvm, keep; these are better results than the quick ones I looked at. toobigtokale (talk) 02:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also !voting keep. This is the kind of sourcing I was expecting to see as soon as a Korean speaker turned up. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:52, 21 December 2023 (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. Discussion about a possible rename can occur on the article talk page or you can just BEBOLD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Renault Grand Prix[edit]

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

Blatant hoax. Speedy deletion was rejected for some reason, no idea why, as it's obviously a hoax. 91.82.169.36 (talk) 18:08, 15 December 2023 (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/2023 December 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is clearly a hoax and also, even if it somehow wasnt, i couldnt find any sources. Begocci (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: a plethora of schematics and models for sale suggest that this may not necessarily be a hoax at all ([9], [10], [11], [12]). That is not to say this is a notable or encyclopedic car model, just that it seems to have existed, and the article can't be speedied based on CSD:G3. Owen× ☎ 19:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete appears to want to describe Renault's car in the 1906 French Grand Prix as OwenX indicates above, but that car doesn't pass WP:GNG. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep I stand corrected, per HBP below; clearly didn't do enough BEFORE. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Unclear how or why this is a WP:HOAX. The article should be moved to "Renault AK 90CV" or something to that effect, but the subject is fairly clearly notable, and a basic WP:BEFORE search for the actual name of the vehicle quickly returns plenty of evidence that this meets the WP:GNG (the Independentand the Telegraph, for example). HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per sources found by HumanBodyPiloter5. Owen× ☎ 22:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no notability guideline for topics related to the automotive industry. WP:NVEHICLE is exclusively for locomotives and ships, WP:NCAR redirects to North Carolina's Wikiproject, and WP:NCARS does not exist. - 91.82.169.36 (talk) 06:20, 16 December 2023 (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 Inuit religion#Deities. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ignirtoq[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG - the only mentions online are directly ripped from this article. There is one singular mention on one line with no source in a single not particularly notable book from 1907; aside from that I can find absolutely nothing else. CoconutOctopus talk 18:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology and Religion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We can probably merge to Inuit religion § Deities based on the 1907 source[13] and the fact that it is listed in a Gale reference from 1992[14], and this Oxford University Press reference from 1995[15].

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Inuit religion § Deities per Siroxo's refs and recommendation above. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:57, 15 December 2023 (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. Note OwenX's change of !vote due to new sourcing, this creates a consensus. Daniel (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First International Bank[edit]

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

Delete non notable organization, non encyclopedic content. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 18:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Companies. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 18:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Not to be confused with First International Bank of Israel, I found citation of it being "Largest bank in North Dakota", so it may be worth keeping it for that reason, although the sourcing could certainly use some improvement. Whosethose (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: would we keep an article based only on the subject's merit as being the largest bank in, say, McAllen, Texas? North Dakota has the same size population as McAllen. Other than an occasional small deal or lawsuit, I couldn't find any news coverage about this bank. Owen× ☎ 21:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC) Changed to Keep per Sammi Brie's thorough work on sourcing. Thank you! Owen× ☎ 19:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I've given it a go to see if I can't improve this article. Seems to be just enough coverage. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sammi Brie began adding sources. While we are at it we probably need to remove the Forbes (contributor) WP:FORBESCON article from references - it was in there before the AfD. Lightburst (talk) 15:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2023 (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 , with no consensus to redirect at this time. This potential redirect can be explored via talk page discussion, potentially after some significant improvements are considered for the article as per comments in this debate. Daniel (talk) 00:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Crime in St. Louis[edit]

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

This article is redundant with the crime section on the main St. Louis page. I think anything that could be included here should just be put on that page. Additionally, this article appears to be not nearly as kept up with as the main page (leading someone visiting this article to be misled with old information). This article is generally of low quality and not even really written in the right tone. Damiens the Regicide (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Police, Politics, Social science, and Missouri. Damiens the Regicide (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article appears to show notability with St. Louis commonly ranked as one of the most dangerous cities. AfD is not cleanup. Conyo14 (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect A confusing article that mish-mashes data for both St. Louis City and St. Louis County, Missouri unreasonably into one article, and poorly with out-of-date data and jargon (if I'm not going to look up the meaning of "index crime" the average reader isn't going to do it either, not to mention the article it's linked to is barely sourced). This should solely cover St. Louis City, and a redirect to St. Louis#Crime is highly suggested here as that seems to be much more up-to-date and focused, along with being less prone to edit warring, than this article. Nate • (chatter) 21:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Tag for improvements. There was no discussion on the article talk page for six years before this nomination for deletion, so Alternatives to Deletion such as improvement have not been considered yet. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to St. Louis#Crime. Don't have to create a new page for crime in every region unless it is a significant issue. Raymond3023 (talk) 08:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 17:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Tag, aggreeing with Robert McClenon, As pointed out by Conyo14 crime, and its coverage, is significant in St. Louis. Frigyes06 (talk) 17:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. There is certainly no prohibition against having an article on crime in a specific city (e.g. Crime in New York City, Crime in Hong Kong), and there is no reason we couldn't have Crime in Davenport if there were sufficient sources to support encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 01:38, 16 December 2023 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Powell (sportscaster)[edit]

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

I don't think Georgia Association of Broadcasters Hall of Fame is enough for N:BIO and am unable to find anything else of depth to establish notability for this broadcaster. With long tenures with the Brewers and Braves, I don't think there's an obvious redirect. Star Mississippi 23:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Baseball, Georgia (U.S. state), and Wisconsin. Star Mississippi 23:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. mlb.com has a decent bio of him[16] and Bleacher Report gave him a paragraph as Bob Uecker's departing longtime broadcasting partner.[17] He might also have been a Frick Award nominee, if this source can be believed. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Current article quality is lacking, but I found sources for notability.[18][19][20][21][22] I presume more can be found. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To analyse sources presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 17:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I've reviewed the sources presented above and they seem sufficient in affirming the subject's notability. Furthermore, searches for "Jim Powell Brewers" and "Jim Powell Braves" on Google Books yield results. Most notably, chapter 30 of this book is titled "Jim Powell and Chip Caray at Truist Park"; the chapter is about 10 pages long featuring extensive interviews and coverage of Powell. Left guide (talk) 21:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Little Grill Collective[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP WP:ADVERT WP:TNT promotional, advertorial article based on hyper-local sources on a 48 seat hole in the wall run of the mill restaurant. Graywalls (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Virginia. Graywalls (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's plenty of media coverage far beyond that for a run-of-the-mill local restaurant. Just in 2023, there's [23] [24] [25], all with significant coverage from different local sources. This coverage stretches back significantly in time as well. There is also non-local coverage, such as [26]. The article could certainly use some improvement but I don't see a case for deletion here. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thrillist article is far from meeting the threshold of WP:ORGDEPTH. It is not a significant, independent, secondary source, but rather just one reflective opinion paragraph, so this would not be the source that can be used to meet the WP:AUD satisfying WP:NCORP source. Some of the other articles are just routine articles about the local happenings in the local press about local interest. NCORP not established. Graywalls (talk) 01:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A source does not need to meet ORGDEPTH to contribute to notability (and the coverage in that source is not just "trivial or incidental"). These are just the sources I found in spending a few minutes to search; I am sure there are more that would be harder to dig up. Your assertions that this is just a "run of the mill" restaurant have been demonstrated to be false. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:19, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SIGCOV, ORGDEPTH, ORGIND expects at least (at the absolute minimum) one source meeting regional, national or intertional coverage that is independent of the article subject company/group, in-depth, and secondary and multiple coverage by the same publisher or same journalist counts as one. What's really expected is a nice big slab of solid wood of the highest standards. In its absence, bringing in sawdust by the truck load is not a substitute. In general, the proliferation of local restaurant and bar articles has been an ongoing issue on Wikipedia and this article is no exception. Graywalls (talk) 08:48, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's true every source doesn't have to be significant coverage; however a paragraph in a relatively routine coverage in which it lists places to check out do not amount to something that is sufficient to support WP:ORGDEPTH. We have a 1/3 of a steak and a bucket of ground meat. A full steak that's expected is not found. Graywalls (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've already seen your arguments both in your nom statement and in response above. They don't get any more convincing through repetition. It's bad form to reply to every !voter unless you have something genuinely new to say.Central and Adams (talk) 01:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 17:04, 15 December 2023 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Government performance management[edit]

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

This is a non-notable concept. It appears to be a term used by consultants and in low-quality sources. If there is any content worth keeping, it can be merged with articles on "good governance" or "public administration". Thenightaway (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:44, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:00, 15 December 2023 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gautam Kapur[edit]

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

Not yet notable per WP:BIO, WP:NMODEL, or WP:ACTOR. In a WP:BEFORE search I couldn't find any significant, independent, secondary coverage of him, just interviews in obscure news blogs like "Hindustan Metro", passing mentions in film notices, and WP:NEWSORGINDIA paid placement. His acting has all been minor roles so far. According to this reference, the short film he produced was an official selection at the Golden Door Film Festival, but the actual awards he's won so far are all from minor festivals of unknown notability. Zero secondary coverage of his vitamin business. Other editors interested in searching for coverage that I missed should note that there's an unrelated basketball player with the same name, and that this person's surname is sometimes transliterated as "Kapoor". Wikishovel (talk) 16:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, and India. Wikishovel (talk) 16:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Fashion, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Considering this was only created recently, do not believe a soft-deletion here will 'stick', so relisting to establish a consensus either way.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For Linked-In. Not Wikipedia. MisterWizzy (talk) 03:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this non-notable model who has appeared in a few minor acting roles. The article was created by an account whose sole purpose was to promote barely-known actor/models, suggesting COI. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NMODEL,WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:58, 21 December 2023 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Črnuče Bridge[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Has not been much improved since it was last kept because it was only 4 days old. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think this article should be deleted. It may be in a poor state at the moment, but otherwise the Črnuče Bridge (or its predecessor) has a long history starting in Roman times and was also prominent in World War II.[27][28] --TadejM ^{my talk} 17:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source here saying it reopened in 2014 after restoration..♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have added that information to the article. --TadejM ^{my talk} 17:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is informative about a site/structure that has had local/regional significance for millennia, and it is well sourced. Doremo (talk) 18:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be a notable bridge, good job TadejM! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Article has been significantly improved since the AFD nomination. An image of the bridge could also be added if any exist. Streetlampguy301 (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep As everyone has said "keep" I understand that as the nominator I can now change my vote as further discussion would be a waste of time. Thank you to everyone who improved the article, which is now interesting. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:46, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just remember that "article hasn't been expanded", and "is too short" isn't justification to nominate an article, only if you can't find any sources online.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My nomination did not mention the shortness of the article. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even abstinence of online sources doesn't mean the subject automatically fails WP:GNG. A09|(talk) 21:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Chastity of structures is not a criteria for notability, last I checked. ;-) llywrch (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per TadejM and Dr. Blofeld.--A09|(talk) 21:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TadejM: On the revert. The lead is supposed to summarise the article though. Your version has information not in the body! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dr. Blofeld. As stated, feel free to edit the article as you see fit, but the bolded names should be written in the lead and please take care to preserve the article factually correct. Only the railway bridge was destroyed in World War II, but the road bridge was not as it was used as a checkpoint. --TadejM ^{my talk} 17:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 19 December 2023 (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. Former AfD was nominated; please move discussion to the actual nom. Non-admin closure. (non-admin closure) Nate • (chatter) 17:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Črnuče Bridge[edit]

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

In 2008 it was kept as the article was only 4 days old and it was hoped it would be improved. But still now nothing shows it is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think this article should be deleted. It may be in a poor state at the moment, but otherwise the Črnuče Bridge (or its predecessor) has a long history starting in Roman times and was also prominent in World War II.[29][30] --TadejM ^{my talk} 17:05, 15 December 2023 (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!} 20:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ukiah area[edit]

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

This article was created in 2021 as a catch-all target for redirects. What happened was this: several information-less stubs on nonexistent "unincorporated communities" such as Largo, California and El Roble, California were proposed for deletion, and it was suggested they all be redirected here rather than deleted outright, since documentation exists that these were actual stops on the Northwestern Pacific Railroad. But in most cases that's all they were, non-notable sidings or flag stops, not "communities", and as a result this article on the "Ukiah area" is essentially just a list of non-notable railroad points; i.e. a WP:COATRACK (and an off-topic one at that). We already have a good article on Ukiah, California and Ukiah Valley; I don't see this as a sufficiently distinct topic to merit an article (the hand-drawn map does not impress me). The original stubs should have just been deleted, and so should this article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 16:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 16:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging unblocked participants from the related 2021 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Largo, California: @Mangoe, JPxG, Uncle G, Pontificalibus, David Eppstein, Aymatth2, Hog Farm, MrsSnoozyTurtle, and Eggishorn czar 04:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sourcing does not convince me that this is a topic independently notable from Ukiah, California, Ukiah Valley, and Mendocino County, and even if we had such an article, the content as a catch-all for would-have-been-deleted railway stubs is not an important and encyclopedic aspect of this topic. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:27, 17 December 2023 (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!} 20:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Digital world[edit]

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

This article seems more appropriate as a dictionary entry per WP:NOTDICT. There doesn't appear to be much coverage of the term in a way that would support an encyclopedia article, such as for its history of usage.

The second paragraph of WP:NEO applies to this article: while there's plenty of evidence of use of the term, there's little coverage about the term itself. As an example, the reference for a statement in the article about the term predating the World Wide Web is misattributed, firstly, and links to an unrelated paper from 1958 that uses the term once. Said statement is WP:OR. Uhai (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Uhai (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Lewcm Talk to me! 20:51, 15 December 2023 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Jilka[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and politician-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, United States of America, and Kansas. UtherSRG (talk) 14:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Mayor of Salinas wouldn't be notable without a ton of RS, which there isn't, beyond routine reporting of stuff going on in town where the mayor was involved. Congressional candidate isn't notable. Delete for not meeting notability requirements. Oaktree b (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Salina KS is nowhere close to large enough that its mayors would get an automatic presumption of notability just for existing as mayors — the notability test for a mayor isn't passed just by minimally verifying that he exists, and requires writing and sourcing substantial content about his political impact: specific things he did, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects his mayoralty had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But there's nothing like that here, and not nearly enough sourcing to claim that he would pass WP:GNG instead of having to meet the requirements of WP:NPOL #2. Bearcat (talk) 18:16, 22 December 2023 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Hinrich Hussmann[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and artist-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and Germany. UtherSRG (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; and expand with the German WP article for example, as a start. His notability and legacy are discussed by reliable sources quoted there. Does meet WP:NARTIST as sources show: noted as a Symbolist animalier sculptor, see: this,or this to verify that assertion with some English sources available online....-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mushy Yank's research. Randy Kryn (talk) 08:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added some new citations to the article, specifically Benezit Dictionary of Artists and RKD Research. This artist's career spanned two world wars. I took a look at the German WP article. It is not well cited. The citations to the web are all 404 or dead. I do not have access to the print articles and books cited. I can't bring anything over from the German version. The most interesting fact from that article (uncited) is that Hussmann exhibited at the Große Deutsche Kunstausstellung and was a member of the Reichskammer der Bildenden Künste (Reich Chamber of Visual Art). After looking into this for awhile, I still cannot figure out if the artist was an important animalier sculptor. I also don't understand the importance to history of the artist joining Reichskammer der Bildenden Künste. Does this affect his place in history (has he been cancelled)? Are his porcelain figures collectible or is it just auctioneer hype? I hope someone with more understanding of the subject chimes in. I lean towards Keep with the new citations and the coverage in Wiki Commons.--WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The source Mushy Yank pointed to, "The Animaliers: A Collector's Guide to the Animal Sculptors of the 19th & 20th Centuries" by James A Mackay from Jan 1, 1973 just says "Little is known of Albert Hinrich-Hussmann, beyond the bare facts of his birth in 1874 and that he exhibited three works in Berlin in 1909, but he sculpted a Young Stag which turned up at the sale-rooms in 1970." That type of brief mention isn't the best thing to base an encyclopedia article on, but an artist being written about in a book published in another country 60 years after an exhibition and 30 years after their death is far better coverage than most of the "contemporary artists" with Wikipedia articles who are covered only by their own website and maybe some random local news. Best of luck to those working on expanding the article and I'll also see if I can find anything else to expand the article with. Elspea756 (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2023 (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 The Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers. Star Mississippi 14:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fat Freddy's Cat[edit]

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

Not seeing how this meets WP:GNG. No reception/analysis, weak 'in popular culture' section that has only a few minor examples, poorly rererenced and significantly overlapping with reception related to its parent work (The Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers) where this should probably be redirected per WP:ATD-R. My BEFORE shows nothing else that meets SIGCOV and RS requirements. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per nom. No evidence of independent notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Partial merge to The Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers. Some of the bibliography is not present in the target article, and a couple of the sources could be used for verifiability (and to avoid appearance of OR) in the target. —siro χ o 19:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to The Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers#Characters - the sources and info would help that article. If not, the article should still be redirected to that so that it can be remade in the future if someone finds more in universe info and sources. However, I think that if someone finds more sources I think it would be worth keeping due to the character having its own storylines separate to the other characters. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 05:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - gets a two-page article (plus some reprinted strips) in Malcolm Whyte's Great comic cats (2001) which I'd say is one suitable source. Commentary from Nicholas Lezard in a review in The Guardian here. Also gets a few mentions in in Dez Skinn's Comix : The underground revolution (2004), and dozens of other smaller mentions in book and magazine sources on archive.org, some which have a bit of commentary. Gets the most cursory of passing mentions in a Philip K. Dick story. There was a 2018 event at the British Library called "Cartoon Cats: Gilbert Shelton and Posy Simmonds" (which I attended) but I can't find much trace of that. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:46, 19 December 2023 (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. after article improvements. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Celina, Minnesota[edit]

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

A crossroads with a house and outbuildings at the corner. Maybe it was once a store, maybe not. Searching turned up a passing reference to a "Ladies Aid of Bear River, Silverdale, and Celina Minnesota" in a discussion on the making of lefse, which I would submit is a very weak peg to hang belief in an actual town on. Other than that I got juxtapositions and gazetteers. Mangoe (talk) 13:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Minnesota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the St Louis County plat search yields nothing for this, and it is broken anyway. But this is in the Northwest St. Louis, Minnesota unorganized territory, and — by definition — there are no towns in an unorganized territory. "Town" is not what you think in Minnesota. There might be cities, though. Welcome to the mid-West! The Minnesota Natural Resource Atlas has no charter cities at all in this unorganized territory, so this would be a statutory city, if it actually were a city. The 2001 revised Upham book says "village", which is problematic (as they don't appear to have caught up with 1974), with 2 post offices. Uncle G (talk) 19:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even though this place no longer exists, it did in that past, and that makes it notable. --rogerd (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can see why the article was nominated; most of the sources on Celina, Minnesota, are in Norwegian. Dozens of them, actually. But there are indeed sources. Celina was a Norwegian-American village in the early 20th century with a church, post office, stores, cemetery, and a fire lookout tower. It was still regarded as a community as late as 1974, when the Minneapolis Star ran a story about the damage on the bridge between Celina and Greaney. I'm also seeing many English-language news articles about Celina, but most of them are humdrum announcements of farm auctions, cattle sales, people visiting each other, and weekly articles about services at the Celina Ltheran Evangelical Church. Still, there is significant coverage of Celina in Norwegian-language publications in both Minnesota and Iowa. This was a notable place. While the community has eroded since those early days, the 1940 census gave Celina a population of 5, and the Minnesota Department of Transportation estimates that Celina still has 10 residents. There is no need to delete an article about a community which has historical significance. I've expanded the article. More work could be done. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 14:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Email deliverability index[edit]

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

"Email deliverability index" is not a concept covered in reliable sources. Notability is not established at all. While I could not check all the cited sources, it's likely they do not mention the concept at all (that seems to be the case for The Complete Guide to E-mail Marketing How to Create Successful, Spam-Free Campaigns to Reach Your Target Audience and Increase Sales), and probably the others too judging Google Books search. MarioGom (talk) 10:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 10:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename Email deliverability (currently redirected to cold email) which is a notable topic though the index, if it exists, isn’t. Mccapra (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article if it contains original research or unverified content, which violates Wikipedia's no original research policy. Wikipedia requires all information to be verifiable and sourced from reliable, published sources. --Loewstisch (talk) 15:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I disagree with the keep & redirect !vote in that doing so implies that the term is a potentially notable one. Certainly, you can create such an index, but it isn't among the more established email metrics which are alluded to but not well fleshed out in the 1st and 2nd editions of Chad White's work which is the first citation. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 14:52, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KumoMTA[edit]

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

It does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. MarioGom (talk) 11:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Software. MarioGom (talk) 11:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halon_(software) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halon_(software) are fine, but this is nominated for Deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhillyer (talk • contribs) 13:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:WHATABOUTX. There are many articles in Wikipedia that might need to be deleted, but this discussion is about KumoMTA, and it will be discussed based on its own merits, regardless of any other examples you find. MarioGom (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They don't appear much better, thank you for signaling them, I'll review for possible deletion as well. Oaktree b (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Being hosted on GitHub isn't notable, anyone can throw anything up on the site. Sources found are the GitHub repository, their own website and Reddit thread. Nothing we can use for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Voronoi manifold[edit]

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

It does not seem to pass WP:GNG, and contains a large amount of unsourced content that cannot be verified. MarioGom (talk) 11:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 11:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge verified portions into Voronoi diagram. Owen× ☎ 15:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not merge. Concept appears not to have been taken up in the scientific literature; Google Scholar finds only two publications (one an unpublished report) that mention this phrase. They don't cite each other and appear to be using the phrase to mean different things. Not significant in the mathematical literature nor as something that is worth mentioning in the Voronoi diagram article. (To compare: Google Scholar claims some 62k hits for Voronoi diagram, which currently has 44 citations, so inclusion there would need some evidence that, among subtopics of Voronoi diagrams, this is in the 0.1% of them that are most relevant.) —David Eppstein (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: if the verified portions are the empty set, as David Eppstein says, then my "merge verified portions" trivially degenerates into a Delete. Which is to say, let's do what Dr. Eppstein suggests. Owen× ☎ 13:41, 15 December 2023 (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 Draftify‎. with a side warning that if you re-create this again, Manvith Manu, you will be sanctioned for disruptive editing. The prior draft with the AfC history is now at Draft:Varthur Santhosh (old draft). Star Mississippi 14:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Varthur Santhosh[edit]

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

This page has been speedied and recreated several times. There is a claim in the article to redirect to Bigg Boss Kannada (season 10) which stops me from deleting it per WP:A7 / WP:G11, but I think a discussion is warranted. If the article is deleted, I recommend salting to avoid re-creation (which would then be able to be done simply using WP:G4 anyway). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why you are deleting those information Manvith Manu (talk) 11:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The biographies of living persons policy is long-standing. Effectively, you cannot write about living people without immediately giving high-quality sources of where you got the information from. Without this, it is far too easy to accidentally libel someone without realising, so it is prohibited by policy. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify by un-redirecting Draft:Varthur Santhosh and deleting mainspace copy and paste move Unsourced BLP with tendentious bypass of AfC by disruptive editor. I don't know how to !vote in this scenario. The draft has the meaningful history including the AfC decline, while the mainspace page has nothing. Uhai (talk) 11:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you gather information from source about this person and give information about him

People should know about such good personality Manvith Manu (talk) 11:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I answered this on your talk page already. Uhai (talk) 11:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But I am requesting to create page about Varthur Santhosh Manvith Manu (talk) 11:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your request means very little without what is required to make an article. Draftifying it will give you the opportunity to bring it into compliance. Failure to do so will mean it will be deleted. Repeated attempts to create an article without the required sourcing and notability will likely cause you to be blocked from editing here entirely. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Inexperienced doesn't realize that BLP articles need to be at a certain quality before they can be in main article space. Draftify this so as to give them time to work on it. UtherSRG (talk) 11:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ineligible for draftification as the draft with history, including AfC decline, already exists at Draft:Varthur Santhosh (now converted to a redirect) and creator pasted the contents over the redirect in the mainspace created by previous draftification. Uhai (talk) 12:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Community decision (aka AFD) can overrule user objection of draftification, and given the WP:CIR issues here, this is fully acceptable. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: Not an A7 case. The individual was caught up in a controversy and made headlines after being arrested by the forest department for supposedly wearing a tiger claw pendant during a reality show, where he was a contestant. The article is currently unsourced and should be moved to draft to provide the author with the necessary time and space to improve it. Some sources i came across The Times of India, LiveMint, Times Of India, The Hindu, and DNA.AmusingWeasel (talk) 12:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even with the sources above, coverage is trivial; most have more space for photos than actual text in the article. He was on a TV show and wound up in trouble with the law is about what they all show, there really isn't much extra added. Oaktree b (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per above. Not outright non-notable. Capitals00 (talk) 05:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 14:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge 9 Records[edit]

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

Lacks sufficient completely intellectually independent, significant, secondary coverage on the company and after a quick WP:BEFORE, I deemed that it lacks sufficient WP:ORGDEPTH coverage to satisfy NCORP. Graywalls (talk) 11:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Massachusetts. Graywalls (talk) 11:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I found these articles: [31], [32]. They seem sufficiently in-depth, but might be too interview-y to establish notability. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly one of the more important indies in the sense used at WP:MUSIC; the label released some of the most noteworthy punk rock of the last two decades (note that the nominator gutted this article of its discography immediately before nominating it for deletion, and it should be restored). As for coverage, there's more beyond what WeirdNAnnoyed dug up: [33], [34], [35], [36]. Amusingly, the label even makes the punk tabloids when Ben Affleck wears their t-shirt. Chubbles (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Also want to add: The Athletic: "one of Boston's most influential hardcore and punk labels" and Washington Post coverage. Issan Sumisu (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2023 (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. While the rewrite solved to the copy paste, there is still no sourcing which means no article. Star Mississippi 14:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023–24 Desborough Town Football Club season[edit]

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

Article is a copy and paste of the Brighton one. There is info on Desborough Town but it fails GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 10:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt – Besides the article being terribly copied and pasted, what's the point of a ninth-tier team having a dedicated season article? Svartner (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax - no, this club did not sign Brighton players... Giant Snowman 11:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
G3 Article should have been tagged G3 and not send to AfD. Govvy (talk) 14:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Idiosincrático (talk) 04:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've removed all mentions of Brighton and remind others that AFD articles can still be edited. Esolo5002 (talk) 07:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 14:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Afghan Scene[edit]

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

unsourced article about a magazine, written like an ad copy. fails general notability guideline. ltb d l (talk) 10:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Afghanistan. ltb d l (talk) 10:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. I couldn't find any reliable sources about this magazine. Google mostly doesn't mention anything about the magazine and all of the links that were shown were about the Fall of Kabul that happened in 2021. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 04:39, 21 December 2023 (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 Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lucario[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Regretfully, I am forced to nominate Lucario for deletion, as there's no evidence that the concerns of the previous AfD this year were addressed in recreating the article. I went into the article legitimately hoping that new solid sources were found to back up the notability of Lucario but ultimately found nothing - it's largely sourced to listicles that often discuss numerous other Pokemon besides Lucario.

Ultimately what the previous AfD this year found remains exactly the same, Lucario simply isn't notable at all. Again, it would be great to be proven wrong, but what I see here does not cut the mustard or merit a recreation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite Zx's assertion that these are "listicles", I will assert that they do discuss the subject in a decent enough amount of coverage to display its importance outside of just being a character in the context of the series:

We have tangible results illustrating the character's recognizability and popularity, through a poll by the company, a monthly average of search engine results across multiple companies, and one regarding...er..."fan works".
Analysis of why the character is popular and that impact
Analysis of it's design, both positive and negative, and more importantly an example of the shortcomings of "Gen 4"'s design as a whole

Now while I get this isn't the strongest of articles, I will contend after the sources presented the article demonstrates real world notability in the same way Snorlax was argued to during its AfD: that it's a recognizable icon, and unlike Snorlax, I can at least cite some discussion here. While I'd personally agree the article is on the weaker end, what's cited here I feel demonstrates that in the manner it was presented. Thank you.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no article you can pick out from the article's sources of any significant length that is specifically about Lucario. That already makes it far weaker in coverage than Snorlax. I don't think the two are comparable. If I asked for the WP:THREE they'd all be clickbait top-10 lists and that is a bad sign.

I am also not particularly enthused about your wholesale reversion of my edits to the article in an attempt to at least remedy some of its problems. I do not see a reason for doing so besides "I don't like these edits", which is going dangerously into WP:OWN territory. Editors do not unilaterally control articles, please open a discussion instead of simply deleting anything you do not like. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I felt the additions came across as trivial and were why I avoided those from the original article (i.e. the Sly Cooper comparison is...odd), and that the recurring comment about its possible origin isn't dev info. Additionally the articles cited discuss him in some degree of depth, and WP:THREE is an essay, not a strict guideline: it's purpose is to help one argue for an article's existence. In this case, I feel the print source (which in turn cited Official Nintendo Magazine's Thomas Elliot calling it "the best designed Pokemon" in its universe, but I felt that may have been non-independent quote given who produced ONM so I opted not to cite that), TechRaptor, and The Gamer's own analysis which go into depth and devoted several paragraphs to discussing the subject). I am confused too at your assertion of "clickbait"; they are, again, discussing the subject at hand not tricking the reader, so that was...weird to bring up?

The point of notability is to establish that a subject is discussed and there's significant enough discussion on a subject to warrant an encyclopedic look at it. There are sources that I could have cited that you've argued for before, like articles like this that you felt were strong enough for Felyne, or content like this that you argued worked as WP:SIGCOV for Sagat (Street Fighter). But I felt those didn't provide notability due to a lack of discussing the work as a fictional character.

The article is organized the way it is on purpose. While I spoke in anger, it isn't a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It's intended to give a proper flow to the reception section.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:THREE is an essay, but WP:GNG is the policy. Thus far no sources have been raised that show this subject meets the notability guidelines. We are looking for significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources that discuss Lucario as a subject. What do we have? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirfurboy🏄 The TechRaptor article devotes four paragraphs of discussion to the character. The Gamer, while it can be argued shouldn't count towards notability per WP:VG/S, devoted 3 paragraphs in their own discusison. IGN had one author devote a paragraph each to discussing the character across two articles. The Centennial article devoted several paragraphs discussing the subject but admittedly some were for gameplay and intended to be cited for there if the article was further developed. Outside of this article there is also this paper published in Scandia that discusses it in the context of the film and relation to medieval imagery as a familiar, but I wasn't sure the best way to work that in or if it was more for the film. It could be bolstered by additional sources from The Gamer but I didn't want to work more valnet into this.

While I'll admit this article is weaker, I feel the assertions in the AfD argument are trying to paint it as strictly relying on UGO.com or Complex style lists that aren't saying anything, when there are tangible thoughts at least being cited. The assertion of "clickbait" is, at the very least, unfounded.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have some reading to do then. I'll take a look at these. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given the current reliable references demonstrating notability from both a critical and audience perspective as well as the arguments presented by Kung Fu Man, I don't exactly see a reasonable cause for why this article should be deleted given how this article generally falls in line with notability presented in other similar articles. The Scandia article is especially of note given how it's a direct analysis into the influence that would later inspire Lucario's role in his dedicated film. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Despite my previous afd on Lucario (2nd nomination), I feel like it might be barely passing WP:GNG after the improvement of reception section (furry fandom and stuff). GreenishPickle! (🔔) 08:39, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Pokémon: Lucario and the Mystery of Mew - The best source presented is clearly the Scandia paper, which is a goood source, clearly meeting GNG. However, the paper discusses the character within the context of the film, as Kung Fu Man said. So we have a page on the film, that could be expanded on the subject of the introduction of Lucario. There is mergeable content here regardless of whether this page is kept or not. But then, should this page exist in its own right? There is no real case at this point for a spin out of the Lucario character from the film article. We aren't even close to size arguments for that. The question is whether there is significant coverage that treats the character apart from the film. The problems with TheGamer were admitted but WP:VG/S also raises issues with Techraptor. In both cases, arguments could be made that the articles in these can be reliable and independent, but from where I am coming from, I don't see articles listing characters as being good examples of secondary sources. This, I think, is what the nom. means by listicles. It is the Pokemon franchise that is notable, and because it's notable, we get lists of the characters, but these don't really speak to significance of the character outside of the franchise, and notability is not inherited. So at this point I feel that we have to cover Lucario per the Scandia article, but the place to cover that is in the film article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sort of torn on this one. Still thinking about whether it is sound to base notability from self-evident cultural significance inferred from very broad but shallow coverage, even if few sources really cover or analyse the subject matter in detail. I am mindful that the character articles deletion trend is a little mired in a difference of philosophy over notability, and I think it would help to have better guidance or more discussions over what approach is best as there's been a lot of these sort of articles deleted recently. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is whether an article is notable if literally all coverage of any significance comes from blatant content farm articles, which listicles are.

I'd say the answer is "absolutely not", because content farming is literally an attempt to flood the internet with minor and trivial content in order to game the search results. Its the antithesis of the reason the significant coverage criteria exists. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I blatantly disagree with that assertion that they're "content farm articles". Tangible thoughts are being cited here on the character and why it's important. It's not "10 THINGS YOU DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THIS CHARACTER" or "What reddit thinks about THIS!" It's thought out statements that are discussing what it is and either critiquing its design or importance, and to a smaller extent its recognizability, which many articles on here are built around to the same degree. Including a few I'll note by you or works you've argued for in the past.

You can argue it's on the weaker end of notability, I'd argue bigger sources would indeed be nice. But it discusses the character significantly in an encyclopedic tone for reception and establishes importance to those not familiar with the media. That's what notability is for.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I do not see any reason to delete this. I believe the article is notable enough to stay, and Lucario's pretty popular within the Pokémon fandom. Again, I believe it should stick around, as it’s pretty notable. Super yoshi013021 (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:ITSPOPULAR. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So while digging through Japanese sources, found that the character was used to promote fitness for children across Japan for young children, which was done by video during COVID, and then directly post COVID. There's also a LOT of articles discussing that, not only the 'why' but with some giving reactions to it/the character and its usage.[37][38][39]. There's also the Pokéfuta manhole project, which had the character promoting that directly as well. I'm still digging through Japanese sources but yeah, that's a thing.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source 1: It is mostly restating a press release. It's arguably more of a WP:PRIMARY source. Source 2: Trivial mention of Lucario. Source 3: Same exact press release as in Famitsu, duplicate source. This can all be summed up in one sentence, "Lucario was used to promote fitness in kids". Re: the manholes, a massive amount of Pokemon featured in that project, so it doesn't really involve Lucario specifically. It's more something to note in a possible "Cultural impact of Pokemon" article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Famitsu article states why the character was chosen for the promotion: "ルカリオは『ふくつのこころ』と『せいしんりょく』を特性として持つポケモンです。" and it mentions it again in the article and a few others, so yes, the use of the character was specific. I'll point out, again, in the past you argued a street named after Snorlax along with several other Pokemon counted significantly towards its notability, despite no reason given as to why that name was chosen. Additionally you argued in the past this counted as notability for Felyne, despite being a promotion that, again, didn't discuss the why. Why do those meet the threshold but here where there's a reason given as to why these don't?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The IGN article isn't a copypaste of the press release, it has original content there. It is a secondary source with analysis of the information. Famitsu is literally a press release that was posted verbatim on another site. These are primary sources. Not secondary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are several other articles covering the character's usage in this manner: 4Gamer, GameSetWatch, 5channel and 47News for example. These are not all press releases, but secondary sources. You're moving the goal posts.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:21, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These are primary. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of them, unless you really want to argue the newscast reacting in surprise was. SoraNews24 also covered it, and while not discussed on WP:VG/S as far as I can see they are cited in several books under their new and old name (RocketNews24) and in published works on Google Scholar. Come on guys, please stop making me chase the goal.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. While it is important for the article to grow more notable, I feel like the issues at AfD have been adequately addressed. Particularly, its use as a mascot, commentary on its design, and the furry angle are intriguing. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on more or less Kung Fu Man's initial argument. There is enough discussion here volumewise to fullfill WP:WHYN. And if sources are considered reliable in the context of video games, I am not much concered if they are structured in the form of a list or not. Daranios (talk) 15:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There is some sustained coverage on Lucario. It is significant coverage, but also not very deep. In some cases, that coverage is described in excessive detail to emphasize the coverage is indeed significant coverage in a way that gives it undue weight. But at the end of the day it's there, and its scarcely enough. That the commentary is fixated on comparing Lucario to Mewtwo, Anubis or Digimon still belies the fact that these are independent and analytical ideas, just shallow ones. Depth of ideas in significant coverage is secondary to whether it provides enough of a perspective to inform an article without inference, which it does. That said, I think the practice of stuffing nominated articles with unnecessary detail to 'protect' notability is not really necessary and clutters the article. But there's also been a lot of good work done too. That said, I guess the next step for this article is a bit of a cleanup. But that's not a notability issue. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 20:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep While none of the sources are particularly great they all are about Lucario. There is coverage. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. It's certainly weaker than some other articles but it definitely has enough to stand on its own for now. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 14:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karen L. Parker[edit]

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

Lack of clear notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 09:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm sure she must have been written about somewhere, but I can't find much... [40] and [41]. Primary source and one showing they named a scholarship after her, which implies notability, but no sourcing... Even what's used now in the article is trivial. Oaktree b (talk) 14:13, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, California, Michigan, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill considered naming a school building after her: UNC-Chapel Hill seeking final submissions to rename campus buildings with racist ties (News & Observer, 2021, "Karen L. Parker was the first Black woman undergraduate at UNC and chronicled her years as a student during the civil rights movement.") At the UNC Library archive Karen L. Parker Diary, Letter, and Clippings, there is biographical information included with an overview and details about her writing, See also [42]. Beccaynr (talk) 01:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I added many sources and expanded the content. Sources now prove notability. Rublamb (talk) 10:13, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and the sustained coverage that helps support WP:BASIC/WP:GNG notability. Beccaynr (talk) 12:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Rublamb and Beccaynr have clearly demonstrated that Parker meets GNG. Excellent work, both of you. :) --Grnrchst (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is evidence of notability, and it has been over time. I think it should be added to the Civil Rights Movement Category as that group may add more over time. But this is much better than many stub articles we have on wiki.Jsgoodrich (talk) 03:38, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Christmas time – WP:SNOW keep. – S. Rich (talk) 01:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Expanded and sourced since nomination, WP:BASIC is met. Sam Sailor 08:38, 21 December 2023 (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 Jasper O'Farrell. As a viable ATD since a case has been made for why the prior one resulting from the prior AfD didn't work. Editors are welcome to discuss alternate targets, but there is a clear consensus this shouldn't exist as an article. Star Mississippi 14:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

O'Farrell Street[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A list of districts is not a Wikipedia page. Xx236 (talk) 09:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Xx236 (talk) 09:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Originally a redirect. Xx236 (talk) 09:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete I gather it is the central street in a notable neighborhood but it's plain that it goes through a lot of the rest of the city too. No claim that it is notable in its own right. Mangoe (talk) 14:13, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to the redirect from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O'Farrell Street, although I note that the attempted 1 sentence rewrite of the article did indicate that Jasper O'Farrell is the best redirect target. I went searching for stuff about the street, and instead hit several biographies of Jasper O'Farrell almost straightaway, after going through a load of things that turned out to be simple street addresses, including Tuomey's History of Sonoma County, California and the hyperbolic The Immortal San Franciscans for Whom the Streets Were Named. Uncle G (talk) 03:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:23, 19 December 2023 (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 machinima works. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zinwrath[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

It doesn't seem like there has been much written about this machinima film; I haven't been able to find significant coverage. The sources I've found consist of:

A 2011 paper by Stanford's Henry Lowood titled "Perfect capture: Three takes on replay, machinima and the history of virtual worlds" where Zinwrath is merely mentioned in a list of examples. (This segment can also be found in Lowood's 2010 book The Machinima Reader)
Lowood's 2009 "Warcraft Adventures: Texts, Replay, and Machinima in a Game-Based Storyworld" where it's, again, just mentioned.
A 2007 hundred-word article on Engadget
A 2009 Engadget interview with one of the people who worked on it, where less than a hundred words are dedicated to Zinwrath in general (there was a previous video also containing Zinwrath in the title).
A 2008 igromania.ru article, with a paragraph about Zinwrath and Illegal Danish: Super Snacks

Thus, I'd propose a redirect to List of machinima works, where it already has an entry. toweli (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Film, and Video games. toweli (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Great work on doing a WP:BEFORE. I was also able to find a passing mention in World of WarCraft Magazine. Regardless, passing mentions fall short of significant coverage needed for notability. The coverage is too short to evidence even basic things like what the film is, what happens in it, and how it was received. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:28, 16 December 2023 (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 Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 04:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Government Mamit College[edit]

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

No refernces outside of press release Sohom (talk) 10:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Mizoram. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted by WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

pls do not delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolcolney (talk • contribs) 05:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Short question, why ? If you want the page to be kept, you need to prove that the page is notable and that requires you to show that atleast three reliable, independent third-party sources have covered the subject in-depth. Sohom (talk) 13:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Coolcolney^^ Sohom (talk) 13:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sohom I will update with more source

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting. We still need some more opinions here. There hasn't been much participation in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any sources that confirm independent notability for this school.Cortador (talk) 09:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 02:14, 22 December 2023 (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 Doctor Who: The Monthly Adventures. The history is there if independent coverage is eventually found for these to convert to merges Star Mississippi 14:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Harvest (audio drama)[edit]

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

Not independently notable, does not pass GNG. Best redirected to Doctor Who: The Monthly Adventures. I am also nominating the following related pages because they exhibit the same characteristics. They do not meet the GNG, and they ought to be redirected to the same target:

Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 11:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Radio. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 09:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This should probably be added to the group under discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colditz (audio drama). ~Kvng (talk) 15:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kvng I was planning to create another bundle of these articles here, but I ran out of time and it slipped my mind. In my opinion bundles are best kept at 10 articles or less to allow realistic scrutiny. Since no one has opined here yet, I'll add 9 more to this AFD shortly. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 10:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No responses, please do not add more articles to this bundled nomination that will likely close as No consensus if this continues. I hope you notified each article creator of this AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Delete all Lacks significant independent coverage. Reywas92^Talk 20:47, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Scherzo, which has independent notability as the direct inspiration for The Message (podcast) as documented in Slate here. [43] I’d also note that all of these will have at least one independent source in Doctor Who Magazine, which will have reviewed all of them, and which is published independently of the BBC. But with Scherzo I can confirm two are available. El Sandifer (talk) 05:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That Slate reference to Scherzo provided above is not significant coverage, it's a clear passing mention, stating that one element of Scherzo inspired one element of The Message. Also, the statement that Doctor Who magazine has reviewed them all feels a bit like WP:SOURCESEXIST. We need evidence of that- citations-, so we may check if the reviews were significant, reliable, independent, etc etc. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 09:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s certainly enough of a reference to create a “cultural impact” section out of it, if only a sentence or two long. That’s hardly fleeting—it’s significant information about the story. As for DWM, I’m hardly speculating on the source existing. I guarantee you every one of these has a review. But to stick with Scherzo, looks like it got a review in issue 341, on top of a preview in 338, both of which will be a solid couple of paragraphs. And DWM, though it has a license from the BBC and scads of access to people on the show for interviews (not that there was a show to have access to at the time of these audios) is independent—it’s published by Panini, not the BBC, has its own editor, and is given leeway to publish negative reviews, which it often did. So I’m not speculating here—all of these have at least one viable source, Scherzo has two. El Sandifer (talk) 15:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks for the information about the magazine. It's a shame none of the Dr Who audiodrama articles I've seen seem to cite it, perhaps that can be done. I don't think the Slate source helps for AFD purposes for Scherzo. Sure you could create a one-line cultural impact section from it, but it doesn't contribute to Scherzo meeting the GNG. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree that “is the direct inspiration for a clearly independently notable work” is a trivial mention. That’s clearly significant, to my mind. So I stand by my strong keep for Scherzo, and a more moderate keep for everything else given that it’s all sure to have one source—-I’d at least want to confirm that neither Dreamwatch nor SFX were regularly running reviews as well. Ooh, and the Celestial Toyroom would also be an obvious source to check. But with three separate magazines that are all reasonably likely to have been covering the Big Finish releases and one that definitely was I think the odds that these meet the GNG are strong. El Sandifer (talk) 23:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for giving your views. Let me know if you do find reviews in those other magazines. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 08:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, but none of those magazines have the sorts of thorough indexes that Doctor Who Magazine does, so it’s trickier. Glancing at a random 2015 issue of SFX I can find online, I see that they are running Big Finish reviews at that point, but I couldn’t tell you when they started doing that. Still, only increases the odds that all of these are sourceable. El Sandifer (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, right now we have no consensus. But if there are sources out there, it would help if at least a few could be located and brought into this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect unless reception (reviews) are found. GNG is an issue. The Slate article cited above makes a passing, one sentence mention of one of those dramas. That's not enough to keep that drama, but the source probably would be useful for improving the topic of Doctor Who: The Monthly Adventures which is pretty bad and has notability issues itself (WP:NOTCATALOGUE...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hatim El Otmani[edit]

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

WP:BLP. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 09:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Environment, and Morocco. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I found this [44] Currently inbtw to vote because of his contributions. Wasilatlovekesy (talk) 07:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a different person. 196.112.247.211 (talk) 10:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't the one who added that link! so I kindly ask you to remove the article from the deletion sorting CiconiaBiblio (talk) 11:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most of the references are passing mentions in the first block. I will not do a source review for that first block because there is nothing there. scope_creep^Talk 16:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete complete vanity spam sourced to non rs and blackhat SEO. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 18:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Otherwise, this would be a Soft Deletion and I'm guessing would be instantly restored.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per Praxidicae/GRINCHIDICAE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scribbie (talk • contribs) 07:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Mentioned here [45] but hardly substantial coverage. What's used now in the article is interviews, primary sourcing and non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 14:15, 15 December 2023 (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 Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 04:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Instigator Ph[edit]

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

Subject fails WP: INDEPENDENT. Doesn't merit an article as no publication has been made. Fails WP: BUSINESS Mastashat (talk) 07:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. AllyD (talk) 07:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's the flowery prose used in Nigerian sources that stumps me. They are RS but all sound the same... I'll not !vote until we have more discussion around this fellow, but it's likely a delete from me. Oaktree b (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the page of the second citation was blocked by eset, so it miiiight be fishy, but I'm not sure whether to keep or delete it. Maybe I'll change my mind later. 109.186.127.121 (talk) 07:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is an example of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete full of advertorial publications. Ibjaja055 (talk) 12:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: After reading through the citations used, I agree with everyone else that a lot of it appears to be advertorial publications, and in a few of those Anambra State Governor Chukwuma Soludo is mentioned more than Omwumelu who is only mentioned in passing. The only solid reference is the Guardian, with the same reference appearing twice in the reference list. Not enough to establish notability. TarnishedPath^talk 06:23, 18 December 2023 (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 Technology in Star Trek. History remains if consensus forms for content to be merged Star Mississippi 14:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Medicine in Star Trek[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a fun topic but the article is in terrible shape that may merit WP:TNT-treatment, particularly as it is after all trying to tackle medical topics, and it is far from anything related to quality sourcing (WP:MEDRS) required. Much of it is unreferenced, and the first part is arguably ORish, with footnotes to Star Trek episodes. No academic source is cited (GScholar suggests something on this could be found, although it is not clear to me whether an overview of 'medicine in Star Trek' is possible). Subtopics like Hypospray can be independently notable (and that article exists and has some academic refs), but whether this can be salvaged, I am unsure (since the articles I see concern specific subtopic, like Nursing in Star Trek of genetic engineering in ST, etc.; ditto for sources identified in the AfD 10 years ago which haven't been even added to the article but suffer from the same limited focus). For now I suggest, per WP:ATD-R, to redirect this mess to Technology in Star Trek, with perhaps some short merge. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Medicine. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh man, yeah. I guess I'm a Weak Delete. This could be an article, but right now it's a mess, and I can't see a good way to make it work. Andre🚐 08:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All sources are either primary, or make a "This would be like in Star Trek!" remark without discussion the topic to a degree that would justify the article. We could possibly roll this into Technology in Star Trek, but that article has a quality and fan cruft issues as well. Cortador (talk) 09:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or just redirect to Technology in Star Trek per WP:ATD. May be a notable subject, but WP:TNT applies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Technology in Star Trek: While there might be a worthy topic here, the current article needs to be destroyed so that something else can be written. Almost all of the sources in the article are either primary or brief mentions of specific types of technology in Star Trek. Only one of them is usable. Furthermore, considering the length of the potential target article, any useful information could easily fit into a discussion of the general topic. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 17:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Technology in Star Trek as above (maybe a light merge). Alternative would be to stubify into a short list. Almost certainly meets GNG but I think the OR/SYNTH/UNDUE issues are enough of a problem that we can't simply tag. —siro χ o 20:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve or merge to Technology in Star Trek. This is a notable topic, secondary sources exist, they just have not yet been adequately used in the article. So what we have could be perhaps trimmed and incorporated into an improved article which better addresses the overall topic. Alternatively relevant parts could be merged into Technology in Star Trek. A pure redirect is not appropriate in my view: While it is a sub-topic, it is nowhere addressed there yet. And we do have specific sections or full articles of VISOR, Hypospray, Emergency Medical Hologram, which should be referred to in the same manner as other concepts already are in Technology in Star Trek. Daranios (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per WP:ATD. There isn't WP:SIGCOV to make this a separate article. Editors are rallying around an acceptable redirect target. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment while merging might be a decent option WP:TNT does not apply to such articles. People quoting it should, you know, actually read it and apply it in context. Jclemens (talk) 04:48, 20 December 2023 (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. after article improvements. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Callum Stone[edit]

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

The entire article consists of mostly plot summaries, with nothing to suggest the character's notability. Sources in the article are either primary (episodes and interviews), news more about the actor, or episode recaps. A quick Google search does not give any sources that prove individual notability. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to List of The Bill characters#Sergeants. Spinixster (chat!) 06:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. Spinixster (chat!) 06:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above, pure plot summary that fails WP:GNG. No analysis, reception, etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've been able to find some sources for it. The article requires work sure but it can be done if we work on it. Incidentally, I noticed that you held a discussion to redirect Dale Smith for the same reason but this one initially you just redirected the article without any discussion. Why? 5 albert square (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's an WP:ATD. I was advised to do so instead of opening a lot of nominations.

Also, can you please list the sources here, @5 albert square? It'd be more useful if we can see which sources they are so a consensus can be made. Spinixster (chat!) 03:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/showbiz-news/stone-faces-a-blue-time-952021 and https://www.theguardian.com/culture/tvandradioblog/2009/jul/30/the-bill-makeover and https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-10000504 Just a few of what i found 5 albert square (talk) 23:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Let's see.
  - First source seems to be an interview. It isn't much about the character but rather the actor's experience on the show.
  - Second source is an analysis on the show. Only mentions the character once.
  - Third source is about the show, not the character. Only mentions the character once.
  Overall, these sources are more about the show and not about the character specifically. Notability is not inherited. Spinixster (chat!) 06:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect due to lack of reception or analysis, failing WP:SIGCOV. Could refactor my !vote if coverage is found. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Shooterwalker: More sources/coverage have now been found by another user😊 DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I agree that the article does need work but the 11 sources do show notability. I disagree that the article is plot only as the development section shows real world info as it reveals behind the scenes information. He is notable and was one of the last original characters. An actor's appearance on the show does have to do with the character (e.g. an actor playing a shopkeeper and an actor playing a policeman will have very different experiences due to different storylines, stunts, reception, research etc). If it not kept, it should be merged as recommended, not just redirected as otherwise the information will be lost. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 07:52, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I said mostly plot summaries, not purely. But either way, it's not enough to prove notability (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D.B. Russell for a similar instance). Just because an actor is known for playing a character does not mean that the character is independent notable (again, per above, notability is not inherited). Notability is based on whether or not sources that talk about the character significantly from a real-world perspective exists. Also see WP:FICT. If you need me to elaborate I'll gladly do so. Spinixster (chat!) 08:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I contributed to this article years ago. Looking at it now it needs a lot of work to get it to an acceptable standard. I will see if there are additional sources and try to improve the article.Rain the 1 18:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update:Strong Keep – The article has had huge improvements done by mostly Raintheone, with the new sources showing clear notability. The plot only sections have been removed and it is now all sourced development showing out of universe information. Per WP:HEY and notability guidelines, I strongly recommend that this article is kept. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think there is enough information about the character from independent sources and significant coverage of the character. I removed all the episode summary style sources which were originally in place. I deleted the entire storyline section, it smacked fancruft. I will also continue to improve it.Rain the 1 23:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given the recent improvement section and the promise of future work. WP:HEY Applies here I think. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SAFE Credit Union[edit]

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

This is a bank that lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. The current references do not contribute to notability. A Google search didn't turn up anything. Citrivescence (talk) 03:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added sources to the article but haven't really tackled any of the badly-written prose. Meets WP:GNG. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:39, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NCORP is the guideline we should be looking at. This guideline requires a more strict look at the sourcing and their quality. We need to see sources that go beyond just announcing standard business transactions and routine news coverage. The sources are connected or routine coverage which do not meet the threshold of WP:CORPDEPTH. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Appears this does not meet the WP:NCORP due to a lack of secondary sources. Let'srun (talk) 04:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the four newspaper articles? RecycledPixels (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RecycledPixels, I haven't examined the sources in this article but my experience closing AFDs has demonstrated to me that WP:NCORP is a very tough standard to meet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment already stated keep above. I'm reluctant to personally invest a significant effort into improving this article due to some potentially-perceived COI conflicts. But mainly because I'm not interested in writing articles about companies. But since I am very familiar with the company, I have spent a relatively small amount of time sorting through newspapers.com archives to add some reliable, independent references that I think should meet notability concerns. Since this company has invested in a sponsorship deal with the city's premiere concert venue, most of the top pages of search results will turn up trivial mentions of the company in the context of various performances. So you have to use your Google-Fu to exclude mentions of the performing arts center in order to fairly evaluate the notability of the article subject. But you'll still have to wade through a whole lot of articles about various branches being robbed, ATM thefts, and so-and-so just got promoted in the company, and other trivial, non-significant mentions. The company is not well-suited to the typical AFD thirty-second google search to glance at whether it's a notable company. It's the second-largest credit union in the city, by assets (I recently added that reference to the article). This isn't an article about some garage band, or an "up-and-coming" business trying to generate enough buzz to survive its next round of funding. Hope that helps. RecycledPixels (talk) 08:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as seen here, there are about 50+ instances of independent coverage just within the past two years alone. In addition to the vast expansive local coverage, there's a quote in the New York Times and a paragraph in the Associated Press. Left guide (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there is significant coverage in newspapers. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 23:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. The sourcing table has not been responded to or refuted and hence consensus can't exist here given the relatively low participation. No prejudice to an immediate relist if so desired. Daniel (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Art Whizin[edit]

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

Non-notable local business person. Fails WP:GNG. Mikeblas (talk) 03:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Sportspeople, Food and drink, Boxing, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:BASIC/GNG. In addition to the source in the article [46] there's also [47][48][49][50] and other similar coverage. —siro χ o 05:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how those convey notability. #2 mentions Whizin just once. #3 is about a sign that says "Whizin's", not Art Whizin -- the article isn't about a sign. #4 seems like it's about Bruce Whizin, not Art. #5 is about a dispute Art had with the local Renn Faire. Does fighting the faire make him notable? -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. I believe such an assessment is not entirely accurate with respect to BASIC/GNG. I've included a table below to provide a deeper illustration. —siro χ o 17:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to an article about the "Chili Bowl" (which doesn't exist yet); there's more than enough discussion of the history and heritage of the restaurant chain. Oaktree b (talk) 14:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect The sources mentioned only have the subject in passing; if there could be a Chili bowl page, then let it be redirected there. GuardianH (talk) 16:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I made my rec above, but here's a source assessment table for the sources I linked: —siro χ o 17:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:siroxo
Harvey, 2009, LA Times [51]	please keep in mind this article was published more than 10 years after subject's death	example quote The way Art Whizin told the story, he was sitting at the counter of a downtown burger joint called Ptomaine Tommy's, trying to visualize the restaurant he wanted to build. Then a truck-driver friend next to him slid over a chili bowl and said, "Here, Whizin, do something with this." And that's how Whizin, the one-time amateur boxer, decided in 1931 to construct an eatery in the shape of a chili bowl. Why not? Merchants were putting up businesses that resembled ice cream cones, tamales, coffee kettles and sundry other objects -- all trying to catch the eye of passing motorists. The 25-year-old entrepreneur opened his first Chili Bowl on Crenshaw Boulevard near Jefferson Boulevard after raising $1,200 by selling, among other things, his wife's wedding ring and his roadster. The couple moved into a house nearby. "Because he sold his car, he had to have his business within walking distance," explained Jim Heimann, author of "California Crazy & Beyond," a study of offbeat roadside architecture. Whizin told Heimann in a 1978 interview that he sketched the design of the restaurant on the corduroy pants he seemed to always be wearing. Perhaps he didn't want anyone else to get their hands on the plans. Or perhaps "he was embellishing the story," Heimann said with a laugh. "He was an interesting character." The Chili Bowl had no tables, just a 26-stool circular counter, and Whizin bragged that his young workers, most of them college boys, could "flip a pat of butter from the center of the counter to the edge of any of the 26 plates." The place was an immediate success with its specialty dish called the chili size, an open-faced hamburger smothered with the homemade goodness.	✔ Yes
Pascal, 2013, Arcadia Publishing[52]		(p. 79) Art Whizin became known throughout Los Angeles for having established the Chili Bowl restaurant chain in Los Angeles in 1931. After purchasing land in Agoura for development, his decisions often clashed with city planners and environmentalists. Some of the businesses he attracted to the area included the Bear Cabaret (a topless bar), a go-cart raceway, low-income housing, and a mobile home park. Though he received a humanitarian award in 1988 for "40 years of continuous dedication, service and unselfish contributions to the City of Agoura Hills," he often stated that he was the most hated man in Agoura although he did not understand why. Below is a photograph of his restaurant menu. Today, Whizin Market Square is a popular community and tourist destination. ... (p. 105) The first water was delivered to residents in 1963, thanks to the efforts of residents like Art Whizin. When Whizin came to Agoura in 1949, there was no water and no sewers. The Agoura community at large (500 residents at that time) wanted to preserve the rural flavor of the life style in the area. Whizin was one of 11 that bypassed Agoura residents and used their property as collateral to finance bonds to bring water and eventually sewers to Agoura.	✔ Yes
Sherry, 1998, Daily News		~ quotes: On Wednesday, Moran again stood and watched workers attend to the sign, outlawed by an Agoura Hills sign ordinance, passed by a city that didn't even exist when Whizin's was built. Moran said he always wanted to play by the rules, so he promised the city that he would remove the sign a "reasonable amount of time" after the death of Art Whizin, his business partner. He gave the city no more assurance than his word, and that was good enough, Adams said.... Whizin died two years ago, and on Wednesday Moran kept his word.	~ Partial
Barker, 1988, LA Times[53]		~ quotes ...fair sponsors had agreed in a rental agreement with owner Art Whizin to remove the structures by June 30 ... The foundation was formed earlier this year to fight the proposed development, a 160-home gated community planned by Heller and Whizin.	~ Partial
Wilcox, 2006, Daily News [54]	~ There are quotes from family, but also many facts stated in the voice of the paper.	quotes His father had recently bought 320 acres that was part of Paramount Ranch...They ate at a little 12-stool, three-table hamburger stand with a couple of Mobile Oil Co. gasoline pumps out front. Art Whizin bought that, too, and began renovating the property.... By Mother's Day 1954 all that remained was a slab, but customers came anyway, so many that Art Whizin set out some tables and chairs.... It evolved into its present form over the years and the Whizin name became familiar to travelers along Highway 101. ... Between 1930 and 1941, Art Whizin opened 21 Chili Bowl restaurants around Los Angeles, buying each lot for between $300 to $500. In the late 1940s he closed the business and began selling the lots.	~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Newspapers.com seems to bring up a good amount of coverage of Whizin, e.g. LA Times feature (p2), Thousand Oaks Star (2 3 4 5) and News-Chronicle. BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete‎. WP:G5. (non-admin closure) Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nabin luhagun[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NACTOR. Has three roles, all of which were minor. There is also nothing in-depth that would show how he meets WP:GNG. CNMall41 (talk) 07:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Nepal, India, and Tamil Nadu. CNMall41 (talk) 07:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It passes WP:GNG and have significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources.Thank you.WikipedianRam (talk) 09:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete UPE spam. Fake references. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fake references. None of the references have mentioned the name. Krishna Dahal (talk) 11:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
References have mentioned the name please check properly. WikipedianRam (talk) 11:13, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of the reliable sources have the name mentioned, nor do any sources support any of the claims. Krishna Dahal (talk) 11:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, name have mentioned and it supports too. So, please review it properly and hope you will make a good discussion.Thank you. WikipedianRam (talk) 11:24, 15 December 2023 (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!} 04:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appin (company)[edit]

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

This article appears to go against WP:Libel policy. The subject of the article is in legal litigation with Reuters the publisher of the major source cited in the article. Reuters has taken down the report from its website in compliance with an Indian court order. See Reuters editor’s note here [[55]]. Other sources cited all quoted the Reuters report that is no longer in public domain. In this [[56]], SentinelLab quoted the Reuters report as its own source: “After an extensive review of this data, brought to our attention by Reuters investigative journalists”, then this [[57]] quoted SentinelLab as its own source all linking back to the Reuters report. These sources can no longer be relied upon as the original source of information has been taken down by a court order. The remaining sources in the article only reported the court order forcing Reuters to take down the article. Metroick (talk) 05:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This company is detailed in this earlier Reuters report[58] which was not taken down. Further, the court order and the impugned report are discussed here[59] and here[60]. The litigation is publicly acknowledged by Reuters. And, as noted in the 404 Media article the article is still on Internet Archive. That should be enough for notability.

There may be some basis to say the facts in the impugned article aren't verifiable, because the article is no longer truly published pending court scrutiny, but that's a pretty slender reed.

As to the issue of libel, although I can not find the Indian court order it was a preliminary order. That likely means substantive determinations on the Reuters article (again, only the one report which was taken down, not the still-live one linked above) are yet-to-come. So it's highly unlikely, and certainly not reported anywhere I can see, the report has been found to be libelous. If libel is found by the court at some later date, this article could be reconsidered on that basis. Oblivy (talk) 05:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Companies, Computing, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Courts aren't arbiters of truth. However, since the company primarily seems to be notable for the article and the subsequent lawsuit, and 95% of the sources I can find online are about that, the article should be moved to Appin hacking allegation lawsuit. Or something more elegant than that. Cortador (talk) 09:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems there's still a fair amount of reports on the hacking. I'll change my vote to keep. Cortador (talk) 14:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'll set aside arguments about GNG and NCORP (both are met) since they're not brought up in the nom. I don't think it can meet WP:LIBEL if it's verifiable and cited to reliable sources, and Reuters is a pretty top-tier RS, whose report is based not on one or two anonymous sources but on an investigation by three reporters who have a history of covering this subject area (one of whom has won an award for it). Reuters says it stands by its reporting, and RS that have covered the company after Reuters's removal (like 404media) do not treat the reporting as suspect, rather they blame lack of press freedom in India. It reminds me of Pierre-sur-Haute military radio station, where we kept the article despite legal threats (against a Wikipedian, not just a news outlet). I would also oppose a move since the "main" story is the revelations, not the Reuters lawsuit about the revelations. DFlhb (talk) 13:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The New Yorker reported on the issue, article is more than adequately sourced. Oaktree b (talk) 14:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As author. Meets WP:GNG. My personal take on this is that India is trying to scrub a report into the darker side of its intelligence aparatus. I don't know why we'd want to help them with that. The irony here is that in trying to scrub the report, the company becomes more notable for trying to scrub the report. Streisand effect? NickCT (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable company. Article title change is not needed. Capitals00 (talk) 05:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is libelous, the main source of the article has been deleted which was Reuters. Most of the publications from the websites were gotten from Reuters and since the reuters source is down, this should be considered no longer credible. Chaosbrigader64 (talk) 09:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have not evaluated notability as of yet, but as LIBEL is handled by WP:OFFICE, leaning speedy keep as AfD is not competent to decide on such an issue. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy/snow keep. I'm standing by my assessment that there is nothing for the community to do here. Offline sources are still sources. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the meantime pending the final determination of the lawsuit against Reuters article that has now been taken down. It can be recreated after the final verdict if it goes in favour of Reuters which is confident in its journalists and their reporting by stating that it stands by its reporting. The issue here is not about the notability of the company but the lawsuit. It will not be surprising if the company sue the other sources cited in the article as some of them quoted Reuters reporting as their source and if that happens it may lead to the taking down of such press articles thereby stripping this article of its major sources. Lagdo22 (talk) 12:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The accusations were provided by Reuters, which is one of the highest regarded RS, and they continue to stand by their reporting. Since the article was pulled down by only a prima facie court order, Reuters has not had an opportunity to defend their reporting. If it turns out the content was falsified Reuters would retract the article and the article can be reconsidered then. The sources currently not being available due to court order is not an issue because WP:LINKROT is a known, very common, and already solved problem on Wikipedia. Jumpytoo Talk 20:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This company is using bullying tactics to remove online mentions of its conduct (https://www.thedailybeast.com/who-is-killing-all-these-stories-about-rajat-khare-controversial-tech-mogul). WP should be a repository for 'items of encyclopedic note,' not 'items of encyclopedic note unless wealthy, powerful firms credibly accused of criminal acts would prefer not to have mentioned.' --Doctorow (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added four additional citations, two extensively discussing the company and two about the controversy. If (a big if) there was any serious question about whether the court-ordered suppression of the Reuters story somehow defeats notability, this should put an end to it. Oblivy (talk) 01:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: while the original Reuters story was taken down, the takedown is now itself subject to significant independent coverage in reliable sources [61]. MarioGom (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daniele Filippi[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 04:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Joeykai (talk) 04:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Italy and Sweden. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No notability as of December 2023. Do not cover WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 16:17, 16 December 2023 (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 00:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Caravaggio to Canaletto[edit]

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

A temporary art exhibit may be notable if it has a lasting impact. This is not evident from the text. Furthermore, the article gives no independent, substantive coverage. I think therefore that the topic fails wp:gng Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 03:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hungary and Italy. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 03:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Museums and libraries. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' I found a handful of reviews but not sure they're enough as they're contemporary with the exhibit and like the non said, don't demonstrate lasting impact. The article itself is almost certainly copypasta from the museum's english website, although the page isn't in any of the internet archives to cross check. Star Mississippi 14:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as a routine temporary exhibition such as every gallery and museum holds, all the time. All such exhibitions get press mentions at the time (otherwise no one would know to go to them!) and some get passing mentions in other contexts from time to time afterwards, but for a stand-alone article we need some in depth sourcing. Elemimele (talk) 07:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not finding reliable sources to show why this particular show is notable. There is more coverage about the catalog than the show.--WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:32, 20 December 2023 (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!} 04:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump's rhetoric[edit]

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

the scope of this article is undefined and could include anything the man has ever said about anything in his lifetime soibangla (talk) 03:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as brought up at the talkpages of Donald Trump & Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign, there's plenty of sources to support this article's existence. GoodDay (talk) 03:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
those discussions were specifically regarding his authoritarian rhetoric, rather than an expansive and undefined review of all his rhetoric. soibangla (talk) 03:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This page can be re-named, having his 'authoritarian' rhetoric included in the content. GoodDay (talk) 03:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Definitely "not ready for prime time" in its current state, but has potential for expansion and refinement. I agree with the nominator that there needs to be a more defined focus. A renaming should be considered as well. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 03:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep per WP:HEY. The changes made to the article following my initial comments (in favor of draftifying) and arguments made by others (particularly SPECIFICO) in favor of keeping the page have convinced me to reconsider. It clearly needs more work, and renaming to Rhetoric of Donald Trump is strongly advised, but I now believe there is sufficient sourcing and enough encyclopedic content to justify keeping in mainspace. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 04:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftifying, would be my second choice. GoodDay (talk) 03:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Trump's rhetoric in-and-of-itself is notable and has been analysed scholars. I'll link to a few papers and books dedicated to it: [62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70], though somehow I can't find the couple of papers I remember reading that were on-point. Per my comment on the talk page I recommend treating this as separate from the planned article on authoritarianism. I also oppose draftifying because it no longer meets the WP:DRAFTIFY criteria since it was expanded after the comments above; it now has merit and contains a reasonable amount of verifiable information. DFlhb (talk) 06:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall there was the planned article on authoritarianism. Rather, creation of this article seems to be a broad and undefined invitation to include everything the man has ever said about anything, since the 1970s. Imagine the possibilities. Even renaming the article to Trump authoritarian rhetoric should not be used as a compromise to deflect any reference to it in the BLP. I am increasingly concerned that relegating this to ancillary articles is a deliberate effort to exclude any mention of his authoritarian rhetoric in the BLP, despite it being abundantly sourced for years as a distinctive characteristic of the man. soibangla (talk) 07:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
should not be used as a compromise to deflect any reference to it in the BLP Categorically yes.

I am increasingly concerned that[...] So am I. The way I see it is that I've presented enough sources for it that non-inclusion in the main BLP would be counter to policy, and there's recourse for that.

There's also recourse against people who would try to include irrelevant material from sources that don't analyse aspects of his rhetoric directly and in depth. DFlhb (talk) 08:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs work, but AfD isn't cleanup, and the topic is notable since Trump's rhetoric has received a lot of attention and has been analysed by a number of people. Cortador (talk) 09:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Needs lots of work and attention, which I hope will be sparked by this AfD. There are many secondary and tertiary RS publications to support relevant content. It's possible the page title will be tweaked, and it should not be viewed as a fork of the main Trump page, where there's obstinate, insupportable, opposition to even a brief mention of his most significant recent themes and preparations for his second term. SPECIFICO talk 12:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Half the article is just an excerpt of False or misleading statements by Donald Trump and the page needs more work before it's ready for mainspace. Reywas92^Talk 16:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that suggests that at least half the article is at least properly sourced. Draft will get less attention and less of a chance to develop. SPECIFICO talk 18:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTPROMO "Wikipedia articles about a person, company, or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts." Campaign rhetoric and character assassinations, leading up to a presidential election. And-or for daily postings in his legal issues/comments. It gives his supporters a cut and paste quickie for their social network postings. This would amount to a forum in the guise of a Wikipedia article. We really shouldn't be giving any candidate this. — Maile (talk) 00:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Such content would not remain in any article for long, per NPOV weight, NOTNEWS, etc. The same concern could be raised with respect to any article about a political campaign, a performing artist, et al. There is a substantial literature that presents expert and, increasingly, shcolarly summary and analysis of the themes and narratives of his public speech. SPECIFICO talk 01:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Initially my position was that this topic was too poorly defined to merit an article, but upon doing some research, it turns out there are a fair number of scholarly works on this exact topic (i.e. Trump's methods of persuasion and modes of communication) including a scholarly book by this very name : https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv1rr6dh8. (We should likewise rename this page Rhetoric of Donald Trump, I think.) The extent of the literature leads me to think the topic is indeed notable and has drawn significant scholarly and media attention. This, however, is not the topic that was being proposed on Donald Trump's Authoritarianism, nor should an article on either of these topics be taken as an excuse to continue omitting discussion of the scholarly literature and extremely extensive media coverage of Trump's authoritarian inclinations or statements from the main article. That omission of one of the most widely written about aspects of the man continues to be scandalous.67.82.74.5 (talk) 01:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this can be a good article that other aspects of Donald Trump's rhetoric can be linked to. For instance, False or misleading statements by Donald Trump which can be considered part of his "rhetoric" can be mentioned in a section here, along with List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump and Social media use by Donald Trump. This page can also serve as a place to put recent concerns about his authoritarian and violent rhetoric by the media until there is enough content and coverage that its own page could be warranted. BootsED (talk) 02:26, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is taking shape and can be a good thing. Well worth keeping, and certainly passes WP:GNG. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there's a significant amount of coverage discussing his rhetoric, especially after he started talking about "poisoning the nation's blood" and everything a couple weeks ago. AryKun (talk) 14:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons given above.Jack Upland (talk) 23:24, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. When I initially read the article, it was nothing more than a single line, but it is sourced well currently and should not be deleted or draftified in its current state. Cessaune [talk] 05:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - fwiw this whole book is on the topic: Jennifer Mercieca Demagogue for President: The Rhetorical Genius of Donald Trump - ISBN 978-1623499068 - she outlines a lot of specific techniques he uses and why they're effective. jengod (talk) 06:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Time to end this discussion. There has been no "delete" responses for five days, and thoese are before that are all outdated as the article has developed a great deal since then--Marginataen (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The scope of an article is something to be discussed and decided at the article's talk page, it is not a reason for deletion. Photos of Japan (talk) 01:45, 22 December 2023 (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. Daniel (talk) 01:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Baran (singer)[edit]

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

nn, tagged unaddressed since October 2022 - Altenmann >talk 02:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Iran, and Canada. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - she is notable Iranian singer.. i see many reliable sources nd discography available in results Worldiswide (talk) 07:44, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~I added some albums nd source on my basis... Worldiswide (talk) 09:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)~~ ( Blocked sockpuppet of Wiki97828)[reply]
Comment earlier version, gutted without explanation by IP, might show notability. PamD 09:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Editors can't just say "Sources exist", you must share specific links or citations so others can investigate whether they demonstrate notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I find no coverage of this person in reliable sources. DaffodilOcean (talk) 15:59, 18 December 2023 (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 The Coddling of the American Mind. I found the nominator's statement and evaluation of sources to be very persuasive and reflects not only Wikipedia policy but also the rough consensus of participants. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Safetyism[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTNEO. "Safetyism" is a term coined by the authors of a 2018 book The Coddling of the American Mind by two free speech advocates (Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt) and their co-researcher Pamela Paresky. It is a social hypothesis that a certain mindset is the cause of then-recent American student campus behaviour that the authors find unsatisfactory. That this is actually the primary motivator of this behaviour, that this behaviour is in any way recent, or that the behaviour is universally regarded as unsatisfactory is disputed by some.

No dictionaries contain a definition. Onelook, Merriam-webster, Macmillan, Oxford Learners Dictionaries, The American Heritage Dictionary, Vocabulary.com, Cambridge. I see that Collins Dictionary noted that the word was proposed to them in 2020 but remains under review. A google search of the BBC "safetyism site:bbc.co.uk" also finds nothing.

Having the term as an article has two consequences. As WP:NOTNEO notes, it can "increase usage of the term" by giving it a validity undeserved by sources. As currently written, the article is entirely uncritical, writing about this proposed explanation of student behaviour as though it is an established concept in social psychology. And we comment on this concept as though this is a universal and timeless failing of human behaviour rather than a recent concept proposed and promoted by two free speech advocates complaining that and how their students keep protesting about stuff. Currently the article on this term is longer than our article on the whole book, and its main source is an academic paper that itself promotes a neologism (ideacide) and only briefly mentions safetyism among three "dynamics". Most of the relatively small number of sources using the word are political opinion pieces that are themselves promoting free speech, citing the book or its authors, or using the word as a weapon against whatever kind of activism they dislike.

Compared with Truthiness, which is a similar social neologism but swiftly became word-of-the-year and is highly used and discussed. Within social science, this "safetyism" is a fringe concept lacking WP:WEIGHT. Even within the book, The Coddling of the American Mind, "safetyism" is a minority of the work. Another comparator would be "Autistic enterocolitis" a term coined by Andrew Wakefield as a proposed explanation of autism. We do not have an article on that because it is also a fringe (and discredited) concept in medical science, though we do have Lancet MMR autism fraud that discusses it.

That it is disputed that this word "safetyism" is even a "thing" and whether it has any significant currency outside of American university politics c2018 means it is best discussed briefly in the context of our article on this book on American university politics c2018. I suggest that "Safetyism" be discussed with appropriate, relatively brief, weight in the book article, and safetyism be turned into a redirect. -- Colin°^Talk 14:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Libertarianism, Education, Psychology, and Social science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Extensive sourcing, including from over a decade ago, establishes notability. Owen× ☎ 23:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify while we look for better sources. Owen× ☎ 12:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:OwenX, I'm not nearly as familiar with AfD as you. But there can't be any sources "from over a decade ago" because it was only coined in 2018, five, nearly six years ago.

When I read WP:NOTNEO it tells me to watch out for the difference between sources using a term than ones that are actually about the term. We have some opinion-piece advocacy sources where people have picked up that word and used it. We have some sources commenting on the book and its fallout. But the two sources about the term Safetyism Was Never Real and Safetyism Isn’t the Problem both actually argue that it isn't really a thing and that anyone using the term is wrongheaded or trying to fool their readers, not that you'd learn that from the article text.

As a tertiary encyclopaedic source and for a subject worthy of its own article, what I'd expect is for us to be citing some secondary sources explicitly on "Safetyism" as a concept in modern social psychology. That after five, nearly six years, we'd find dictionary definitions, book chapters, books even, all explaining to students what this accepted academic term is and means. We can't. Because it isn't an accepted academic term. It is a fringe idea by two guys who wrote a book. That this neologism is used by some free speech advocates doesn't seem to meet the requirement at WP:NOTNEO. -- Colin°^Talk 10:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake! Google Scholar incorrectly reports the term as being used in J.S. Beck's 2011 Clinical textbook of addictive disorders. Thanks for prompting me to dig deeper. Changing to Draftify while we look for better sources. Owen× ☎ 12:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is being discussed in journals and the sourcing seems adequate. 'With the advent of smartphones, parents' surveillance adds to the “culture of safetyism” that predominates on college campuses...' [71], 'Lukianoff and Haidt contend that an atmosphere of “safetyism” threatens the university’s ability to serve as an arena for free speech and academic freedom. In this paper, we examine their thinking...' [72], '...a “national wave of adolescent anxiety and depression”; overprotective parents caught up in “safetyism”; campus officials who encourage dependency...' [73] etc. I am NOT implying that all of these results are independently RS, but they do indicate adoption in limited but persistent use and support the sourcing already in the article. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disagreeing that some sources use the term but the sources you give aren't using it as a real word outside of scare quotes, or using it independently from the book as though this was a concept with wide acceptance.
1. The first article only once mentions “the culture of safetyism” and they do so in scare quotes while citing the "The Coddling of the American Mind". That's not evidence they think this is a term in modern social psychology, only that they wish to quote some other author's work.
2. The second source also uses the word in scare quotes: 'In The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas are Setting Up a Generation for Failure, Lukianoff and Haidt contend that an atmosphere of “safetyism” threatens the university’s ability to serve as an arena for free speech and academic freedom. In this paper, we examine their thinking...' Again they are effectively quoting the book, and their article examines its claims with comments from their own experiences. They only use the word twice in their article, both times they are in-text referencing the book/authors and the claims the book/authors made. They are not using the word for themselves as though it was a real word.
3. The third source is simply a book review of "The Coddling of the American Mind". They use the word "safetyism" in scare quotes, because they also don't actually regard it (yet) as a real word, and are merely stating what the book itself claims in order to pass judgement on the book. -- Colin°^Talk 16:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per analysis of sources by Colin, most of the coverage of the term seems to be related to The Coddling of the American Mind. So a redirect to The Coddling of the American Mind seems most appropriate, unless better sources which discuss it more independently or more in depth can be found. Shapeyness (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A robust critical section should be written using sources to provide balance. Political opportunists will certainly use the concept irresponsibly, even using mean or hateful rhetoric. Haidt & Lukianoff use it rather responsibly, but are transparent about the political dimension of related discussions. -- skakEL 14:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Skakkle I see you made some edits to "provide balance" and I certainly felt that as previously written the article was uncritical (see talk page comments). But I'm concerned your changes to the lead are not sourced (nor do they appear to summarise the body). Do you have some sources for the remarks about Safetyism that you added. Without those, it is possible to see that your changes might simply be undone per WP:V. -- Colin°^Talk 08:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In voting "Keep", I recommended to the community and anyone interested that robust critical section should be written. I'm sure the community and anyone interested can achieve that.

My contributions were intended more narrowly. My edits sought "de-nature" the inflammatory frame of the term safetyism and help discover a less controversialized frame to talk about the substance of the topic and the subject matter at hand (university policy, how students really feel, how academics & authors talk about these things, the issues that spark the most trouble in these university contexts, etc). My contributions might not be perfect or complete but I made them in good faith & I am hoping the community and anyone interested can continue to work on this productively together. skakEL 13:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Skakkle, I don't doubt your good faith and intentions and I'm not suggesting you are required to personally fix the article. I generally agree with your additions, but that doesn't mean I've been able to source them. My research suggests the limited sources available on this topic hinder the ability to write an appropriate "robust critical section" with appropriate sources (there is some criticism in sources but they are either dealing with politics or in response to the book). I think this diminishes the weight of a "keep" vote that assumes something is possible that may not be. High quality sources have "better things to do" that attack ideas that never widely took off in the first place, which had a short-lived significance in American politics in 2018, and aren't established concepts. -- Colin°^Talk 14:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Coddling of the American Mind per the nomination. Evidence is lacking that this is, you know, a thing. That is, it so far appears not to be a concept that has grown to be bigger than the book while maintaining a coherent definition. We don't need to provide a studiously balanced, critical overview of a topic that isn't encyclopedic to begin with, and keeping such an article around invites synthesis of remarks from everybody who has written something that vaguely sounds like the same idea. The reception of a book can be covered in the article about the book. XOR'easter (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: seeing as additional sources might be hard to find, I'd also be happy with a Redirect to the book, as suggested by others. Owen× ☎ 14:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Coddling of the American Mind per the nomination. Some of the sources only mention the term tangentially, some don't mention the term at all, and some only in the context of that book. I fail to see that "safetyism" is notable outside the context of the book. Cortador (talk) 09:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per what XOR'easter said (not a valid reason to delete), and given the many sources already provided and notability shown. बिनोद थारू (talk) 23:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
XOR'easter didn't say anything that would imply keeping the article. Are you sure you're referencing the right editor here? Owen× ☎ 23:34, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was referring to his comment just saying "it's just not encyclopedic". It not a valid reason to delete as many sources have been provided, and notability has been shown. बिनोद थारू (talk) 23:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let me see if I got this straight: you believe that XOR'easter raised an invalid argument to turn the article into a redirect, so based on that you believe the article should be kept? Are you familiar with the aphorism, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"? Owen× ☎ 23:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disproveing the multiple reliable sources provided would better make a point then citing random article space pages. बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:11, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources that make a case for keeping the article have not been provided, and notability as an independent topic has not been shown. XOR'easter (talk) 03:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't make head nor tail of this !vote. Nobody is saying the text isn't encyclopaedic (though I'd argue that some portions of the text aren't supported by the sources, and some of the text, per XOR'easter, falls into the synthesis/original-research trap of using sources that "use" a word in order to talk "about" the word, and some trimming per WEIGHT would be appropriate if relocated) just that it is best located as a section within the book article. It does make me wonder if the editor has responded on the wrong AfD? -- Colin°^Talk 12:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I voted keep based on the sources provided above and stand-alone notability shown. Simple as that. Any other discussion beyond the hard, concrete sources and notability is just confusion. बिनोद थारू (talk) 01:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you be more specific. Which of the "many" "sources provided above" meet WP:NOTNEO's requirement that "we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term". Two sources above that I see that talk about the term do so in the context of the book and to dismiss it. Or are you referring to all the dictionary sources, that say "search term not found". It isn't good enough to say "notability has been shown" and wave your hands about on the page. You need to explain how this requirement has been met, with specific sources that meet policy. -- Colin°^Talk 18:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Coddling of the American Mind. A search for sources indicates that "Safetyism" has not been discussed independently of the book. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 15:29, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here are additional independent secondary sources where Safetyism is discussed, that collectively validate WP:GNG. I have quoted passages which demonstrate WP:SIGCOV of Safetyism as a standalone topic. All of the articles are called Safetyism is ___, not Review of The Coddling of the American Mind, demonstrating that the topic is discussed independently of the other article. Lastly, arguing against the merit of a single source does not discredit the merit of the others, as WP:GNG only requires two or more sources, which demonstrate significant coverage, and that are independent (COI-free) of the subject.

"Safetyism Was Never Real". Insight Higher Ed. June 4, 2020.

The article states: Launched into the world by Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff in their book, The Coddling of the American Mind, “Safetyism refers to a culture or belief system in which safety has become a sacred value, which means that people are unwilling to make trade-offs demanded by other practical and moral concerns.According to the authors, safetyism, along with other factors such as “screen time,” were causing observable increases in anxiety and depression among young people, as well as leading to protests such as the one over Halloween costumes at Yale, which the authors see as an illiberal assault on the values of the institution. Coddling was published in 2018. I am trying to recognize the description of a generation which is so apparently fragile that they cannot even bear a challenging thought with the one that has been the greatest number of those facing pepper spray, tear gas, beatings and rubber bullets on the streets as they protest systemic injustices in the wake of the recent killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and Ahmaud Arbery.

"Safetyism Is Unsafe". Theopolis. April 25, 2022.

The article states: During the second half of the twentieth century, concentrated efforts were made to make the world safer for children, drivers, and vulnerable people. All fifty states passed safety belt laws. Sharp objects were removed from homes and day care facilities. Toys and playgrounds became softer. It worked. Death rates for children declined steadily. Over the first two decades of the twenty-first century, however, “safety” has broadened to include emotional safety and this broader understanding of safety has become a fundamental value and ideal. Especially on university campuses, young people protest triggers – co

"The Rise of Safetyism". Movementum Magazine.

The article states: With the steady decline in organised religion among the British, other beliefs have stepped in to fill the vacuum, guiding us and providing a framework with which to live our lives. The decline of organised religion hasn’t ushered in a world that is rational, logical and rooted in empirical scepticism; our modern materialistic secular world is full of new superstitions, rituals and faith. One of the most visible of these new doctrines, after gaining traction for many decades, blossomed in 2020 - that of safetyism.

"The Safety Police: Is Free Speech Being Stifled on College Campuses?". NYU Stern. August 15, 2019.

The article states: Something is going badly wrong for American teenagers, as we can see in the statistics on depression, anxiety, and suicide. Something is going very wrong on many college campuses, as we can see in the rise in efforts to disinvite or shout down visiting speakers, and in changing norms about speech, including a recent tendency to evaluate speech in terms of safety and danger. This new culture of “safetyism” is bad for students and bad for universities.

"Safetyism isn't the problem". The New York Times. June 1, 2020.

The article states: As America debates when and how to reopen, those concerned about the side effects of the lockdown have begun to use the word “safetyism” to characterize what they consider extreme social-distancing measures.

"The rise of Safetyism has entered the courtroom". Law360. May 3, 2023.

The article was locked to me. It is titled "The rise of Safetyism has entered the courtroom". It is as unrelated as it gets to a book.

"Is Safetyism destroying a generation?". Institute of Public Affairs. September 3, 2018.

The article states: In recent years behaviours on university campuses have created widespread unease. Safe spaces, trigger warnings, and speech codes. Demands for speakers to be disinvited. Words construed asviolence and liberalism described as ‘white supremacy’. Students walking on eggshells, too scared to speak their minds. Controversial speakers violently rebuked – from conservative provocateurs such as Milo Yiannopoulos to serious sociologists such as Charles Murray, to left-leaning academics such as Bret Weinstein.

"Will America succumb to Safetyism?". Manhattan Institute. November 2, 2020.

The article states: The outcome of Tuesday’s presidential election will reveal whether the feminized, therapeutic culture of the university has become the dominant force in the American psyche. During the last eight months of coronavirus panic, a remarkable number of Americans have deliberately — one might even say, ecstatically — embraced fear over fact. They have shut their ears to the data, available since March, showing how demographically circumscribed the lethal threat from coronavirus infection is: concentrated among the very elderly and those with multiple and serious preexisting health conditions.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Safetyism to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for listing the sources you believe matter. The rule for an article on a novel word for a proposed concept is WP:NEO which requires more than usage of the word in some blogs. The NYU Stern source is actually written by Haidt and Lukianoff so isn't really independent of the book. Many of the other sources are culturally conservative blogs. Theopolis is a evangelical church blog, Manhattan Institute is a conservative think tank, Institute of Public Affairs is another conservative think tank. Movementum Magazine is a self published blog. The Insight Higher Ed source is a blog on that site and is actually claiming the concept doesn't exist that writers/speakers are just abusing that neologism for political games. The New York Times is an opinion column about covid lockdown commenting that people are misusing the term to justify their position on that matter.

None of these are reliable sources for anything more than the author's opinion, should that have any weight. What none of these are are journal articles in sociology or linguistics or undergrad or postgrad textbooks or even political books devoted to this topic. Instead some hot headed opinionist has picked up a neologism they recently read in Haidt & Lukianoff's book (which they loved because it is so critical of these lefty social justice warrior students that they hate) and used it to rant about coronavirus lockdowns or about how parents these day are not like when I was growing up and had to go to church each Sunday with polished shoes and a suit and a respectable haircut. It's a bit like you found a bunch of right wing blogs ranting about how wokeism has infected our schools but not the scholarly work on what the term "woke" is and how that term is used and misused today. -- Colin°^Talk 10:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Coddling of the American Mind - Per nom. (which is thorough and persuasive) and XOR'easter. This should be covered in the article on the book and is not an independently notable concept. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. No comments since the last relisting so I'm closing this as No consensus. It would be nice to see more of these sources added to the article but at least it is no longer unreferenced. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Akasya Durağı[edit]

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

This article on a Turkish television series has no references and so does not satisfy either verifiability or notability. It consists of a one-paragraph overview, and a long cast list in an infobox, in which a majority of the entries are red links. There is nothing about what third parties have said about the show. (Maybe it has been reviewed, and maybe it hasn't.) It has been tagged as having no sources since 2015, and still has no sources eight years later. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Turkey. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Turkish article only has 2 Youtube cites and one dead cite Chidgk1 (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kanal_D#Programs_broadcast_by_Kanal_D.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--->changing to Keep in the light of the sources presented by Kadı below, and that prove the series was important nationally.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This television series was very famous and popular in Türkiye. Here are some sources, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. --Kadı Message 16:19, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chidgk1, @Mushy Yank: Could you evaluate the sources given above? Kadı Message 16:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No sorry I don't think I am competant to do so as I am not a native speaker. You could use them to cite the Turkish article and see whether anyone there objects. If they are accepted there I withdraw my delete vote. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The entry is in poor shape, but I agree that the series was very popular. Not exactly strong evidences of notability alone (Kadı has already shared several links for that), but the series was mentioned in academic works like this and this. I believe the article could easily be expanded with good sources. Aintabli (talk) 22:07, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest you cite the Turkish article to those sources - if they are accepted there I withdraw my delete vote Chidgk1 (talk) 08:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chidgk1, which Turkish article? Do you mean the Turkish Wikipedia? Why would that be relevant? Aintabli (talk) 00:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that is right the Turkish Wikipedia - they would know whether the sources are reliable or not Chidgk1 (talk) 05:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see now your sources are in English but by Turkish academics. So now I have no idea. I will stop commenting on this. Chidgk1 (talk) 05:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:21, 15 December 2023 (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 hope some of these newly found foreign language sources find their way into the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Holzträger[edit]

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

I do not believe this person is notable enough to have a wikipedia page, though there is enough correctly cited information to possibly warrant the page staying FA Myn J (talk) 02:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Handball, Olympics, and Romania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Handball at the 1936 Summer Olympics – Men's team squads per WP:NOLY. Geschichte (talk) 08:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arcanum (a Hungarian - not Romanian - newspaper archive) seems to have some coverage of him, including what appears to be a feature story on him from Hermannstädter Zeitung in 1970 (decades after his Olympic participation) - it includes this image which was uploaded to Commons - I can only see a small picture of what the newspaper looks like though before I get a paywall notice so it's hard to tell - @Nenea hartia: Seems to have uploaded the image: do you have access to this source and can you determine whether this coverage on Holztrager is significant? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BeanieFan11: I don't know what to say. I think he is definitely notable for ro.wiki: he was an Olympic handball player, a handball referee and coach of Karres Mediaș (later renamed Record Mediaș), with which he won the Romanian women's handball championship 3 times.

As for Arcanum, yes, it is a Hungarian newspaper archive, but it also contains hundreds, if not thousands, of Romanian newspapers. Yes, I have access to that source and a search for 'Bruno Holzträger' returned 28 results. His name is mentioned especially in German-language Romanian newspapers. At that time, there was a significant German minority in Romania (about 400,000 people), and handball was introduced to the country by them. In the beginning, there were handball teams only in Romanian cities with a significant German population. Holzträger's name is mentioned in Neuer Weg (the main German-language newspaper), in Sportul Popular (the main Romanian-language sports newspaper), in Curentul, and other national or local newspapers, from 1948 to 1996. If you wish, you can download from here the newspaper pages from which I cropped the photos uploaded to Commons (the link only works for 6 days). 28 references might not seem like much, but the communist press, especially in the 50s, was very strictly controlled and the only 'stars' that could be written about in abundance were the communist dignitaries.

Bruno Holzträger is also mentioned many times in this book about Romanian handball players and coaches of German origin. As you can see, there are enough reliable sources from Romania, but too few international sources. However, I would like the article to be kept if possible. --Nenea hartia (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- @Nenea hartia: That book source is a nice find - with 49 mentions of him, it's almost certainly significant coverage on Holztrager; as for the others, looking at the one clipping, it seems to be mainly an interview? Unfortunately I don't think it would help much. Do any of the other matches for his name cover him in-depth? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BeanieFan11: There are a couple. Please use the same link, I have added two more files. For example an article from March 1996 called Ein Mann namens Bruno Holzträger (A man named Bruno Holzträger) or a short obituary from 1978: Bruno Holzträger gestorben (Bruno Holzträger died). Most of the others are generally mentions of him as a handball player, coach, or referee.

There could be other references to him, for example in this big Romanian newspaper archive. Unfortunately, although every scanned pdf has OCR, there is no search engine for the whole database, so a search by Holzträger's name is not possible. --Nenea hartia (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The obit is okay, but the other one is really good. That with the book is enough for notability in my opinion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the great finds by Nenea hartia, especially the book that mentions him on 49 pages and the last two newspaper articles; his obit mentions that he was one of the "greatest handball players in the world in the 1930s" and the other one is an in-depth piece on his life almost 20 years after he died. We've got enough for a pass of WP:GNG. @Geschichte and FA Myn J: BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he is clearly notable. 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian conquest of Tunisia and Tripoli[edit]

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

This article is a POVFORK and a work of fiction. it is already established in our article Abd al-Wahid Zakariya ibn al-Lihyani that this caliph took power with Egyptian support. This is not controversial. However I can find exactly zero sources discussing a non existent “Egyptian invasion of Tunisia and Tripoli.” That is a piece of authorial invention. Mccapra (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Egypt, and Tunisia. Mccapra (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Algeria, and Libya. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article is clearly trying to present Al-Lihyani's use of Egyptian soldiers as an "Egyptian conquest". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But Al-Lihyani was under An-Nasir's influence after helping him and the Egyptian troops fought against Abu Al-Baqa forces so isn't that considered a conquest? if not then just change the title of the article, I see no need to delete. 18Carlox32 (talk) 12:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly a POVFORK. Per AirshipJungleman29 too. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Toadette ^{(Happy holiday!)} 07:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Srnec (talk) 01:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Merge !votes clearly outnumber Keep. As this is not a vote, the arguments must be weighted according to their strength. Keep supporters presented a number of additional sources, as well as analysis of them. They demonstrated that the article does meet WP:GNG, which was not refuted by the Merge !votes.

Merge supporters had a number of !votes that were WP:PERX with no actual arguments. A few were even "Per X", where X was just "per Y". Some other !votes had invalid rationales, including one that incorrectly claimed there were no secondary sources. Generally, merge supporters did not adequately address the sources presented or analyzed in the discussion. However, they did make a compelling argument that the article failed WP:EVENT. This was partially addressed by Keep supporters, but not fully refuted.

As far as weighing the strength of arguments, on one hand the article passes GNG. WP:EVENT gives additional tests on top of GNG, so it must meet both. As the author of WP:EVENT, I think it probably does barely pass but the arguments that it may fail on lasting effect and persistence of coverage are compelling and were not refuted.

This AFD has been open for nearly a month, though there were issues due to the malformed listing. Another relist seems unlikely to make a consensus materialize. The best way forward is to incorporate the new sources into the article, and a future AFD (if necessary) can determine whether it meets WP:EVENT.

Disclaimer: I had my whole rationale typed up but XFDcloser ate it, so my rewrite might not be as polished. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 04:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beit Rima massacre[edit]

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

The article fails notability per WP:NOTNEWS (three sources date for the day of the event or the day after), as well as being grossly miscategorized - categories mark it as 1991 while 4 news sources say October 2001. One sentence mention in the Second Intifada article could be sufficient.GreyShark (dibra) 09:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the categories, but this is an obvious keep, and I think you would be wise to withdraw the nomination. B'tselem has a full investigation of what happened, and the Israeli cover up. They have another report that further discusses this. Their overview was "Beit Rima, 24 October 2001 discusses the IDF action in Beit Rima, Ramallah District. IDF troops entered the village to arrest persons suspected of having committed acts against Israel, primarily the suspects in the assassination of Israeli Tourism Minister Rehavam Ze’evi. During the action, Israeli forces killed fi ve members of the Palestinian security forces and wounded six Palestinians, one of them a civilian. The report focuses on some of the human rights violations IDF soldiers committed in the village, among them unlawful shooting, delaying medical treatment, and demolishing houses." Human Rights Watch also has material on the raid and the killing the Palestinians, Haaretz has an indepth review of eyewitness accounts and IDF responses. Now maybe this improperly titled, but it certainly is not NOTNEWS and passes NEVENT easily. Keep. Also this AFD seems malformed, I only came across it by seeing the page in an unrelated search. nableezy - 03:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Second Intifada -- After reading the below and reconsidering the material, I agree that a merge is an excellent AtD. I believe my reasoning here and below remain valid against a standalone article. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC) ~~Delete~~ -- If you remove WP:PRIMARYNEWS, there is only one cited RS. This was an horrific event that deserves an encyclopaedic article. The problem is that no one outside Wikipedia has written it; we follow sources, we don't lead them. To pass WP:NEVENT, you need at least some non-primary or academic sources that discuss a lasting WP:EFFECT of this event, and I fail to find WP:PERSISTENCE in the coverage over any reasonable timeframe. Outside of the singular HRA discussion, all cited sources are within a day of the event. Without better sourcing, it does not appear to pass NEVENT. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 19:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What about the sources I provided above? Notability is about the existence of sources, not the ones currently cited. nableezy - 21:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I read each of them before I posted above. The Human Rights Watch is the one that I typo'ed as HRA. The Haaretz articles is WP:PRIMARYNEWS. The two B'tselem reports are closer to what I'd expect, but don't read as either independent or neutral, which I would hope to have in an RS (and both are about a year later, with nothing after that). Even with them and the HRW report, it really doesn't look like this massacre has been even discussed in journals or other academic sources in the intervening 21 years since the B'tselem reports. It seems to have been another horrific footnote to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, much like the individual atrocities in the current war. Without WP:EFFECTS, WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:GEOSCOPE, it's hard to defend the article. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you are saying B'tselem was involved in this then of course they are independent. nableezy - 02:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is the B'tselem report not independent? Mooonswimmer 03:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with ~~2023 Hamas attack on Israel~~ Second Intifada as well as with Bani Zeid al-Gharbia. ~~Same reasoning as for WP:Articles for deletion/Ein HaShlosha massacre.~~ Owen× ☎ 20:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is about something that happened in 2001. nableezy - 21:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! I was being lazy. Thanks for pointing out my mistake! Owen× ☎ 22:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Israel, and Palestine. gidonb (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2023 (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/2023 December 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Second Intifada; does not satisfactorily pass WP:NEVENT, in my opinion, but it is close, so a merge which includes the higher-quality sources cited above would be best. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. no secondary sources. - Altenmann >talk 02:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The B'tselem sources I linked are all secondary and reliable. So is Human Rights Watch, so is Haaretz. nableezy - 02:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources that Nableezy has found above. It's used in a case study and there's been lookback articles on it. If we take those sources in a vacuum, the article is notable. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is extremely unlikely that the nominator performed an adequate WP: BEFORE, since this event is a long-term case study used in sources such as this 2014 Springer-published journal on psychological warfare: "The first major use of this theme came after an IDF raid on the village of Beit Rima north of Jerusalem in October 2001...", in this Brill source, in this 2003 report by HaMoked, etc. The WP:NOTNEWS claim is wholly untenable. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article of a highly controversial raid conducted in response to a major political assassination. In addition to the references already present in the article and those found by Nableezy and Iskandar, a simple search turns up multiple sources (ProQuest 319333583, ProQuest 319337465, ProQuest 425349073 ProQuest 413926692). I'm not sure about massacre being the correct title though, since raid and incursion are also mentioned in these sources, but this is already being discussed on the talk page. Havradim leaf a message 13:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Second Intifada, per those above Zanahary (talk) 10:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I'm not clear on notability, nor on whether the title of "massacre" is justified.[74] François Robere (talk) 10:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An inappropriate title is not a reason for deletion, and what does "not clear on notability" mean? That appears to be a non-assessment. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The inappropriate title is not a reason for deletion, but it does contrast with the lack of substantiation in the body, which is (see Last1in and AirshipJungleman's comments above). François Robere (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Second Intifada; I agree with Zanahary. EytanMelech (talk) 11:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Second Intifada. This is a relatively minor event and is part of larger events. Eladkarmel (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Second Intifada per Last1in

Justanotherguy54 (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The merger votes being provided here are thin on policy. For starters, the proposed merger target already has 74kB of readable prose, so per WP:TOOBIG is itself a candidate for trimming/splitting, not expansion. On top of this, not a single WP:MERGEREASON has been provided. There were some early merge votes that cast doubt on notability, and subsequent merge votes seem to have merely echoed that despite ample additional sourcing being provided. The latter in turn raises another point: that of the clear WP:NOTMERGE argument that is available based on the additional sourcing - that the material has plenty of room to grow as a standalone topic. So: no particular reason to merge + good reason not to merge. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Am I missing something? This seems to clearly pass GNG and the reports after the attack show a strong case for WP:LASTING. I don't think a merge is a good solution, this is not significant enough as an event in itself for a section in the proposed target, but it does have sources for content and meets GNG so a link in the proposed target to this article seems like the best way to present the material SUMMARYSTYLE.

Source eval from article:

Comments	Source
A full article from the Washington Post, clearly WP:IS, WP:RS, article unquestionably has WP:SIGCOV (16 full properly written paragraphs)	1. Hockstader, Lee; Williams, Daniel (25 October 2001). "Israelis Kill 6 in Raid on Village". Washington Post.
I have doubts about the NPOV of this source, but it is an WP:IS with WP:SIGCOV, it also is years after the event, showing LASTING.	Defending Human rights in Palestine since 1979.
A full article from the Guardian, clearly WP:IS, WP:RS, article unquestionably has WP:SIGCOV (19 full properly written paragraphs)	3. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Goldenberg, Suzanne (October 25, 2001). "Israel defies US with bloody raid for killers". The Guardian.
A full article from the New York Times, clearly WP:IS, WP:RS, article unquestionably has WP:SIGCOV (30 full properly written paragraphs)	4. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h Bennet, James (October 26, 2001). "Israeli Raid Made Village a War Zone". The New York Times – via NYTimes.com.
Didn't bother to look due to the above sources, but this is a RS.	5. ^ Jump up to:a b c Human Rights Watch. Israel, the Occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip, and the Palestinian Authority Territories. 14:2. April 2002. pp. 9-10.
A full article from the New York Times, same author as above but they are different articles (they contain much of the same info), clearly WP:IS, WP:RS, article unquestionably has WP:SIGCOV (28 full properly written paragraphs), the information that is in this article that is not in #4 above would be considered SIGCOV on its own.	6. ^ Bennet, James (October 25, 2001). "Israelis Storm Village in the West Bank". The New York Times – via NYTimes.com.

Because of the above, I just gave a cursory look at the sources Nableezy presented and they also seem to be WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth even if there are some NPOV questions. The report seems to show LASTING.
We all know NOTNEWS is interpreted and applied very subjectively, editors often disagree in gf, In this case I think the event rises above routine news.
I didn't do a BEFORE because this seems to be a keep based on the above.
I do agree the article should have a better name, the massacre was part of a larger event. I would suggest something along the lines of 2001 raid on Beit Rima, not wedded to any particular phrase, but to meet WP:PRECISE this should be named differently.

Again if I'm missing something, ping me. // Timothy :: talk 06:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Although this AFD was opened in November, apparently, it wasn't added to the daily AFD log page so this is the first relisting. Right now, opinion is divided. I'd like to see those advocating Merge respond to the source evaluation and latest arguments in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @TimothyBlue Homerethegreat (talk) 17:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Upon second revision, perhaps it is actually due and better to merge and therefore I change my vote to merge per arguments above. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Second Intifada as per ~~ AirshipJungleman29. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 03:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Second Intifada as per @~~ AirshipJungleman29 and @Oleg Yunakov. Dovidroth (talk) 12:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kiribati–Spain relations[edit]

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

This article is largely based on 1 primary source. The relations are not subject to third party coverage. Most of the interactions are in multilateral contexts eg with other Pacific Island and the EU. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 00:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Spain, and Oceania. LibStar (talk) 00:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Foreign relations of Kiribati, where it has relevance. Also because half of the page has no immediate relation to Spain. - Altenmann >talk 02:41, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Another example of the trend to build a standalone article for every combination of two nations, no matter how insignificant their connexion may be. The sources presented are either WP:PRIMARY (Spanish or I-Kiribati government press) or casual mentions that do nothing to denote notability (ref 2, for instance, which is a cool piece of trivia and not remotely related to the subject at hand). I can find no scholarly treatment of this relationship nor mentions in reputable journals. There is no info particularly worth merging. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As stated above, we don't need a page for diplomatic relations for each and every permutation of independent nations in the world. Cortador (talk) 09:34, 15 December 2023 (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. At AFD, we have discussions about deleting articles based on Wikipedia policies. It sounds like the nominator is actually arguing for a Merge which can happen outside of AFD back on the article talk page. There is no support here for the deletion of this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Book of Boba Fett characters[edit]

Per User:TNstingray at Talk:List of The Book of Boba Fett characters#Existence, I am wondering if there should be a List of The Book of Boba Fett characters page? Like obviously it has more than enough sources, but I don't see why that information could not just be included at The Book of Boba Fett itself and the character pages for the characters featured, since most of the character information here is for characters that already existed. As User:TNstingray noted, it feels really pretty much totally redundant considering we have a standard List of Star Wars characters, plus the more specific List of The Mandalorian characters, and there were no original characters from this series notable enough to receive Wikipedia pages. Boba Fett has existed for decades, Black Krrsantan and Cobb Vanth were book characters first-and-foremost (the latter mainly appearing in The Mandalorian afterward), and the Mandalorian and Fennec Shand also appeared first in The Mandalorian. The entire main and co-starring character section consists solely of characters who appeared first and primarily in other Star Wars films and shows, and told in more relevant detail on those pages, and then what is left is "Featured guest characters" and "Minor guest characters". Also this was a single-season miniseries. I don't know of any other single-season miniseries on Wikipedia to have its own list of characters page. ICOTEYE (talk) 00:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The article is very well sourced, as the nom admits, and both it and the proposed merge target are already beyond the optimal size for an article. I don't see a coherent reason for proposing deletion or merge. Owen× ☎ 00:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That is the thing. Removing the information already repeated much better on other pages, we are left only with the "Featured guest characters" and "Minor guest characters" sections, which are small enough to easily see merging with List of Star Wars characters. Like there are characters whose total screen time amounts to less than four minutes (I counted) who have three paragraphs-worth of content; that can easily be cut down. It is a very WP:FANCRUFT-ridden page, even for Star Wars character pages. ICOTEYE (talk) 01:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this is a very clear WP:DINC situation. A merge may be worth discussing, but it's not necessary as ATD or NOPAGE. —siro χ o 03:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Character lists are common and I find it hard to believe that characters from any major Star Wars production would somehow not be notable. Maybe improvement is more merited than trying to trash it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just because information is notable for inclusion on the encyclopedia, does not meant it immediately warrants its own article. I'm not quite sure what benefit this article provides that is not already covered, or could be covered, at The Book of Boba Fett#Cast and characters, List of The Mandalorian characters, or List of Star Wars characters, to name a few. Is the Book of Boba Fett so notable for its characters that it warrants a separate article on Wikipedia? I don't think so. The sourcing reflects the general buzz about a new project in a popular IP, and yet we don't have unique character articles for any other Star Wars projects (besides Mando). Yes, I am aware that WP:OTHERSTUFF is an argument to avoid. However, as someone who has tirelessly attempted to revitalize character lists for numerous franchises on the encyclopedia, I have become increasingly convinced that Wikipedia is not the place for these at all due to their tendency to accumulate cruft, and their incredible inconsistency. Instead, the subpages at Fandom (website) are the better location for these dives into minor, unimportant characters. My vote does not lean strongly in any particular direction. I just feel that the current list system has a lot of problems. TNstingray (talk) 19:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Considering this from a Wikipedia-centric point of view, keeping a narrow scope like this is a good way to keep a "real world" focus and a higher article quality, so a merge into a list with a broader scope might backfire with respect to your stated goals.

I do think there's a fair argument to merge it into The Book of Boba Fett#Cast and characters, but I don't see it as necessary as an alternative to deletion. Given that the list is more than double the length of the main article, keeping them separate may still be the right approach.

All in all, AfD is rarely the right place to have this manner of discussion, I think the talk page discussion you started—which later prompted the AfD—was indeed the right place to start. While I can't promise I'll be available, do feel free to ping me on any talk page discussions you start in these "fictional elements" topic areas, as I would like to participate and have some general ideas as to how massive franchises could be handled. —siro χ o 03:51, 16 December 2023 (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.