< December 22	December 24 >

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!} 22:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thorntons Gap[edit]

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

Delete Seems to fail WP:NGEO, cannot find any notable sources online to prove otherwise. Article has been unreferenced for 16 years. Tooncool64 (talk) 23:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 00:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The property that sources have to have is reliability.
I did consider rewriting and refactoring this, which would have involved completely overhauling and even renaming the article, from the sources that I found. Then I noticed the edit history. Written in 2007 by Djolsen (talk · contribs) this pointed to a now-defunct WWW site named djolsen that was run by David and Justine Olsen that offered tours to tourists, and the article even advertised the tours. I'm not going to waste my time rescuing an advertisement. A proper article, at least from the histories and documents that I have found, wouldn't be at this title, and wouldn't have any of this content. Delete.
Uncle G (talk) 08:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Elshad (talk) 13:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom. I could not find any reliable sources on the subject. -- Otr500 (talk) 03:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no secondary sources exist. बिनोद थारू (talk) 05:04, 30 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. Daniel (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Economic history of Azerbaijan[edit]

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

This article is currently an WP:OR essay. As it stands, it makes more sense to gradually build the "History" section of the Economy of Azerbaijan and create a standalone article if the "History" section in that article becomes large enough to warrant a standalone article. Having two separate articles on the same topic is at this point going to worsen the quality of both articles and make it harder for editors to craft comprehensive encyclopedic on Azerbaijan's economic history. Thenightaway (talk) 15:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Azerbaijan. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:OKFORK - the Economy of Azerbaijan article clearly states that it covers the present Republic (ie post-1991), that's a perfectly good dividing line. There's no doubt this subject is notable in and of itself and requires an article - the present status of the article is mostly irrelevant in terms of an AfD discussion. Moreover, there's a difference between a notable topic containing original research (which can be removed) as against an article topic which is original research. What we have here is the former, only the latter is grounds for deletion. Ultimately, AfD is not cleanup. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:24, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:OKFORK per above. This seems to fit well into SUMMARYSTYLE as a child article of History of Azerbaijan and Economy of Azerbaijan. Article definitely needs improvement but my search on Amazon and JSTOR showed works on Azerbaijani economic history that I think show this could develop into a decent article. // Timothy :: talk 07:22, 30 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. Daniel (talk) 22:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kermet Apio[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject doesn't appear to be notable. PepperBeast (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Hawaii, and Washington. PepperBeast (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft-deletion due to previous AfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:32, 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) 20:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Only website with more than a passing mention is My Edmonds News [1]; has several articles about this person. I'm not sure that's enough Oaktree b (talk) 00:02, 17 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see consistent coverage in several local outlets (Kitsap Sun, Salt Lake Tribute, Tri-City Herald, Hawaii Public Radio) that suggest he meets GNG, if narrowly. WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 02:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per user WhinyTheYounger. Subject was more of a regional comedian but has performed in 47 states and Canada, as well as Hong Kong, Israel, New Zealand, and Pakistan, and on Sirius/XM satellite radio. Subject is considered a headlining comedian and has been on Comedy Showcase with Louie Anderson. -- Otr500 (talk) 05:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per user WhinyTheYounger. His Comedy special on Youtube has 900K views, suggesting notability. BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 01:13, 30 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!} 03:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zimbro halt[edit]

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

Non-notable former station. The article says nothing of substance, and neither do the cited sources; this should be redirected to Sabor line. The author already contested my notability tag, so I am not going to redirect myself as it will surely be contested. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Portugal. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This station holds the same level of significance as all the stations along the Sabor Line, a fact that cannot be overlooked. If we were to systematically eliminate smaller stations with limited coverage from every railway line article on Wikipedia, it would lead to chaos. It's crucial to distinguish between notability and coverage; while this halt may not have garnered extensive coverage, it still serves a meaningful purpose. Deleting, merging, or redirecting this page would be unwarranted and wouldn’t bring anything positive to the website. Additionally, it's worth noting that this page is a partial translation of the original Zimbro halt article in Portuguese, which exists since 2014.V.B.Speranza (talk) 10:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen ten plus year old hoaxes get deleted. We held an RfC on train stations which closed with a strong consensus that they must meet GNG. All keep votes here ignore that in favor of made-up reasons. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Context is not a "made up reason", and while the abstract discussion about stations did indeed state they must meet the GNG every discussion since (that I'm aware of) has formed a consensus that verifiable stations should be blue links. Either the stations have been determined to meet the GNG, or the content has been merged to an appropriate broader article (if it wasn't there already). This is entirely predictable given that this is what happened in most deletion discussions before the RFC. Thryduulf (talk) 15:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending a broader discussion about all the stations on the line as it doesn't make sense to treat them individually. Ideally the Sabor Line article would contain a summary of all the stations on the line with individual articles for those where sufficient sourcing exists to sustain them (and at first glance it seems likely that this will be at least most of them). Deletion is definitely not warranted for any of them though, as they should all be blue links either as individual articles or as redirects to the line article where the content has been merged. Thryduulf (talk) 15:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:37, 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) 21:01, 16 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This nomination makes intuitive sense as a halt is a lesser station. A closer look at the Sabor line, however, reveals that the halts are an intermediate level and some of the halts had a quite elaborate built-up. The stations of least significance in Portugal are stops. There is an article on one stop along Sabor line. It would seem a reasonable AfD target. In fact, it's the only article on a stop in Portugal. The stations and halts are best kept as consequential in function and structures and with these sources. gidonb (talk) 00:53, 26 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 09:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SPINE (software)[edit]

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

A search is hard given the medicare domain and spinal surgeries, but I am unable to find anything that would convey notability to this software, nor a potential ATD. Survived PROD (courtesy @Explicit: as the only still active editor from PROD discussions) so we're here Star Mississippi 17:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. Star Mississippi 17:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As this is the only secondary source I've been able to find, and I don't think it alone is sufficient for WP:SIGCOV. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:NSOFT. On the sourceforge page it says that last update was in 2007, so this project is both dead and non-notable. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 09:33, 24 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 11:22, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marchex[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Results are limited to routine announcements and other churnalism, nothing in depth to come even close to N:CORP. Star Mississippi 18:48, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Computing, and Washington. Star Mississippi 18:48, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Tagged for notability since 2013, only survived its first nom because no one commented properly. Fails guidelines per nom. Sgubaldo (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:19, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The strongest coverage is the 2008 Bits blog piece quoting company reps on their former Cybersquatting business model, but I don't see that as sufficient to demonstrate notability; nor does their more recent focus on AI analytics appear to have demonstrable notability. AllyD (talk) 11:09, 26 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 05:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AS/NZS 3760[edit]

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

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS3959, notability not established with substantive independent sources Reywas92^Talk 20:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:GNG and WP:KITCHENSINK. TarnishedPath^talk 09:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft-deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. No third party sources provided. LibStar (talk) 03:10, 24 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 Meki. Daniel (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meki Catholic School[edit]

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

not passed WP:N. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 22:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Ethiopia. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 22:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Meki, where the school is mentioned under the Catholic Church services heading. Article is unsourced but this source verifies the school's existence and may count towards GNG.[2]. (The source is probably better referenced in an article on Ethiopia's education system.). This from from the same website also has coverage of the school [3]. Note the organisation publishing these pieces helps support students attending the school, so some may question its independence. Rupples (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and unreferenced for so many years. Suitskvarts (talk) 11:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Request relist - The week is up but I have just started looking at this. I have found a paper: [4] which talks about Meki Catholic Vicariate Schools. Reading this, it suggests there are several schools, but the page says it is the only senior high school, so it is likely that the paper refers to primary education that are feeders into this one. However it occurs to me that this may be the wrong name of the school. This may be hampering searches. This may be the only senior school in the region but it may still not be called, simply, Meki Catholic School as there are clearly many such schools. It is always harder to find information on such schools so perhaps we could have another week just to be sure that there is nothing. Having said that, at this stage, I support the redirect to Meki as an appropriate ATD that takes the reader to a page that mentions the school. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support this relist request. Rupples (talk) 10:57, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to honor the request and also because there is no consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep but Redirect to Meki would also be an appropriate outcome based on source availability. I oppose delete. Thanks for the relist and the time to research this. I have ascertained that the school is indeed known as Meki Catholic School (or MCS) despite the fact that there are Catholic primary schools in Meki. There is limited information in sources, but there are a number of research papers that mention it. I tool a look at the five most promising of these, and produced the following source analysis:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Sirfurboy
https://jriiejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/JRIIE-6-2-008.pdf	Research by the Catholic University of Eastern Africa	Published paper	~ The school is not the research subject but just one of the schools where quantitive data fed into the study.	~ Partial
https://www.dbpia.co.kr/Journal/articleDetail?nodeId=NODE02479405			~ The writer speaks of getting a job in the school but in the context of an ethnographic study of the town	~ Partial
https://search.proquest.com/openview/b7c32ea085f926e1880fcab2ac38d350/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y		A Ph.D. Thesis.	~ Meki school is one of those visited as part of the Phenomenological Study of High School Cultural Immersion Programs	~ Partial
http://thesisbank.jhia.ac.ke/id/eprint/5252	Jesuit Historical Institute in Africa	Unpublished MA thesis, which is nevertheless cited elsewhere, e.g. [5]	? Attempts to access the paper after registering for it lead to a "forbidden" message. Unable to review.	✘ No
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/lre.12111	Addis Ababa University	See https://doi.org/10.1111/lre.12111. Published by Wiley.	~ This is a study of the environmental perceptions of school students, including students at MCS. It is not about the school.	~ 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)).

What this analysis demonstrates is that the school is significant enough that it is used for surveys, data or exchange visits as part of these various research topics. The papers do not, in themselves, meet SIGCOV, because in all the cases I was able to follow up, it was hard to say that the mentions amounted to significant coverage. There was not much to build the article from, based on these papers. And this was a more general problem. Searching news sources and elsewhere, there were sources (including social media, which would be counted as self published) that showed that the school exists and and is not insignificant, but did not afford enough information to actually write an article. And that is the problem. If this school were in the US, the UK or various other localities, I think it would be a shoe-in. It would be significant enough that it would garner keep votes. But on a strict evaluation of the sources, I haven't found quite enough to demonstrate it meets GNG. So where is the problem? Do we keep too many non notable schools? Or should we presume this one is notable, even though it is still not clear what we can say about it in the article? I really don't know! So keep or redirect is fine by me, but I think delete would be the wrong outcome. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:04, 25 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. ✗plicit 01:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jonatan Oliveira[edit]

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

The subject has never been champion and lacks acheivements. In my opinion, being ranked #9 on one website in Kickboxing, a loss in Boxing with no other notable acheivements and mostly passing mentions/event results is not sufficient to meet WP:GNG and WP:NKICK. Lethweimaster (talk) 15:04, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Brazil. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:40, 19 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!} 23:13, 23 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 Dentistry. Daniel (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dental surgery[edit]

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

Delete Article appears to have major overlap with many of its referenced articles, containing no unique content about the concept of dental surgery. The article has also been unsourced for 16 years, and i cannot find any non-commercial web articles that cover this concept in depth. At this point I feel like WP:TNT is the best route to go for this article. Tooncool64 (talk) 22:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 22:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to dentistry. Left guide (talk) 23:08, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dentistry: this seems to be a content fork based on WP:SYNTH of existing articles. Owen× ☎ 13:22, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Dentistry is the best target. XxTechnicianxX (talk) 15:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 15:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate: keeping only what is under the "types". This is a common search term. बिनोद थारू (talk) 05:06, 30 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) 22:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orbada[edit]

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

Zero independent and reliable sources covering the subject. Doesn't meet WP:NSOFT. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 21:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 21:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of WP:N --Artene50 (talk) 03:25, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 01:12, 29 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. Daniel (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aviation Capital Group[edit]

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

There's no indication of WP:NCORP and I wasn't able to turn up much on a WP:BEFORE. BuySomeApples (talk) 20:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, and California. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 20:58, 23 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) 22:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Millerman[edit]

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

Absolute non-entity in academia (no position anywhere, a grand total of 2 publications on Scopus, and no citations), with a minor social media presence. Hardly merits an article. Ostalgia (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 20:11, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 20:11, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is his profile on Google Scholar and it says that he has 41 citations and h-index of 3. I believe it's too small to meet WP:NACADEMIC. Doesn't meet WP:GNG too. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 20:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for adding the categories - I'm not sure Politicians and Canada applies but I guess Academics does, even if this person is super obscure and unaffiliated with any institution. Ostalgia (talk) 20:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ostalgia, yeah, I meant to include it in the "Politics" category, not "Politicians" since he's not a politician. I'll fix it now. And since he's Canadian, I also included the discussion in the "Canada" category. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 20:36, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be absolutely clear, I was not complaining. I appreciate the help, it's my first time starting an AfD. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 20:36, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Conservatism, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:38, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. He appears to be a fascist apologist rather than a mainstream academic, so WP:PROF might not be the right standard to use. Regardless, that's a thing that it's possible to be notable for, with in-depth sources. His article lists two published books, so WP:AUTHOR would appear to be the best shot at notability, but I didn't find the published reviews that would let him pass. The Commonweal piece helps, but it's not enough by itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an WP:RS that describes him as a fascist apologist? If not, the comment should be struck. Regardless, notability is not attained. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]

I don't think there are any RS that do, but there really aren't RS covering this guy at all (otherwise we wouldn't be here!). However, in David's defense, Millerman's doctoral supervisor (they had a very acrimonious split) called him out for running w[ith] the fucking fashy [sic] grifters [6], which comes really close. It being social media, it's not something we'd use to source an article, but I'd say it sort of excuses DE's comment. Ostalgia (talk) 07:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was basing my comment on the Commonweal reference, which is titled "just call it fascism" (referring to Dugin) and says of Millerman that he "has the dubious honor of having done more to popularize Dugin’s ideas among English speakers than anyone else", "defended Heidegger and Dugin without drawing attention to their glaring moral and political failings", "treats Duginism with an alarming lack of critical scrutiny", and "popularizes modes of far-right and fascistic thinking" and that his book is "is one of the more ambitious whitewashing efforts I’ve ever read". Although I did not plagiarize the exact wording of the review, I think my wording is an accurate summary of the picture the review paints of Millerman. Whether it is actually an accurate summary of Millerman is not the point: we can only go by what reliable sources say, and that was the only source I found that appeared to have any reliability. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:42, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't pass NPROF, NAUTHOR, or GNG as far as I can tell. --Mvqr (talk) 12:58, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's many reasons. --Artene50 (talk) 03:27, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GNG/NAUTH. SportingFlyer T·C 02:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Easy call. Not notable or credible. Delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 18:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet NACADEMIC. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 15:59, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NPROF and WP:AUTHOR, with no signs of passing any other relevant standard. XOR'easter (talk) 16:28, 28 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 Euchre variants. Daniel (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Euchre variations[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article is a collection of uncited information about variations to the game of Euchre, much of which is now far better covered and cited at Euchre and Euchre variants. For example:

Dealing variations. Uncited tactical comment about Euchre with additional cards - the latter is already covered at Euchre. "Stealing the deal" is about cheating and not encyclopaedic.
McEvoy. Uncited name for term already covered at Euchre.
Farmer's hand. Uncited name for term already covered at Euchre.
Picking up the top card. Options that could easily be added to Euchre if cited.
Making trump. These are probably genuine options, but all are currently uncited.
Going alone. These are probably genuine options, but all are currently uncited.
Throw-ins. Miscellany of dubious options.
Lay-down hand. Uncited commentary, but the term is covered at Euchre.
Scoring variations and rituals. Most of this is covered at Euchre. Bermicourt (talk) 19:17, 23 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 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and United States of America. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 19:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Euchre. Per nom, mostly covered in the North American rules section of the article. ayakanaa ( t · c ) 20:04, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. ~~Ping our resident card expert @Bermicourt: in case they can save this.~~ Ooops, didn't see they nominated it. Well, this is a lost cause then --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Euchre variants (or possibly the other way around. We only need of those two pages, but we definitely need one, as Euchre is large enough already, and most people don't care about the many, many variations. And I should add that "stealing the deal" is absolutely one of those known variations, something that's legitimately negotiated by players all the time, so that should stay. William Pietri (talk) 17:44, 29 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) 22:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hellspawn (Spawn)[edit]

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

I am unconvinced this is a notable fictional topic and it fails WP:GNG. In my opinion, a Spawn (franchise) article should be created, but literally nothing from this article is salvageable anyway. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:30, 23 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 Comics and animation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG without more reliable sources talking about its reception. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not independently notable. Fails WP:GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:01, 29 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) 22:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jalaj Kumar Anupam[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:POET, looks promotional. — Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, India, and Bihar. Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nominator - several sources are paid/sponsored articles, this feels like there's some UPE happening here. Ravensfire (talk) 07:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravensfire:, You are correct. All related to this. At SPI now and requesting block through AIV due to them removing AfD notices on another page. Pinging you since I see you dealing with some of this long term abuse as well. --CNMall41 (talk) 09:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 15:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - WP:UPE involved. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 15:07, 26 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) 22:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ajit Menon[edit]

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

The ABP Reference is ABP Brand Wire frontline, downtoearth and outlook business are Website Author profiles. The subject fails to meet WP:GNG. — Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Journalism, and India. Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Paid media per WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Aronitz (talk) 13:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like a recent campaign of NEWSORGINDIA. Including this, this, and this. Unable to find anything better online. Fails WP:GNG and also likely falls under WP:PAID.--CNMall41 (talk) 06:11, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is free content, and contributors must reveal their intentions to be paid creating or editing articles. Also, it appears to be promotional and sourcing is not adequate. Therefore, delete this article. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 15:05, 26 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!} 18:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by TV9 (Malaysia)[edit]

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

Fails GNG, NLIST and WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Article is a largely unsourced programming guide for a television channel. No sources showing this meets GNG as a stand alone topic, or NLIST showing WP:IS WP:RS showing this has been discussed as a group. BEFORE found nothing but other programming guides. I can find nothing that would make this a notable list, but if sources are ever found, this article would need TNT. // Timothy :: talk 18:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and Malaysia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Three sources, multiple section formats and so many 'I think this happened' departures? This needs to be Old Yeller'ed then burned. Nate • (chatter) 03:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that this article is completely unsourced. I was into the channel so much; hence I edit this article very often until 2015 when I lost interest. Since then, these "kids" dominate the article and I don't care about this article anymore. ~~~ Khairul hazim 03:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

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!} 17:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Helene Kvint[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet the general notability guidelines, or WP:CREATIVE. I am not finding reliable sources to add to this article WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Theatre, Czech Republic, Denmark, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources or reference section in the article, every external link is a self-published primary source, and I am not finding any reliable sources. Elspea756 (talk) 19:04, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. aaronneallucas (talk) 19:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources. Even if this person is notable in Denmark or the Czech Republic, little would be lost by deleting this and starting again with some actual refs. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources or justification of notability. Easy delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 18:17, 27 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 Legislative Assembly of Zabaykalsky Krai. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:23, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of chairmen of the Legislative Assembly of Zabaikalsky Krai[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN. The assembly has no article. One of the two listed chairmen has no article, and there is no indication in the poorly written article about Anatoly Romanov that he was a chairman of this body, despite the unencyclopedic list of his credentials in the lead. Bbb23 (talk) 16:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Lists, and Russia. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 16:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The assembly does have an article, Legislative Assembly of Zabaykalsky Krai. An WP:ATD could be merging this article there. Curbon7 (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The bolded part of the lead sentence is not wikified, and I could swear the word "legislature" was red when I nominated the article. It's blue now, and I don't see any reason for it to have changed from red to blue, so I must be seeing things. :-( --Bbb23 (talk) 17:57, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're not crazy, it was red! It was using a different romanization (Zabaikalsky instead of the standard Zabaykalsky); a redirect was created to the correct article title. Curbon7 (talk) 18:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're a wonder; thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:55, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 17:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Legislative Assembly of Zabaykalsky Krai. There is not yet a reason to spinout the list of presiding officers. --Enos733 (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, the existence of such article-lists seems odd. I would place this information as a section in an article about the regional parliament. --Khinkali (talk) 23:02, 28 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 keep‎. Procedural Keep, this needs to go to WP:RFD and this article was never even tagged as being part of an AFD which makes it ineligible. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Türkiye Radyo Amatörleri Cemiyeti[edit]

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

Hello, I would like to delete this page to correct an error. The page created under the name "Telsiz ve Radyo Amatörleri Cemiyeti" should be named "Türkiye Radyo Amatörleri Cemiyeti." Therefore, I would like to move it, but since there is a redirect page with this name, I am unable to do so. Hence, it is necessary to delete this page first. Arceonix (talk) 15:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Probably RfD (redirects for discussion) is more suitable for this rather than AfD. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 16:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close: this is the wrong venue for this particular request (redirects are discussed at RfD, while requests to change article titles are handled at requested moves), and Telsiz ve Radyo Amatörleri Cemiyeti is itself still up for deletion (if it is deleted, that would render the entire matter moot — but so far the only !vote is a "disagree" by the nominator here). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Organizations, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Close per WCQuidditch. Wait until the other AFD closes before moving this to RFD if it passes. CoconutOctopus talk 11:57, 24 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!} 07:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Namek (A fictional exoplanet of Dragon Ball)[edit]

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

I don't think this page fits any of the WP:CSD criteria but clearly does not meet WP:GNG. Purely a short description of a non notable fictional planet. CoconutOctopus talk 15:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Anime and manga. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should keep that article, it's just a fictional exoplanet like the characters, and there a petition to change the name Kleper 22B to Namek — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcygnus (talk • contribs) 15:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove the AFD message from the article regardless of your opinion on the nomination, thank you. CoconutOctopus talk 16:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is an article that lacks citations and has an improbable title. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 16:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not FANDOM. Fictional articles must not be WP:INDISCRIMINATE information. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can not think of any good redirect targets but even then there is nothing to WP:PRESERVE and even then the title is to specific to be a viable search term. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:GNG. Memer15151 Chat 20:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources and no signs of notability. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:56, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: poorly cited, almost entirely in-universe perspective, and no sign of meeting the GNG. – dudhhr^talk_contribs^she_her 21:58, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Clearly fails WP:GNG, and suggesting the import of the content to a fan wiki or site. Toadette ^{(Merry Christmas, and a happy new year)} 07:00, 25 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 per WP:A7‎. (non-admin closure) Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 16:37, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Manoj (teacher)[edit]

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

Total WP:BIO failure. Disputed draftification. For the avoidance of doubt, this nomination is to delete and to consider Salting 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:A7. Absolutely no indication of importance and pretty much impossible to verify as Manoj is simply a name and there are no doubt plenty of teachers called it. CoconutOctopus talk 15:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per CoconutOctopus. ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 15:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the naming in the article may be due to that fact that "Manoj Kumar Singh" is already taken as an article title, and in fact there are several articles for people by that name. Searching for a teacher by that name, I can find no significant coverage about the person. This piece looks to be about somebody else. -- Whpq (talk) 16:04, 23 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 Democracy Collaborative as an AtD. Consensus below not to retain, but no objection to a redirect from those !voting delete. Daniel (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Generative Economy[edit]

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

There is nothing to indicate that this is a notable concept. Thenightaway (talk) 10:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and Environment. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I can find several hits on the subject in academic literature: [7], [8], [9]. However, there aren't a lot that are not closely connected to Marjorie Kelly, who coined the term, and most of those are not from the field of economics but from other disciplines. It thus seems like a bit of a buzzword that has some attention in social justice/postcolonial circles but has not caught on in economics. That's a bit of a red flag to me. But there is secondary coverage. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- There is no policy basis to delete this article. The bias in policy toward keeping tragically weak articles like this one is rooted on the idea that someone, somewhere will care enough to improve it — an apparently vain hope in this case. It's been flagged as non-notable for eight years and it's still naught more than a stub. I agree with WeirdNAnnoyed that there is some secondary sourcing, but there just doesn't appear to be anything encyclopaedic to say about the subject. Until policy evolves to deal with perma-stubs, keeping is the only option that meets Wikipedia guidelines. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Delete Only one project is on the talk page - the climate change project - I have been active in this project for a few years now and I have never heard of 'generative economy'. I cannot see this being useful re climate change so I am removing our project. If another project wants to keep it I suggest they should add themselves on the talk page. @Sadads: - you may disagree? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While WeirdNAnnoyed and Last1n suggest the sources establish notability, I am more inclined to view this term as a WP:DICDEF or colloquialism and cannot find sources establishing notability.

Linked on this AfD page, source 2 I cannot view, but 1 is not significant coverage. And source 3 defines a generative economy quite differently to what the Wikipedia article currently writes, as A generative economy results when one actor’s production leads to the creation of new innovations that were not necessarily intended by the original inventor. Although just an interview, Kelly is not even mentioned at all, leading me to believe the interviewee Youngjin Yoo believes they are actually coining the term themselves. For the term itself to be notable, there needs to be more than just a definition of the term - and all I can find are either definitions from primary sources, or definitions quoted verbatim from Kelly.

On the article, 1 is primary, 2 and 4 are not reliable even if it did previously have mention of the term, 3 which I found at a 2016 archive ([10]) is also primary, and 5 and 6 do not use the term at all.

I had a skim through a handful of google scholar downloads and I could similarly only find unrelated uses of the term as a colloquialism or definitions exactly as Kelly has defined - and neither kind of source can contribute to meeting WP:GNG. Darcyisverycute (talk) 09:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, just remembered the relevant policy for this kind of thing: WP:NEO. Darcyisverycute (talk) 09:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Democracy Collaborative: this charity is run by Marjorie Kelly who also coined the term, and promotes the concept of a generative economy. The page Marjorie Kelly is already a redir to the same target. Owen× ☎ 14:59, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Democracy Collaborative is a reasonable solution --Artene50 (talk) 03:28, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as pointed out in the first vote, it is a WP:NEOLOGISM that is only part of one researcher's personal brand and hasn't caught on. As such, all other sources with the keyword "generative economy" shown here fail the use-mention distinction, a compononent of WP:NEO. As worded:

An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy.

बिनोद थारू (talk) 04:02, 28 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. Daniel (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll-It (group)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (music). Primary purpose appears to be promoting a new group - WP:PROMO. At best, WP:TOOSOON based on the comments of reviewers while it was in draft. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 13:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Dratify as per nom. Failed WP:GNG, WP:BAND at this point of time, showing no WP:SIGCOV apart of passing mentions from R U Next's related reportings. — 🎄🎆 Paper9oll 🎆🎄 (🔔 • 📝) 14:04, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and South Korea. CptViraj (talk) 14:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This page was originally a redirect, maybe that option should be considered. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply It was a draft article which was repeatedly moved to mainspace by its creator and then draftified more than a few times by several reviewers who found it lacking. I thought a full AFD review might put the whole back-and-forth thing to some kind of end.
Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 23:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I understand. It's just when I looked at the page history, I saw that the page was originally a Redirect and just thought I'd add that fact to the discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Dratify ditto per Paper9oll. Just too soon write anything about, wait until they actually debut and such.Evaders99 (talk) 23:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG, nothing found from WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Source eval:

Comments	Source
Mill routine entertainment news for serial reality tv shows and contestants	1. "CULTURE K-WAVE HYBE's New Girl Group Final Member Lineup Revealed: Which 'R U NEXT' Contestants Made It?". International Business Times. 3 September 2023.
Mill routine entertainment news for serial reality tv shows and contestants	2. ^ Jeong, Seung-min (2023-09-02). "'알유넥스트' 여정 마무리...하이브 차기 걸그룹 '아일릿' 결성" [‘RU Next’ journey concludes... Hive’s next girl group ‘Illit’ formed]. MHN Sports / MHN KPOP NEWS (in Korean). Retrieved 2023-09-02.
Promo about video teaser	3. ^ "하이브 새 걸그룹 누구?...'알유넥스트', 티저 영상 공개" [Who is Hybe's new girl group?...'RU Next', teaser video released]. MBN (in Korean). 7 June 2023 – via Naver.
Mill routine entertainment news for serial reality tv shows and contestants	4. ^ Dash, Pratyusha (2023-09-02). "R U Next? unveils the final lineup and name of HYBE and BELIFT LAB's newest girl group". Pinkvilla. Retrieved 2023-09-02.
Mill routine entertainment news for serial reality tv shows and contestants	5. ^ Yoon, So-yeon (2023-09-03). "'R U Next?' winners form girl group I'LL-IT ahead of debut". Korea JoongAng Daily. Retrieved 2023-09-03.
Not a ref	6. ^ Circle Digital Chart:
Not a ref	7. ^ Billboard South Korea Songs Chart:
Mill routine entertainment news for serial reality tv shows and contestants	8. ^ Go, In-hye (October 10, 2023). "아일릿, 좌충우돌 첫 여행 리얼리티…'아일 라이크 잇'" [I'll-It, first travel reality show with ups and downs...'I'll Like It'] (in Korean). Newsis. Retrieved October 24, 2023 – via Naver.

Given the article history, oppose drafting but support SALTing the name so AfC needs to approve any future article. I think a review of the author's talk page User talk:ImAudrey shows they are basically edit warring the article into mainspace and the closer should take this into consideration. // Timothy :: talk 01:15, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I still stand by the opinion to draftify the article. I respect your opinion, but the reasons you gave about the cited sources seem more likely to support leaving the article in draftspace before bringing to mainspace, since the group had not debut yet and there are bound to be more details and better citations that will be added eventually, because by the time the group debuts, it will be a different situation. This is not the same as Babymonster where it had been continually in the spotlight for years and have their pre-debut activities thoroughly covered in media, which was why Babymonster can stay in mainspace long before the debut. It does not necessarily mean that an article should be deleted completely rather than drafting it, because it is, needless to say, incomplete for publication and my point is to give it a chance rather than cutting it off entirely.

--NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 08:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify will likely be notable after debut due to it being a HYBE group no need to delete and remove editor attribution. Lightoil (talk) 04:29, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify is the preferable option actually. I feel that the group had not made their official debut and hence the content was incomplete and it was more accurate to say that this is not ready to be moved from draft space. Deleting it is quite premature because there is potential for the article to meet the criteria for publication once we had more time to pass —NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 05:02, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per quality of extant sourcing presented above. बिनोद थारू (talk) 18:50, 30 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. Consensus of editors is that the sources presented here do not qualify as reliable or having significant coverage within them. Daniel (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zolbootv[edit]

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

Out of the sources in the article, only 2 are not primary sources. One is a passing mention and another is an interview. Thus, this article does not pass WP:BIO. Spinixster (chat!) 13:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Internet. Spinixster (chat!) 13:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 13:31, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand why you are nominating it for deletion. If you find problems on it, just fix it or nominate it for draft. I have similar issue with another article. Peeople are helping me to improve it via suggestion or by sending it back to draft. Why so eager to delete something that you can fix it or suggest improvement? Gologmine (talk) 14:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply because the individual is not notable. No matter the quality of the page, if it's not notable, it will be deleted. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Spinixster (chat!) 14:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have takent this article as inspiration to create Zolbootv's article. Both of them are very identical in terms of refrences and and content. Gremix's article's content mostly comes from his interview. How come this article notable and Zolbootv is not? i am very confused. Gremix's article even passed the review. Or is it something other than that? I have checked Gremix's refrences and according to you, this article is also not notable. Gologmine (talk) 18:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of WP:BASIC being met. Article quality is irrelevant to this discussion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
there is enough media coverage of him. I simply did not provide any other unneccessary sources that is nothing to do with content of article. His mere presence on yutube is more than enough. Gologmine (talk) 16:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
according to WP:Entertainer the subject qualifies more than enough Gologmine (talk) 16:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.dorgio.mn/p/147350

https://www.urug.mn/news/13083

https://isee.mn/n/13349

https://www.busguichuud.com/13424/

https://tac.mn/article/132765

https://ontslog.com/entertainment/yellow-news/7632

https://ulstur.com/archives/26924

https://www.uchral.com/archives/45816

https://m.news.nate.com/view/20230916n10742?mid=m03&list=recent&cpcd=

I have excluded his video interviews. For the record I am providing these links only to prove that the subject gets enough media coverage to to be considered as a celebrity.Not saying these links provide legit information. His youtube presence is enourmous. He is definetly a notable person as much as other Youtubers around the world. I cant believe you are denying his notability. Gologmine (talk) 16:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"media coverage" is also irrelevant to notability. What matters is coverage in reliable sources. Of that list, only one source (urag.mn) is reliable; the rest are tabloid/gossip sites. The urag.mn source does not provide significant coverage of the article subject. You say that the subject qualifies for WP:ENTERTAINER "more than enough"—can you explain how? He has not "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", and he has not "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
define "unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment". I assume he qualifies other productions?

https://isee.mn/n/13349 provides significant coverage.

https://ulstur.com/archives/26924 provides significant coverage. both of them are reliable news agency.

Dorgio.mn is realiable news agency. the rest are tobloid i agree with that. As I said these list of links is just to prove my point that he is a celebrity. He does entertainment videos on his youtube channel on a daily basis, which is watched by millions of people. I do understand that interviews dont fall into independent sources. I tottally understand that if the contents of the article should be reworked. But i dont understand why it should be deleted. I suggest you do some reasearch, before you judge book by cover as you do many times before. Gologmine (talk) 18:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://m.news.nate.com/view/20230916n10742?mid=m03&list=recent&cpcd= even korean news mention him in the article. this is not a tabloid. Gologmine (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
these list of links is just to prove my point that he is a celebrity Excellent, but completely irrelevant. Please prove that he meets WP:N instead.

I do understand that interviews dont fall into independent sources. so why have you put forward the interviews https://isee.mn/n/13349, https://ulstur.com/archives/26924 and https://m.news.nate.com/view/20230916n10742?mid=m03&list=recent&cpcd= as examples of reliable sources??? You are actively contradicting yourself. Please try and "do some research" that is more than googling a word and copy-pasting a list of links!

And no, dorgio.mn is not a reliable news agency. 30 seconds of searching shows the following tabloid articles on their website: [11], [12], [13], [14].

A repeat, just to emphasise. It does not matter how popular he is, it does not matter if you think he is a "celebrity", it does not matter if millions watch his vidoes, it does not matter if his YouTube presence is enormous. All that matters is Wikipedia's notability policy. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you dont seem to udnerstand my point.

1. less than 10 seconds I found this this articles on dorgio. In 30 seconds I will find 300 more. [1] [2] [15] [4] [5] How come these articles are tabloid? If you given a time to research the news website little bit more, this news website has multiple news section. You deliberatly found tabloid articles from tabloid article section and trying to prove that DORGIO.MN is tabloid news outlet? Just because it has tabloid article sections? if you want I can send 300 more of their articles from various sections. Contents of those articles are completely reliable, which matches to other news outlets.I was trying to prove a point that you have abias towads dorgio.mn or any similar unpopular news sources, which I noticed a long ago.

2. Please try and "do some research" that is more than googling a word and copy-pasting a list of links! Why are you assuming that I am reasearching only on google? If it were possbile to reach out my sources any other way I would have done that already. And this discussion is not about me or how I do things.

3. I put forwards those interviews to support my argument that he is notable. If you carefully read those contents in that links, they are not entirely about interview. At least that tiny amount of secondary source information would fit into independent sources category, I think. Before the interview begins, author noted that Zolboo is a famous youtuber.

4.It is a fact that he is a celebrity. it matters millions watch his videos. Aside from significant coverage, he fits into all the other categories very well.

5. On this significant coverga issue, my another question rises. I have prepared 2 examples regarding this matter. How these two articles right to exist on Wikipedia Germix and Bayantsagaan? Gremix is very identical article to Zolbootv in terms of content and refrences, still I did pass the review and no one has made a complaint. His refrences are mainly comes from interview and videos just like Zolbootv. Whats left of his refrences only hightlights his few achievments nothing more. Bayantsagaan is a legaly recognized place that deserves its own article. But how come article like this without any sufficient coverage get a right to exist. If I delete Zolbootv's unfit sources, it would look like Bayantsagaan article. Gologmine (talk) 02:33, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:34, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 06:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. None of the above references list above would meet the test of quality independent sources. There is no WP:SIGCOV on this person in any quality newspaper/media outlet even in their own country as far as I can see. Aszx5000 (talk) 16:16, 30 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 Cagayan de Oro. I'm not sure what is meant here by "retarget" as this page is not a redirect so I'll just understand this as support for a Merge to this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maximo Suniel[edit]

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

Tagged as unsourced from 2009, no effort made to both expand and add reliable secondary sources. Presumed to be notable, per WP:NPOL, are "major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cagayan de Oro or Mayor of Cagayan de Oro - my best attempts at searches in Filipino sources have turned up next to nothing beyond listings of mayors with no in-depth coverage. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:22, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Cagayan_de_Oro#Postwar_era. I've added two cites about the mayor and his role on the creation of the city there. --Lenticel ^(talk) 09:56, 25 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 Blimp. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JD Allan[edit]

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

NARTIST fail. Only plausible non-primary source has been the Scotsman. Article is citebombed to hell (for example, I don't think source 7 even mentions the same person). Fermiboson (talk) 06:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Entertainment, United Kingdom, and Scotland. Fermiboson (talk) 06:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source 7 refers to the person in the sixth paragraph. I will look to improve the article. Mister Noble (talk) 11:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Blimp, had zero significant coverage whatsoever. There isn't an ANYBIO case either, as all the coverage is of the same basic facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mach61 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion as there is an intention from an editor to improve this article during this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:49, 9 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!} 08:34, 16 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) 08:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Blimp per above. Fails BLP, GNG and NBIO. BEFORE and sources in article are not WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 00:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Blimp: found no additional coverage or evidence of notability. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:29, 24 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!} 07:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Akash Anand[edit]

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

Non notable politicians also failed Wikipedia:Notability (politics) Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 08:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 08:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 10:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and not passes NPOL. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 11:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7. Minor party functionary, no indication of importance. Mccapra (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no indication of notability according to WP:NPOL. Ira Leviton (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 23:42, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I saw below, it seems he has enough coverage both local and internationally atleast to pass WP:Basic

[16][17][18][19][20] Wasilatlovekesy (talk) 07:16, 26 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!} 07:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Humphries[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG (non-significant coverage in sources) J2m5 (talk) 08:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. J2m5 (talk) 08:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 10:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a local councillor clearly fails WP:NPOL. Most of the sources are not significant coverage of her. LibStar (talk) 03:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on GNG grounds, as a local politician who is not otherwise notable. SportingFlyer T·C 02:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Councillors are rarely notable as a consequence of doing councillor things. TarnishedPath^talk 12:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – As much as WP:SIGCOV exists, its activities are completely restricted to local politics. Svartner (talk) 02:27, 28 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 mayors and lord mayors of Parramatta. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Esber[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN (has not received significant press coverage) and fails WP:GNG (insufficient sources with significant coverage, relies largely on single source). Propose redirect to List of mayors and lord mayors of Parramatta. J2m5 (talk) 08:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. J2m5 (talk) 08:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of mayors and lord mayors of Parramatta. Djflem (talk) 08:09, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 10:27, 23 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 Leonard Blussé. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Crayenborgh College[edit]

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

Delete Seems to fail WP:GNG. Cannot find any sources online or in other language wiki to demonstrate otherwise. Tooncool64 (talk) 07:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not seeing indication that the BEFORE included a check on Wikipedia Library, so other intrepid editors who aren't going to bed in five minutes may wish to start there. I found a passing mention on JSTOR, so at least we know it's real. ~ Pbritti (talk) 07:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Netherlands. CptViraj (talk) 09:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Merge to Leonard Blussé following gidonb, see below. One of the problems is a False friend: in Dutch, college means lecture. Therefore, "Crayenborgh lecture" returns more hits than "Crayenborgh college". Many renowned scholars that are invited to the Crayenborgh lecture series later publish their lecture. See this one by Stanley Meisler. No doubt the Crayenborgh lecture series is prestigious. That said, it is hard to find an independent, secondary source.Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 21:54, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posdata: on nlwiki about Leonard Blussé it says that the Crayenborgh lecture series is terminated. I have a hard time finding which was the last one. It existed in 2009 for sure. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 01:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (selectively) to Leonard Blussé as a discontinued program of limited encyclopedic interest. The Leonard Blussé article is way too short and would benefit from one sentence with a few sources on the program. gidonb (talk) 02:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 16:05, 24 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 Rhino Entertainment. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Street Jams[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG with no sources to prove otherwise. Tooncool64 (talk) 07:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unable to find any significant secondary coverage. Left guide (talk) 07:32, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (talk) 09:04, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Rhino Entertainment, as this appears to be Rhino's product. — Maile (talk) 17:59, 23 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. If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space, contact me or go to WP:REFUND. Otherwise, I think as a draft, this article would just become a CSD G13 in six months. Draftifying is only effective if there is an editor who wants to work on a draft. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Lobos[edit]

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

Delete Seems to fail WP:GNG. The city of Lobos does not seem significant enough to warrant an entire page for its mayors. Tooncool64 (talk) 06:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Argentina. CptViraj (talk) 09:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 10:28, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: while the city of 30,000 certainly has a long history, I can't see this as anything but LISTCRUFT. The fact that none of the mayors listed have their own article here further suggests lack of notability. No point in turning this into a redirect (other than keeping history visible), as this is an unlikely search title. Owen× ☎ 14:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I may be a minority here, but I see lists of mayors as a valid WP:SPINOUT of an article for any municipality. Size of city has no basis in policy (for deletion or to keep an article). Lists of mayors are not indiscriminate and I do not think they are trivial (overcoming WP:LISTCRUFT). I support moving the article to draft space because there are no sources provided in the article. --Enos733 (talk) 17:00, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify It can't be in mainspace as an unsourced list, it's possibly a valid split if someone wants to save it, but the current article isn't good enough for the reasons previously expressed. SportingFlyer T·C 02:16, 27 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!} 05:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Liberty[edit]

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

WP:NPOL. Pretty self-explanatory. Never held elected office, no significant media coverage. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 05:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Finance, and New Hampshire. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:40, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom J2m5 (talk) 08:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete candidate for office who looking at the article very clearly fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 02:19, 27 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!} 04:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Wilhelm[edit]

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

There is no RS coverage of the subject. The subject is a non-notable consultant. Thenightaway (talk) 12:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:30, 16 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!} 05:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to be Self-promotion and publicity. This is indeed written like a résumé. I've searched Amazon.com, WorldCat, the Library of Congress, and an internet search. The titles are variations of "sustainability", and for corporate entities. His Amazon bio is an updated version of the Wikipedia one. I find no verification sourcing for the unverified sections of this article. — Maile (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a promotional resume. I don’t see that he is notable as an author, Mccapra (talk) 18:43, 23 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 per new sources added. (non-admin closure) Schminnte^{[talk to me]} 01:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FurAffinity[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject fails WP:NWEB. This article cites the subject's website and other self-published sources so there are essentially no references. I couldn't find any on a BEFORE search. This was deleted previously and never should have been re-created. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:46, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Websites. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as what does seem to be (or to have been) the most prominent website for this subculture.

I was able to find sources easily, although the more substantive ones tend to be doctoral theses rather than news articles. The site generated a bit of press due to a cybersecurity incident, and considerable mainstream press when it banned AI-generated art in 2022. It gets a lot of short mentions in the press, which I acknowledge don't count for much.

I've put some citations into the article, perhaps someone with greater interest will be able to search out better cites. Oblivy (talk) 06:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep: Supporting the reasons with that user above. Along adding my case on that nearly all furries (even myself) use this the most popular furry-based art-based website to express ourselves. As well the previous (and successful) deletion of this page happened, ~17-18 years ago, when the art website is clearly then-creation. So, let other users (both furries and non-furries, including possibly me) to find news articles that are reliable in primary and secondary levels. Despite the several flaws in that website. Chad The Goatman (talk) 04:28, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hello, I'm the creator of the article.

First off, I 100% understand why the article hasn't existed in nearly my entire lifetime because of the shocking lack of sources for a site so well-known. However, I genuinely want this up due to the fact that:

1. This is, whether some people like it or not, still the largest used furry-centric site as of 2023. It has long been a staple of the furry community and is even recognized by many non-furs (again, for both good and bad unfortunately).

2. As the furry fandom becomes more... "mainstream"(?), especially since the start of the decade, it is inevitable that there will be at least some more pages on furry-related and adjacent stuff here. So I simply thought "why not" for this.

Again, I apologize for the lack of sources. While I do believe that posts from the sites own management do count as reliable sources, at least for events that happened, I do agree that that might not be enough for this. However, despite that, I hope that people build on the article and it remains up.

- CanYouNotMyDude Ye9CYNMD (talk) 06:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are supposed to rely mainly on secondary sources, especially those subject to fact-checking (e.g., publications with editorial staff, or peer reviewed articles). The site's own words, and those of people connected to it, may be OK for some factual matters or for quotes about their mindset and intentions, but tend to be disregarded when looking at notability. We want to see that others regard the article subject as something worth talking about.

Simply hoping other people will find sources is not a strong strategy - you need to go look (as I did, and I'm not even tangentially interested in this subculture). Oblivy (talk) 10:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting so that additions to the article since nomination can be assessed to see if they provide enough SIGCOV to establish notability. This discussion really isn't about the subject matter but whether adequate independent, secondary sources can be located over the next week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fish and karate, Starblind, Tevildo, and Nihonjoe: from the prior deletion discussion. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think a deletion comment made 17 years ago is of any pertinence or relevance here. No opinion. Fish+Karate 13:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources (Vice, Newsweek) seem to be adequate. Tevildo (talk) 10:59, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as demonstrated to be covered by two or more quality sources.

The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site or trivial coverage, such as a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site, newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, or the content descriptions in directories or online stores.

बिनोद थारू (talk) 01:02, 26 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. ✗plicit 01:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mamamusic[edit]

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

Looks like an advert with a list of services. In other languages, the page has already been removed. MaxBokstf (talk) 03:48, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxBokstf (talk • contribs) 03:56, 16 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 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:29, 16 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!} 04:46, 23 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. Still not a proper deletion rationale (it doesn't really matter what has happened on the Russian Wikipedia) but unlike the other AFD by this nominator, here there is support for deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vyacheslav Maksakov[edit]

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

Insignificant filmmaker, Russian Wikipedia article deleted [21].--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 05:31, 23 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 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - the obituaries (TASS + one other I can find) do give some indication of notability, but as best I can tell there is almost no other significant coverage in either Russian or English I can see. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete. He was a dubbing director. His work didn't get any significant media coverage. --Khinkali (talk) 23:10, 28 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 keep‎. Inadequate deletion rationale from new editor Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Galina Gebruk[edit]

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

An insignificant person, an ordinary victim of the Holocaust. Russian Wikipedia article deleted [22]. --Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 03:33, 23 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 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Judaism, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:42, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT#1(b) and/or (3). Beccaynr (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In ru-wiki this article ru:Гебрук, Галина Михайловна was deleted. --Khinkali (talk) 23:05, 28 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 see a rough consensus to Delete this article on BLP grounds with a few vocal oppositions to this. Having closed the previous AFD on a very similar subject, I hope we don't return to AFD a third time to argue about Santos' misdeeds. The message I get from comments here is that there has to be a consensus on the article talk page for this sort of article split. Future attempts to recreate articles on this subject without a consensus on the talk page of the main article will inevitably end up back at AFD so please take the time to do this according to the book. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

George Santos biographical misrepresentations[edit]

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

Per this AfD of a very similar fork a few months ago. A slightly different focus, but still the same underlying BLP and POVFORK issues. Daniel Case (talk) 03:36, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a split (if you want to call it a "fork" be my guest) from the main article, George Santos. The main article has the template ((too long)). Per WP:LENGTH, when an article has over 15,000 words it "almost certainly should be divided or trimmed". To me, this seems like an obvious choice for splitting. Isabela ciao (talk) 03:54, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please reread the linked AfD. LENGTH does not trump BLP. And creating an article whose sole purpose is to aggregate bad stuff about a living person goes against BLP. Daniel Case (talk) 04:19, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems strange that content that is perfectly OK in the biographical article is not OK when split out to an article of its own. Isabela ciao (talk) 04:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, reread the previous AfD. You're missing the point. See WP:POVFORK: "This second article is known as a 'POV fork' of the first, and is inconsistent with policy: all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article." This takes on extra importance when the article is about a living person. Daniel Case (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since Consensus can change, the previous AfD is not binding. This is especially true when the previous AfD did not attract too many votes.

WP:POVFORK is a subsection of WP:CFORK. CFORK specially says that under most circumstances forks are OK. I don't see how this could be an unacceptable POVFORK given that it's the exact same content from the original article. Isabela ciao (talk) 17:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, consensus can change, but consensus cannot change policy.
The previous AfD was underlain by the summerlong talk page discussion I alluded to in my nomination, which was formally closed as establishing no consensus to split off an article like this. While that does not mean that consensus is against splitting off an article at all, it definitely does mean that consensus should be on the side of a proposed split before it is made. And since this split was made without even bothering to initiate any such discussion, it is by definition against consensus, an even stronger argument for deletion than POVFORK.
As to which, it boggles my mind that you would so completely ignore the quoted language from POVFORK. It's there for a reason. It's there because when you say "in most circumstances it says forks are OK", you should probably go to some length to enumerate those situations when they are not. POVFORK is one of them.
To keep returning to the idée fixe you have about the content being identical is to so widely miss the point I am making (nor would I be the only one) that I wonder if you are trying to do so on purpose. It is how the split article would use that content ... as basically a bill of indictment. When it is within the article, we can justify it in the broader context of a warts-and-all biography. As a stand-alone, it is as TulsaPoliticsFan} observed at the other AfD a "dumping ground", a "bad stuff about George Santos" (or in this case "lies George Santos tells or told on himself" (and would you include in that article times where his stories have checked out?). It would be by definition not neutral.
And really, there is not the urgency to make the article smaller that you seem to feel. The servers will not crash because it is too big. It is better that when we split the article, we do it right rather than do it fast. Daniel Case (talk) 19:19, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dumping ground ???

How would the split off article constitute any more of "a dumping ground" than the current section within the bio? Isabela ciao (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 10:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SPLITOUT. I fail to see how this violates BLP or POV. His numerous, brazen lies are very well-documented and well-known. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then I can only assume you're not very familiar with BLP. No one is doubting the sourcing. BLP requires, however, that we be especially circumspect for reasons beyond that. Daniel Case (talk) 16:42, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why would being circumspect make any sense when he's known round the world as a Trump-class liar, the butt of jokes by late-night talk show hosts? That horse (or rather herd) has long since left the barn. Should we also tiptoe around Pol Pot and say he made a mean fish amok? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Pol Pot's dead, and has been for long enough that BRDP doesn't apply, so any point you thought you were making has been moot from the get-go. Daniel Case (talk) 17:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Do we really need a huge list of his lies? He was a one term politician who will be largely forgotten in 50 years. Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't "[he'll] be largely forgotten in 50 years" be a keep argument to ensure that future generations remember? Per WP:NTEMP, if something is notable now, it's notable forever.

As for the size, it's all about what has been reported in WP:RS. Isabela ciao (talk) 17:19, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Wouldn't '[he'll] be largely forgotten in 50 years' be a keep argument to ensure that future generations remember?" Not really; see WP:CRYSTAL.
And in any event, yes, Santos himself will always be notable by virtue of having served, however briefly, in a national legislature (After all, we have an article about a woman who served in the U.S. Senate for one day, although to be fair that's not the only thing she's notable for). But whether that long-term notability requires a separate article on his biographical misrepresentations is an entirely different question. Daniel Case (talk) 19:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was of course referring to this article, and saying something will still be notable in 50 years is also Crystal balling, notability is not temporary, but it must be lasting. We only need a few choice examples in his bio, not every example no matter how trivial. Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I have WP:BLP concerns with a split that is "Person's biographical misrepresentations." I'd prefer to split out sections on major events he's involved in (split to election articles, the ethics report, his expulsion, specific legal cases). I will note that discussion on his talk page has not found consensus for any specific split despite the fact there tends to be consensus a split is needed. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 20:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where in WP:BLP does it say that an article titled "Person's wrongdoing" is unacceptable? Isabela ciao (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete There have been discussions at Talk:George Santos regarding a (different) page split, but there is not a consensus to do so. As it stands, the article is a copy-paste of George_Santos#False_biographical_statements, done without following split procedures in a potentially contentious case. The user who did the split left the article with this useless rump section (now reverted) rather than with appropriate summary style that includes all the main information, so this was an inappropriate content fork that hides the information from the main article rather than an agreed-upon, properly-performed split. Reywas92^Talk 04:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that what you call "a useless rump section" was an "appropriate summary style that includes all the main information". But if it wasn't you're free to improve. I don't see why that should be a reason to delete. Isabela ciao (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Slatersteven. There is no need for Wikipedia to keep a laundry list of every falsehood this guy has spun. Such details are trivial and, quite frankly, just not interesting or notable enough to warrant inclusion (see: WP:NOTEVERYTHING). We should instead focus on the most critical details (if there are any), summarize, and just leave it at that. Kcmastrpc (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as a blatant violation of WP:BLP. बिनोद थारू (talk) 04:06, 30 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 LGBT reproduction. I think a Merge is a valid closure as it was mentioned by several editors advocating deletion. As for student editors, some of their work that I've seen is worthwhile but it very rare for them to return to edit the project after the school term is over. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LGBTQ+ Production of Family[edit]

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

Per consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 8#LGBTQ+ Production of Family. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 02:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion - there's plenty of content here, but the article is very poorly-written and is redundant to LGBT reproduction and LGBT parenting. Any useful content should be merged to one of those articles, where appropriate. sawyer / talk 03:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this reads like a hodgepodge SYNTH and a content fork of several better articles we already have, including LGBT parenting, LGBT reproduction and Artificial insemination. If Fram's claim is true that entire sections were copied without attribution from those other pages, the problem is even more serious. Owen× ☎ 14:46, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Deletion - As said already by Owen×☎ and sawyer, we already have articles that cover what is mentioned on this one, making the article very redundant, if there is any new information that is properly referenced, should be merged with one of those articles. —Nanami73⚓ (talk). 15:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this article was created by a student editor. It may make sense to move this to the creating users namespace. Esolo5002 (talk) 07:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to LGBT reproduction if there is anything to merge. This is an obvious content fork. My very best wishes (talk) 02:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for either a Merge or Userfying this article to the page creator's sandbox.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:37, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: duplicate topic. बिनोद थारू (talk) 04:05, 30 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 01:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Liot Hill[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't believe that the article passes WP:NPOL. There is not much significant coverage on the subject and she has not held high enough office to warrant an article. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 02:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hi! I rewrote this article because Liot Hill is running for Executive Council of New Hampshire, along with Mike Liberty, another page I created at the same time. The NH executive council is a big deal here as it acts as a check on the state's governor, as featured in this recent Boston Globe article. Both are serious candidates in upcoming 2024 New Hampshire Executive Council election. I do understand that at this point they are only candidates. H0n0r (talk) 02:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a candidate for office does not make you notable. I would advise the editor who created this page to read WP:NPOL: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability" BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 05:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Women, Radio, France, New Hampshire, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Previously deleted, not there on GNG grounds, and candidates for office are not inherently notable as their notability is not lasting. SportingFlyer T·C 02:18, 27 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 University of California, Irvine School of Physical Sciences. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UCI Math Circle[edit]

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

Declined A7 per "a7 not applicable to schools". Personally I think a university affiliated math circle is still an organization, not a school, but I digress, here we are now.

Fails WP:NORG. No coverage found in WP:ORGIND sources. A412 (Talk • C) 01:54, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Mathematics, and California. A412 (Talk • C) 01:54, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse. I don't actually have an affiliation with the mathematics department, and I didn't know anything about this program before seeing this AfD, but this is still too close. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

comment from creator to be fair, UCI Track Cycling World Cup – Women's individual pursuit is allowed but does not show up in any major sources, meanwhile papers are written in the math circle. Ayunipear (talk) 02:55, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article makes no claim to notability, and cites no reliable sources, nor do such seem to exist. The'other stuff exists' is the type specimen of an invalid defence; likely the named article should also be deleted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not having luck finding independent sources about this, but I wouldn't yet rule out the possibility that there could be grounds to include a sentence in, e.g., University of California, Irvine School of Physical Sciences. Outreach activities include the UCI Math Circle, an enrichment program for secondary school students... or something like that. XOR'easter (talk) 10:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a sentence along the lines of XOR'easter's suggestion. It is listed in a directory of math circles[23] and a brief mention in an issue on remote math circles[24], which is marginally enough independent verfiability for a few basic facts about the organization in a sentence at University of California, Irvine School of Physical Sciences. If math circle was in better shape, that would also be a possible merge target. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 21:24, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails notability criteria. No reliable sources that are independent found. Toadette ^{(Merry Christmas, and a happy new year)} 07:37, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively per the suggestion of Mark viking above. XOR'easter (talk) 16:22, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Merge I've gone and addressed the tag issues on the article and cited two sources about the program. I can see other Math Circles being notable in the future. Dr vulpes (Talk) 18:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Added merge to vote because honestly either is fine. Dr vulpes (Talk) 18:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the sources you added and I have concerns.
- Pantano, Alessandra; Forero, Andres (2022). "Math CEO's Training Framework: The Best-Kept Secret behind the Success a Math Circle for Underserved Students -- I'm fairly certain this is about something else. https://sites.ps.uci.edu/mathceo/ ("UCI Math CEO") appears to be different than https://www.math.uci.edu/~mathcircle/index.html ("UCI Math Circle"). If you look at the math circle website, there's an external link to Math CEO, which suggests it's a different organization.
- Pantano, Aessandra; Treuer, John; Baki, Yasmeen (2022). "The UCI Math Circle: Building an online community of young math researchers. This isn't independent. https://www.math.uci.edu/~mathcircle/MCpeople.html Patanato, Treuer, and Baki all lead the math circle.
~ A412 ^talk! 18:58, 27 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!} 04:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Care in the Community[edit]

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

Very confusing article. Nominally it is about the phrase/concept of "care in the community" yet beyond the title/first line of the lead it is not mentioned at all. Most of the article is a collection of vaguely (if at all) linked topics including "community care", then descends further into talking about mental health care and reform and ongoing changes, none of which have anything to do with the specific phrase "care in the community".

Of the first 5 references cited, a Control + F search reveals that not a single one even contains the word "community" let alone the phrase "care in the community".

There is one news article which mentions this topic by name, namely this, which suggests it was a policy introduced in 1990 and scrapped in 1998, yet this article is so vague it covers a range of random mental health developments from the 1960s to 2015.

Overall, I think the problem with this article is that whilst it is nominally about the phrase/concept of "care in the community", it has essentially become about mental and social care in the United Kingdom.

It should be merged with the relevant sections of Mental health in the United Kingdom and Social care in England. Elshad (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Psychiatry. Elshad (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very heavy on OR, poorly-sourced and unfocused. While it's conceivable that an article could be written about this topic, from the sources provided I'm not seeing what we would base it on. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- You'd base it upon these, just for starters:
  - Dustin, Donna (2016). The McDonaldization of Social Work. Routledge. ISBN 9781317024347.
  - Welshman, John (2006). "Ideology, Ideas, and Care in the Community 1948–71". In Welshman, John; Walmsley, Jan (eds.). Community Care in Perspective: Care, Control and Citizenship. Springer. ISBN 9780230596528.
  - Walmsley, Jan (2006). "Ideology, Ideas, and Care in the Community 1971–2001". In Welshman, John; Walmsley, Jan (eds.). Community Care in Perspective: Care, Control and Citizenship. Springer. ISBN 9780230596528.
  - Butler, I.; Drakeford, M. (2002a). "'Mere Oblivion': The Fate of the Institution and the Advent of Community Care". Social Policy, Social Welfare and Scandal: How British Public Policy is Made. Springer. ISBN 9780230554467.
  - Butler, I.; Drakeford, M. (2002b). "'Carnage in the Community': The Christopher Clunis Inquiry 1993". Social Policy, Social Welfare and Scandal: How British Public Policy is Made. Springer. ISBN 9780230554467.
- There seems to be a distinct lack of reading books going on here. This was a major U.K. social policy spanning decades that even I have heard of, and there are books on public policy and political history coming out of one's ears on this one. Indeed, there's a three hundred page book already cited in the article at the time of nomination (doi:10.1007/978-1-349-26717-0) that spends an entire 15 pages just introducing this subject. And given that Butler & Drakeford 2002b harvnb error: no target: CITEREFButlerDrakeford2002b (help) goes into how the U.K. tabloid and other press reacted to this issue (which I also turned up in a school textbook, even) the idea that "There is one news article which mentions this topic by name" is utterly ludicrous. Then I start to turn up the journal articles, just by searching for what the school textbook (ISBN 9780435331603 p.236) said about a Times report on how "the Care in the Community had failed":
  - Warden, John (1998-12-12). "England abandons care in the community for the mentally ill". British Medical Journal. 317 (7173): 1611.
- And the Butler & Drakeford book is right, too. Because the very next result is yet another newspaper, not the Times and not the BBC:
  - Cooper, Glenda (1998-12-07). "Government ditches care in the community". The Independent.
- As I said, this is coming out of one's ears. Definitely no research being done, here. Or spotting the entire contemporary book on the subject in the references section of the article.
  Uncle G (talk) 01:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Uncle G. AfD is not cleanup and this nomination shows a decided lack of WP:BEFORE. Thryduulf (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:DINC. The article is a hot mess, but if WP:BEFORE was done at all, it was done haphazardly. I found a dozen very specific sources, many of which overlap Uncle G's, with a brief search. Also, I am seeing references for the concept of care in the community (lower case, not the programme/scheme) in non-British sources which might enable a broader article on the overall idea. Regardless, there is no policy-based reason to delete this long-standing mess of an article. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A couple more editors providing input here would assist with forming consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the somewhat generic name makes searches difficult, but a little digging through Google Scholar + other databases reveals plenty of academic coverage and newspaper coverage. Article can and should be improved, but not deleted. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:14, 24 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. It's clear that there are sources out there and I appreciate the time that has gone into tracking them down. Hopefully they will be used to improve this article. I see no support for Deletion and a rough consensus to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Martti Lintulahti[edit]

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

Far as I can tell doesn't meet WP:NBIO. Some GBooks hits in Finnish but done where he is the primary focus of anything, merely mentions. CoconutOctopus talk 15:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Iraq, Finland, and Brazil. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Of the fi.wp sourcing, the first is a three-para obituary in Helsingin Sanomat (30 November 1982). It feels a bit borderline w/r/t how much it contributes towards notability. There also looks to be a 1962 Suomen Kuvalehti biographical article which is fairly extensive at almost a full page. Facta 2001, a large Finnish encyclopedia, is also cited, but the entry could be anything from a list entry of "name (dob - dod) - job" to a larger article. I suspect the first, but have no access. The Elonet entry is a passing mention and does not contribute towards notability.
Beyond these, the newspaper archive of National Library of Finland has a ton of hits, but as one would expect from a diplomat many of these are just passing mentions (NB: links require a researcher account). Some of the more promising ones are a shorter bio in Etelä-Suomen Sanomat on his 50th birthday (25 August 1967; page 7), a bio of his family in Länsi-Savo (focuses on daughter, but has a section on him; 28 December 1963; page 4), and another bio in Helsingin Sanomat on his 60th birthday (25 August 1977; page 15). There are also shorter news'y obituaries in at least Uusi Suomi ([25]).
While big-ticket items are missing, I'd view this as dragging itself over the line of WP:GNG based on the number of medium-quality sources that go beyond passing mention. While it's unlikely to ever make it to GA, I'm having a hard time discounting every hit to the degree of claiming it'd completely un-notable. -Ljleppan (talk) 09:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the above refs, I found a dissertation that describes Lintulahti's role in Finnish-Japanese trade in some detail. Not sure whether it counts towards notability, but there is also a 140 page Master's thesis titled China's foreign relations according to Martti Lintulahti. 31.1.1967 - 1.4.1969. I browsed through some of the newspaper clips in Helsingin sanomat. Most of them are short mentions, but on 17.3.1964 there is a 6-paragraph item about him being assigned as an attaché for the Finnish olympic team in Tokyo, and being awarded a Silver Cross of Merit for Finnish Physical Education and Sports. There is also a Who's Who in Finland 1978 page about him, which provides some personal details, even though it does not count towards notability. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 12:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to find these. While Master's theses are almost never acceptable sources, PhD theses are a bit more complicated; the relevant guideline is WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Probably not the strongest notability-wise, but doesn't hurt. Kuka kukin on (Who's Who in Finland; fi.wp) probably doesn't count since - like it's UK and US equivalent - it is largely based on information collected from the subjects themselves. See the WP:RSP entries for the UK and US editions. Ljleppan (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Per WP:TNT, there is nothing of value to be kept and the text is thus in an unacceptable state. I will be watching the discussion in case it is improved. Geschichte (talk) 06:47, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to need some help understanding how this two-sentence stub qualifies for TNT. Sure, it's a stub, but that is not a valid deletion reason in itself, and all the content that exists looks perfectly reasonable to me. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:36, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftification is not deletion. It would help if the reference can be formatted to appear intelligible in the English language. Geschichte (talk) 10:41, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've formatted the reference as a ((cite book)). W/r/t Draftification is not deletion, the WP:TNT essay describes a process of blow it up and start over, i.e. completely removing all existing content. I don't see much difference between "delete" and "drafity and delete all existing content", nor do I understand why either would be appropriate here. Ljleppan (talk) 14:52, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per Ljleppan and Jähmefyysikko, there is a substantial amount of sources complementary to the subject of the article. Just needs improvements, it doesn't make sense WP:TNT. Svartner (talk) 02:12, 28 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. ✗plicit 00:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Contrada[edit]

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

Delete This doesn't seem to be notable enough to meet WP:GNG. I cannot find any sources either via google or the Italian wiki page. Tooncool64 (talk) 00:24, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Italy. Owen× ☎ 00:47, 23 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.