< February 21 February 23 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Joyous! | Talk 04:49, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Penelope Trunk[edit]

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

Fails all criteria for WP:WRITER. The majority of cited sources are primary, meaning the article is sourced mostly from statements she has made about herself. The secondary sources are of poor quality, consisting largely of blogs, opinion pieces, dead links and pages which mention her without containing substantive information. Several of the cited sources don't mention her at all and appear to have nothing to do with her. A number of statements made in the article are unverified, with cited sources that do not support the statement. Because of this, and the excessive reliance on primary sources, the accuracy and neutrality of the article is questionable. Furthermore, the are numerous WP:COI issues with this article. In [this blog post] Trunk admits that the editor of her blog edits her Wikipedia page. [The creator of this article] has contributed nothing to Wikipedia except for creating this (promotional) article and editing it once; this person may be Trunk herself or somebody connected to her. This further calls into question the accuracy and neutrality of the article. Due to conflict of interest issues, shortage of quality sources and failure to meet notability guidelines, I believe the article can't be salvaged and should be deleted. Baronet13 (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


I'm not sure if you have access to Newspapers.com, but I found this front page story about her in The Capital Times just prior to the release of her book about careers, which also mentions that she was "cited by both Time magazine and London's Guardian newspaper as a new breed of worker." That article also confirms that her birth name is Adrienne Roston. There's this article from The Arizona Star's Careers section where her blog was listed as one "5 job blogs you should be reading".

She also made international news in 2009 for a tweet she made about her miscarriage that went viral -- if you google "penelope trunk miscarriage" and you'll find articles from a multitude of publications in both the US and the UK, including The Guardian, the Irish Independent, Huffington Post, New York magazine's The Cut, Marie Claire, and scholarly articles on JSTOR, etc...

She is seemingly a go-to commentator about careers, including this article from the ABA Banking Journal about her thoughts about "the new workplace" and this article from Forbes, which also states that she is a "frequent commentator about workplace trends, and she has appeared on outlets such as 20/20, CNN, and NPR." Inc. magazine also called her arguably the world's most influential guidance counselor.

While I can find several places citing that she worked under the pseudonym Adrienne Eisen, I have yet to find a reliable source to confirm that she and Trunk are one in the same, but if true, then as Eisen she would seem to be notable in that she was one of the first people to publish a web-based, hyptertext-linked novel (titled Six Sex Scenes, described in this article from PN Review, and found archived here), which is all the more notable given that she is a woman, IMO.

In short, I vote against the article's deletion. It needs work for sure, but I think she has enough notability and coverage in reliable sources to remain. Marchije•speak/peek 01:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for finding that Inc Magazine article! She seems to really love citing it when talking to other journalists but I wasn't having luck turning up the original article itself. -- asilvering (talk) 15:52, 24 February 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 Andorran permanent representative to the United Nations in New York City. Joyous! | Talk 04:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Narcís Casal de Fonsdeviela[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:10, 22 February 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 Fender amplifiers Joyous! | Talk 04:06, 2 March 2023 (UTC). Oops that page is a redirect. Please merge to Fender amplifier instead. Thanks to Mikeblas for catching that. Joyous! Noise! 15:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fender Prosonic[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be a notable product. No references since 2015, and aside from reviews and forum posts, a plurality of substantial references to meet WP:GNG or WP:PRODUCT don't seem to be available. Mikeblas (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The entry in 365 Guitars... is a one-paragraph capsule review, so I don't think it demonstrates WP:SIGCOV. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Length is not how significant coverage is defined; it's significantly more than a trivial mention. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 22 February 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 suggests that there is not enough significant coverage from independent reliable sources provide the quality of notability for this magazine. Joyous! | Talk 05:06, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Circus Bazaar Magazine[edit]

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

Nominating because the magazine only has superficial coverage in other locations. 180.150.37.213 (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • gained significant notoriety in the country of Norway as well as abroad - It would be helpful if you could link, in this discussion, to the 3-5 best sources about Circus Bazaar (in any language). These would be sources which are about Circus Bazaar, and not about its affiliated people, published in reliable sources where neither the source nor author has any connection to Circus Bazaar. That would help participants here.
  • I don't think I understand the "extortion attempts" so won't comment on those.
  • It looks like literally all of your edits, in a number of articles, is to add content about people associated with Circus Bazaar. Do you have a connection to the subject? If so, you may want to see WP:PAID and WP:COI. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you.
    Firstly to address your last point. No.
    Is it not in the nature of things to expand beyong the created wikipedia article one would first create in order to give it strength and legitimacy? I thought this was the point. When researching one particular topic one ultimatley gains knowledge of other areas that are related, without the need for this to be due to a related interest. I chose this article for the fact that the magazine appears to have undergone a significant expansion and is now being sold accross the country of Norway. This was an obvious gap and a worthly first choice.
    With regard to 3-5 sources. Let us take the most obvious example.
    Circus Bazaar Magazine is responsible for the breaking of a huge and systematic case of police miscontuct in the country of Norway. This resulted in the prosecution of the Oslo Police District as an institution. Quite signifcant actually for a small country such as Norway. This small, new and obscurer platform documented and was the primary source of this whole (very public and controversial) social event. It investigated, advocated and ran this until its conclusion and to which a time it then syndicated all this material accross all the major news platforms in Scandinavia. All of which wrote many articles and interviewed the owner and editor on its investigation.
    Nettivisen Norway: https://www.nettavisen.no/selv-drittsekker-skal-behandles-anstendig-av-politiet/s/12-95-3680934
    Swedish National News: https://www.svt.se/nyheter/utrikes/oslopolisen-far-bota-for-tortyrliknande-arbetsmetoder
    Vice World News: https://www.vice.com/en/article/kz5maz/batons-and-starlight-tours-norwegian-police-accused-of-breaking-anti-torture-conventions
    Aftenposten Norway: https://www.aftenposten.no/oslo/i/m43O/oslopolitiet-godtar-ikke-foretaksstraff-etter-batong-episode
    TV2 Norway: https://www.tv2.no/2015/01/30/nyheter/6513993
    Point: The article in Vice World News is authored by the editor of Circus Bazaar Magazine but is obviousley edited by Vice World News Editorial Staff. Vice World News is by its very nature impartial and seperate from the subject. So I think this qualifies.
    What needs to be also understood here is that these publications in question are not generating their own news. They are not mearly interviewing the editorial staff of Circus Bazaar Magazine. All material being referenced and diseminated here is based on the investigative reporting of Circus Bazaar Magazine itself.
    Thank you and I hope this helps. Monsieur Loya (talk) 11:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clarifying that you don't have a connection to the subject. Still, sorry to say, none of those sources are about Circus Bazaar. They are primarily about a police incident, and secondarily about the witness (someone involved with Circus Bazaar). There's almost nothing about the magazine. It's great that they got such a good scoop, but there's just not enough material to write a good article without relying on passing mentions or unreliable sources. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:33, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    All these articles refer to the magazine as the creator of this story and the information in these articles are based on interviews with the editor of the magazine. Should I rather attempt to write an article specifically on this "scoop" and then use Circus Bazaar Magazine as the primary reference for this article? Or would that then attract accusations that the sources are unreliable? With all respect, I do not understand this logic. If Circus Bazaar Magazine has a sufficiantly strong reputation and credibility basis for all these long standing news sources to follow in its investigative lead and completely reference it as a publication and film production house then I think it passes the test of a platform such as Wikipedia.
    Noteriety as you seem to define it cannot be the only criteria for which an article is deserving. That wikipedia would build its credibility on something as fickle as a popularity contest does not inspire.
    If a print publication that breaks stories as significant and well referenced as this (as one example) is deprived of a position inside the world "largest and most-read reference work in history" then we, and I am afraid yourself, are not doing our job as serious curators of the historical record.
    I fundementally disagree with the sentiments here and hope my point here is taken seriously. Monsieur Loya (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have now added a further citation + quote to the article push home the significance of the case broken by Circus Bazaar Magazine.
    The United States State Department Norwegian country report on Human Rights practices for 2013 would refer to this case under "Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment" stating,
    "The constitution and law prohibit such practices. In May two Oslo police officers were filmed examining a suspected drug dealer’s mouth and throat with a thin telescoping metal baton. In response to media reports and inquiries from nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), the Oslo Police stated that such actions were legal. An earlier assessment by the Police University found the actions to be questionable since health personnel must conduct all bodily searches. The police launched an internal investigation and banned the use of the baton for mouth searches." Monsieur Loya (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    https://2009-2017.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2013humanrightsreport/index.htm?year=2013&dlid=220317&anchor=section1#section1 Monsieur Loya (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I strongly oppose the deletion of the Circus Bazaar Magazine Wikipedia article. While it may not be a global household name, the magazine has a dedicated following and is widely available online and in major bookshops in Norway (Norli, Outland). As a subscriber myself, I can attest to its high quality content and unique perspectives being presented. Just because a publication isn't (yet) a mainstream success doesn't mean it shouldn't have a place on Wikipedia. Circus Bazaar deserves to be recognized for its contribution to the cultural landscape, and deleting its article would be a disservice to both the magazine and Wikipedia readers who may be interested in learning more about it.live and let live (talk) 22:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but that "single search hit" provides only print editions of Norways biggest newspaper "Aftenposten" and is tagging the Magazine based on "yes" that byline to a photo. But what is the article about? And how many times does it mention the magazine, its investigations and a documentary it produced in the article itself?
I have linked that very article photographed and in the references above. Maybe you should look.
If my defence of this is "all over the place" then I think you should focus on the links in question. Not provide evidence of nothing.
As a matter of fact if you search the magazine in the same website you provide which is the National Library of Norway you will actually find the magazine itself. Click here....
Many of the major libraries in the country stock the magazine.
I do not want to make an accusations directly but given there is a conserted attempt to extort the magazine and this record is publically available I think is prudent to look carefully at these delete votes if they come from IP accounts with little or no edit history. Monsieur Loya (talk) 22:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Additional citiation: https://www.tv2.no/nyheter/innenriks/her-stapper-politiet-to-batonger-i-munnen-pa-mistenkt-narkoselger/6513993/ Monsieur Loya (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Monsieur Loya you can only !vote once so best to strike this additional "keep" (see Help:Cheatsheet). I will also say walls of text are unhelpful along with the extortion claims because you skewing into personal attacks and legal threats. Best to concentrate only on sources that meet WP:THREE and so far what you have provided is unconvincing in that regard. S0091 (talk) S0091 (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please point to my other "keep" vote? This is the first and only one. And in regard to extortion. Its a fact - so it needs to be raised. Thank you. Monsieur Loya (talk) 10:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have two bolded "Keep"s above. As far as extortion, I suggest reaching out to the Trust and Safety team and leave it with them to handle. S0091 (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is another user. Please retract. Monsieur Loya (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh...I see. I missed the signature. Yes, I will strike that comment. S0091 (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Monsieur Loya: That's a common problem with newspapers and magazines--the bar for notability is the same as for most other subjects, but yes, it's not as likely that other reliable newspapers or magazines will write about a competitor unless they've done something really noteworthy. But that's not a flaw with Wikipedia's standards. Without verified references, there is no basis for an encyclopedia article on a subject, regardless of the subject. --Finngall talk 19:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I can accept that but then why on earth are these not verified references? There is absolutley nothing wrong with the references. Library reference systems in Norway all show that it is a legitimately published serial publication with formal with ISBN and ISSN numbers. Plus there is a wealth of book stores accross the country selling it and they all have it on their websites for promotional purposes.
These are entirely indpendent and unbiased institutiions. Far more so than your average media house.
Do these hold weight? Monsieur Loya (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources serve two purposes: verifiability and notability. There is no doubt the publication exists, sources support that from a verifiability perspective but that is not enough to meet notability. In order to meet the notability guidelines a subject must be written about in-depth by multiple reliable, secondary and independent sources. S0091 (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The two articles from Moss Avis are based on interviews with the owner and editor of Circus Bazaar Magazine Shane Alexande Caldwell, the American Artist R.A. the Rugged Man and Julie Fillion, an SPFX artist associated with the project. They are describing two music video projects the magazine officially produced in during the covid pandemic. These were for the American artists R.A. the Rugged Man, Wu-Tang Clan and Kool G Rap.
Quote
After studying art history for five years in Tromsø, she came into contact with Shane Alexander Caldwell. He runs the Circus Bazaar Company, and in the middle of the corona pandemic, he got the American star rapper RA The Rugged Man to Moss to record a music video for the song Hate Speech .
----
Julie was given the main responsibility for the costumes and make-up. A big task for a new graduate, but Shane can't praise her enough.
- The end result was very good. It was a big project for my small company. We hadn't done so many film assignments before, but it helps when you have such good people as Julie on the team, he says.
----
- It was a lot of work, and it was also in the middle of the corona era. It was intense, and incredibly educational. What I appreciate is that I was given such free rein. Shane lets me use my own style and use the art background I have and I get to express myself creatively, adds Julie.
Shane has since also worked with the legendary hip hop group Wu-Tang Clan in New York. Julie Filion was also involved then. The former hopes that he will be able to film more in Moss in the future.
Feel free to find R.A. the Rugged Man: Dragon Fire, distributed by Nature Sounds Records on youtube where Circus Bazaar Magazine is the Major production credit on the first shot of the film.
Thank you Monsieur Loya (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Monsieur Loya please take the time to read through all the links that have been provided in this discussion. Interviews with those affiliated with the publication are not independent or secondary. Also, notability is not inherited. I will not comment further because doing so invites unhelpful walls of text. What is needed is WP:THREE which has yet to be provided. For the closer of this discussion, this is delete from me. S0091 (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I subscribe to the magazine, is this really not relevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4647:5204:0:C86E:F762:6326:30BC (talk) 12:35, 28 February 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 YesCymru. Consensus is Jobbins is insufficiently notable, but there's no reason not to merge Star Mississippi 15:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC) ETA per request at User_talk:Star_Mississippi#AfD_Sion_Jobbins, the reason I closed this as merge is that there appeared to be a desire for the information to live in the target, however some of the relevant info is there. Should this ultimately be a redirect without more info added, that would also be fine as merge quantity is within editorial discretion. Star Mississippi 16:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sion Jobbins[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NPROF, writings are not significant enough for WP:AUTHOR, so the most notable thing about this local government politician is that he recently co-founded a campaign for Welsh Independence (but no longer leads it). I attempted to initiate a discussion on the talk page but the notability banner was unilaterally removed. The page subject does get some media mentions as the Yes Cymru founder, such as a recent article in Welsh Language weekly magazine, Golwg. However, I don't believe any sources that have come to light at this stage in my WP:BEFORE or on the article amount to significant coverage. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The basics of meeting WP:GNG is that he should be 'well written about'. Sionk (talk) 00:25, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's fair enough. Titus Gold (talk) 15:21, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Assassin's Creed characters. Legoktm (talk) 05:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eivor Varinsdottir[edit]

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

Virtually the entire article is plot, so WP:NOTPLOT would apply. There are a couple of short articles in the development section, but only one is really about the character, the other is about the actors cast to play the character. Fails GNG. Onel5969 TT me 21:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haleth (talk) 16:55, 1 March 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. Nomination withdrawn by filer. Legoktm (talk) 05:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bensimon Byrne[edit]

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

Fundamentally WP:PROMOTIONAL article MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:30, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:26, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have particularly strong feelings on this article, but I created it due to the political importance and leanings of this firm, as it was the main PR company responsible for getting the current Canadian federal government elected in 2015. I believe that the firm has been discussed sufficiently in notable Canadian print media (i.e. the Globe and Mail) to warrant an article on Wikipedia. I sourced all of the content on the article page from print media, and none of it has been altered in any way to make it promotional.

ScienceMan123 (talk) 19:53, 27 February 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. Joyous! | Talk 04:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Santa's Apprentice characters[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NLIST. A fully unsourced article that i can't seem to find notability for elsewhere. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The parent page is about a incredibly minor, two-film series, and not some long-standing franchise. I don't believe there is policy or guidelines on list of character articles (outside of WP:NLIST), but these articles would most certainly fail it. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of minor fictional character biographies. Why? I Ask (talk) 00:18, 23 February 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. Joyous! | Talk 05:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Po (Kung Fu Panda)[edit]

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

Article doesn't seems to be notable. I can't find sources to prove the character's notability nor do the sources listed provide any in depth or significant coverage. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:36, 22 February 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. Joyous! | Talk 05:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daisy Taylor[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT. Please note that many of the cited sources are NSFW.

The article on the Spanish Wikipedia doesn't include any better references. A WP:BEFORE search turned up press releases and mentions of other people with the same name. Cheers, gnu57 20:05, 22 February 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. Legoktm (talk) 05:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agbiz[edit]

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

Was WP:BLARred and redirect to Ağbiz by Shhhnotsoloud with the rationale: "no mention of 'Agbiz' at Agribusiness". Per the 2021 RfC on BLARring, I have procedurally nominated this for deletion to have consensus on the page as the person who reverted edit making it a redirect. TartarTorte 20:05, 22 February 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. Please use Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. (non-admin closure) Nate • (chatter) 18:53, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Animorphs books[edit]

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

I propose mass deletion of unsourced books that are not notable by itself, only as part of the series that already has an article. Standard article looks like this one In the Time of Dinosaurs - no sources, no notability, just plot summary. Artem.G (talk) 18:13, 22 February 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 Magic School Bus. No consensus for a standalone article, but viable ATD Star Mississippi 15:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Magic School Bus characters[edit]

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

sourced mostly with primary sources that don't show general notability Artem.G (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Artem.G, per the relevant guideline, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". Your nomination, by contrast, focuses on only the state of the article. Given that the AfD guidelines provide a checklist of steps to carry out before nominating an article, what steps did you take to assess the notability of this particular topic before nominating the article for deletion? Moreover, given that you proposed deleting seven articles (1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7) with nearly identical rationales within the span of just 10 minutes (one of which has already been closed as a speedy keep), what pre-nomination steps could you have even taken in that time? --Usernameunique (talk) 08:11, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a reason. There was a message on afd talk page about these articles, and after googling for sources I've nominated them for deletion. If you want to improve article or find sources for GNG, great! If no, assume good faith. But yeah, I probably wouldn't participate in afd after that, feels like the worst place on the whole English wikipedia. Artem.G (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Usernameunique: On the contrary I think you are the WP:BITE one in this situation. Not only did this user say they would never come back to AfD because of your statement, but it also does not WP:AGF, a tenet of Wikipedia. It's fairly clear that these character articles are WP:ALLPLOT material that would need a full rewrite, so nominating a bunch of them in short succession is not even wrong. The guideline you are citing applies to the series itself, not a bunch of plotcruft written about the characters. Arguably we need more people patrolling articles that are totally unencyclopedic and unfit for Wikipedia. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm mot agreeing or disagreeing with this view as I haven't done my due diligence on it, but this would be an issue to raise at ANI and not here at AfD. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 18:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect we are WP:NOTTVTROPES Dronebogus (talk) 19:10, 27 February 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. Salvio giuliano 22:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Horrid Henry characters[edit]

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

completely unsourced, and even if the show is notable list of characters is not Artem.G (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even if there are 250 episodes of the show, almost no sources show notability of its characters. All the links I've found are either primary sources or user-generated wikis, so can't be used. See [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Artem.G (talk) 17:24, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Artem.G, per the relevant guideline, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". Your nomination, by contrast, focuses on only the state of the article. Given that the AfD guidelines provide a checklist of steps to carry out before nominating an article, what steps did you take to assess the notability of this particular topic before nominating the article for deletion? Moreover, given that you proposed deleting seven articles (1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7) with nearly identical rationales within the span of just 10 minutes (one of which has already been closed as a speedy keep), what pre-nomination steps could you have even taken in that time? --Usernameunique (talk) 08:11, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see how this can be salvageble. A single source for a trivial information point, bloat of infoboxes and entries like List of Horrid Henry characters#Dopey D… or List of Horrid Henry characters#Mouldy Myra. When the parent article (Horrid Henry) has barely any information on the books themselves, a list of characters is a red flag for me. A list of a main characters should be added at the parent article without WP:OR, but this should be deleted. Gonnym (talk) 09:28, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mega-fancruft. This is long enough to need an alphabetical directory like a glossary. Maybe a huge, sprawling, massively influential franchise like Star Trek or Middle Earth needs that, but Horrid Henry?! Dronebogus (talk) 14:54, 24 February 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 Dinosaur Train. Star Mississippi 15:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dinosaur Train characters[edit]

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

sourced only with primary sources that don't show notability Artem.G (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Artem.G, per the relevant guideline, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". Your nomination, by contrast, focuses on only the state of the article. Given that the AfD guidelines provide a checklist of steps to carry out before nominating an article, what steps did you take to assess the notability of this particular topic before nominating the article for deletion? Moreover, given that you proposed deleting seven articles (1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7) with nearly identical rationales within the span of just 10 minutes (one of which has already been closed as a speedy keep), what pre-nomination steps could you have even taken in that time? --Usernameunique (talk) 08:11, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the information we need is on the parent article, not this massive article based entirely on primary sources. Dronebogus (talk) 14:49, 24 February 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 Franklin (TV series) or a subsection therein. Adjusting the redirect, if necessary, is a matter of editorial discretion. Star Mississippi 15:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Franklin characters[edit]

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

completely unsourced, and even if the show is notable list of characters is not Artem.G (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Artem.G, per the relevant guideline, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". Your nomination, by contrast, focuses on only the state of the article. Given that the AfD guidelines provide a checklist of steps to carry out before nominating an article, what steps did you take to assess the notability of this particular topic before nominating the article for deletion? Moreover, given that you proposed deleting seven articles (1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7) with nearly identical rationales within the span of just 10 minutes (one of which has already been closed as a speedy keep), what pre-nomination steps could you have even taken in that time? --Usernameunique (talk) 08:11, 23 February 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. There seems to be some agreement that this is a borderline case with regards to GNG, but a consensus to delete clearly isn't forming. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Jacobs (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Bringing this here for discussion as this article has a long history of draft space moves, socking and COI editing. The most recent have disclosed and are absolutely acting in good faith, and I don't have an issue with @Mattdaviesfsic:'s AfC acceptance as it absolutely meets the "maybe" barrier needed for AfC. While his companies have been deemed notable (or potentially merge worthy) at recent AfDs, it does not appear to me that Jacobs is notable as a businessperson. Much of the coverage is interviews, or about his companies rather than him as a person, and I cannot find evidence he's notable outside of his work with them. Thoughts? Star Mississippi 17:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most of the references are pay-walled. The first Forbes piece is a contributor, so non-RS. The one from 1996 seems ok. On the whole, I think it's at GNG. Not a slam dunk, but we have references in enough RS to get it past the bar. Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi all, In working on this draft we went through the AfC process, and we appreciate you calling out that we are working in good faith.  I am sure I am not supposed to vote with my COI, but I thought I could provide some additional information that might help. In the AfC process, we took out some information as possibly being promotional, but maybe it would help. This information covered that he is on the Forbes Billionaire list with additional reported information about him: https://www.forbes.com/profile/brad-jacobs/?sh=49deef5820bb. He was ranked #10 on Barron's top CEO list, was named a Top CEO by Glassdoor in France and the UK. Also there are other articles where he is mentioned as well such as the CT Insiders Billionaires list: https://www.ctinsider.com/news/article/forbes-richest-2022-ct-17473008.php#:~:text=He%20also%20built%20the%20company,married%20and%20has%20four%20kids.  Do you think we should add that information back to the article? Please let me know what you think and if I can provide any additional information. Freightguy1975 (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Freightguy1975. You're absolutely welcome to vote as long as you disclose, which you have done. I leave the question as to whether that information should be added back to others to weigh in as they advised your (former) colleagues to do so and don't want to mislead. Star Mississippi 23:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page was submitted through the AfC process and approved. See above Comment. Thank you @Star Mississippi. Freightguy1975 (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I note that passing AFC does not necessarily mean that an article is notable, that would resemble using WP as a source. I also would like to as Freightguy1975 who they mean when in their comment they talk about "we". Given the low participation here, a relist seems warranted to get more opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your question Randykitty. We was just my way of saying that myself and other editors worked on the draft to get it approved in the AfC process- I didn't realize that would raise any concern. Do you have any thoughts on adding the additional sourcing materials I listed above to the article? Freightguy1975 (talk) 23:15, 22 February 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 Country Mouse and the City Mouse Adventures. Star Mississippi 15:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Country Mouse and the City Mouse Adventures characters[edit]

List of The Country Mouse and the City Mouse Adventures characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

completely unsourced, and even if the show is notable list of characters is not Artem.G (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Artem.G, per the relevant guideline, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". Your nomination, by contrast, focuses on only the state of the article. Given that the AfD guidelines provide a checklist of steps to carry out before nominating an article, what steps did you take to assess the notability of this particular topic before nominating the article for deletion? Moreover, given that you proposed deleting seven articles (1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7) with nearly identical rationales within the span of just 10 minutes (one of which has already been closed as a speedy keep), what pre-nomination steps could you have even taken in that time? --Usernameunique (talk) 08:12, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The was a message on afd talk page about these list of characters. I googled all of them, and finding no coverage I nominated these article for deletion where other people could agree, disagree, and decide what to do. The span of 10 minutes is funny - could I google them all before nominating? Nah, too complex, nobody will do it. Artem.G (talk) 08:17, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm usually on the side of lists like this, but this seems solely plot and trivia driven. Gonnym (talk) 09:23, 23 February 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

House of Vsevolod Meyerhold[edit]

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

The museum doesn't seem to be notable, all sources just say that it exists. Artem.G (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Links 1-2 are ok, 3-4 just mention that the museum exists, 5 is that 'museum will join some association', 6 is just ridiculous 'several neighborhoods are blackouted'. I didn't check links after this one. So, as I said before, most sources just acknowledge the existence of that museum, with nothing said about its history or exposition. Artem.G (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I pasted the wrong link, 6 should be [20]. ""Meyerhold's House" for me is a holy place, an island of freedom. Many great directors, like Valery Fokin, came here and “cleansed” their souls near the monument to the master, and we serve here." If we have multiple WP:RSs mentioning this museum, what are you looking for to show 'notability'? Spokoyni (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your recent expansion of the article, looks good! Now I agree that we should keep this article. And to answer your question, mentioning something doesn't make it notable if there is nothing there about the subject. Artem.G (talk) 08:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most Russian sources just state that the museum exists and you can visit it. Nothing I've seen says why is it notable. Artem.G (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Artem.G, per the relevant guideline, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". Your nomination, by contrast, focuses on only the state of the article. Given that the AfD guidelines provide a checklist of steps to carry out before nominating an article, what steps did you take to assess the notability of this particular topic before nominating the article for deletion? Moreover, given that you proposed deleting seven articles (1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7) with nearly identical rationales within the span of just 10 minutes (one of which has already been closed as a speedy keep), what pre-nomination steps could you have even taken in that time? --Usernameunique (talk) 08:12, 23 February 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. Largely based on HighKing's source analysis. Legoktm (talk) 05:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wistiki[edit]

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

Not meeting CORP. I can only find PR type pieces about the product launch or blog discussions. The company went into bankruptcy proceedings early during the pandemic, I'm not sure they've recovered either. I don't see any RS in French either. Oaktree b (talk) 17:00, 22 February 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. Joyous! | Talk 05:18, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Left Group[edit]

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

I failed to detect any significant independ coverage and thus fails WP:GROUP.--C messier (talk) 16:55, 22 February 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. to allow creator time to work on this, but consensus is clear that it does not belong in mainspace at the moment. Star Mississippi 15:21, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries and inhabited areas[edit]

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

In brief, this article is irretrievably OR.

The list claims to include "all entities with any amount of de facto autonomy and a permanent population", but it does not come close to actually doing so. If it did so, it would be so extraordinarily large as to be actively unhelpful (List of human beings, anyone?)

The article lists political entities based on a scattergun approach, using a number of criteria with no obvious connection between them. The criteria themselves are poorly-defined and not based on reliable sources. The list is internally inconsistent, treating parallel entities differently for apparently arbitrary reasons (e.g. listing some exclaves but not others, listing some autonomous parts of countries but not others). The fact that the list has ended up being called "countries and inhabited areas" - which could include just about anything - demonstrates this.

The only way of making the list consistent with policy would be to trim it down to a point where it is a content fork of an existing list like List of sovereign states and List of dependent territories. Since this is not a plausible redirect, deletion is appropriate in this circumstance. Kahastok talk 16:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I did not see this message, from the editor who created the article, until after I nominated the article for deletion. While I maintain that the article should be deleted, I think it's fair to assume that they won't be able to defend it during the current period. Happy to see this delayed if others think it appropriate as I would not want to seem to take any advantage of the earthquake. Kahastok talk 16:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1) Firstly, it speaks about the UN system and notes that there are two UN observer states but then says "1 UN non-member observer state having both de facto and de jure sovereignty: Vatican City (administered by the Holy See). While the State of Palestine is a recognised de jure sovereign state (it is also a UN non-member observer state), it is not listed in this category for lack of de facto sovereignty."
"De jure sovereign state" is nonsense, a sovereign state is auto de jure and de facto and why would you want to exclude a sovereign state to begin with?
2) OK, so where is Palestine in the list? It is between 142 and 143 and described as a dependent territory of Israel, which is just OR rubbish.
3) Palestine is made up of two areas, Gaza and the West Bank and there is an entry for Gaza at 67 describing it as a de facto proto-state in Palestine.
What shall we make of that? A part of the State of Palestine which is described as a dependent territory of Israel is a de facto proto state. Eh? OR again.
I haven't troubled to look at any other edge cases besides Palestine, I fear what I might find. Any reader will be far better served by going directly to any of the constituent lists that properly describe the entries.
As to the unavailability of the List creator, I don't mind to wait a while for their return along with an argument for why this list should stay. Selfstudier (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you perhaps give us a sourced one-sentence description of what the list is supposed to be, and how it is different from the other lists that we already have?
Bear in mind that the description in the article is clearly not correct. Even if we restrict ourselves to political divisions, "all entities with any amount of de facto autonomy and a permanent population" is far wider than the included entities section. There are over 35000 missing entries in France alone, in that French communes are political divisions, with an amount of de facto autonomy, normally with permanent populations.
Nobody argues that the list is OR because it "isn't finished". I contend that it is OR because it mixes together a number of different definitions to produce something that has not been published before anywhere else. And, insofar as the definitions are not OR, they are already covered by existing lists.
As I've said, I've no objection to this being postponed or held open a while longer than normal while you are unavailable - though note that this is not about you, it's about the article, and if others feel it has merit they will doubtless chime in. Kahastok talk 10:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also indicated above that I had no objection to waiting. You evidently did not read either comment before accusing editors of trying to "take advantage". As for "I never had time to finish it", that doesn't stack up, I suggested draftification previously at the time that the article was tagged as under construction and now the article is in mainspace, untagged. I don't think the article is salvageable so I still think deletion is the best route but a minimum solution would be draftification with a view to release when it is actually finished.Selfstudier (talk) 10:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I absolutely respect what you are doing in the earthquake zone, but there is Wikipedia:No deadline and you don’t need to publish a half-baked draft, especially a redundant and confusing one that will be viewed by a lot of people because of its broad topic matter. Dronebogus (talk) 10:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to give article creator more time to chime in.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When I read "nations that have the highest jurisdiction/power of its own area", I see a meaningless statement. Insofar as I can get any meaning from it at all, I see a proposal for a WP:POVFORK of List of sovereign states, that elevates rebel groups to the level of sovereign states.
OTOH, when I look at this editor's six total edits to Wikipedia, four of them involve putting the WP:FRINGE view that micronations are sovereign states (two on Liberland [22][23], two on Sealand [24] [25]) and one of the others is the edit above. So maybe "nations that have the highest jurisdiction/power of its own area" is intended to create a WP:POVFORK of List of sovereign states that elevates micronations to the level of sovereign states? Also possible. It might also be both. Point being that the definition is so vague as not to be useful for creating articles, and it could be used to create articles that are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Kahastok talk 18:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, you already voted once. Kahastok talk 18:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If it is WP:USERFIED you will have lost nothing and can recreate it when and if the problems with the article have been addressed (however imo the article is unsalvageable, and you will more usefully put your efforts elsewhere). Springnuts (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to Draftspace If original author's reasoning is that the article is not ready, it should go back to Draft until it is ready. I would recommend that the Draft then go through RFC process. As others have mentioned, the list is either redundant, WP:SYNTH or incorrect. My only expertise is in the Myanmar regions, where Wa State is far from the only proto-state not the mention de facto controlled areas. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 19:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you know somthing is missing or wrong, fix it. One man can't be expected to know whats going on worldwide in every situation. If you know what it should say then make it say that. 2007Gtbot (talk) 23:48, 1 March 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redeemer Christian High School[edit]

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

This was accepted through AFC with no independent sourcing, back before WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and needs evaluation now. It still has no independent sources. I've done the usual searches, and I've only come up with a couple of trivial mentions - local high school sports coverage, and snow school closure lists. This should be deleted as it does not meet WP:NSCHOOL or WP:GNG. This AFD follows a de-PROD of the article. MrOllie (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary source has been added. EpicEfeathers (talk) 13:11, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
topprivateschools.ca is user generated content and an indiscriminate directory. It doesn't make the case for notability. We would need multiple sources that meet WP:RS and contain significant coverage. See WP:THREE. - MrOllie (talk) 13:18, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 14:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Saeed Khan[edit]

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

Non-notable Islamic scholar, fails to meet WP:NBASIC and WP:GNG, had in headlines from very few media due to former PM's marriage, member of committee of a political party doesn't make him notable too. Can't find anything in RS regarding his scholarly and political services. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 06:29, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: After a delete closure on 6 February, this article was taken to DRV which closed with the outcome of relist to allow for more consideration of Urdu-language sources. I am implementing this consensus but do not have a view on the merits of the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 09:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:29, 22 February 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 National Economic Association. Viable ATD and his only weak claim to notability is with regards to his role here. Should that change in the future, it could be spun back out. Star Mississippi 14:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Angelino Viceisza[edit]

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

Searches did not turn up enough to meet WP:GNG. He has three publications with borderline citation counts, but he is the co-author on them. With an h-Index of 11, not seeing he currently meets WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 TT me 11:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I started this article because the subject will become president of the National Economic Association on February 1, 2023. Thus, before the end of the AfD period, the subject will fit criteria #6 of WP:NACADEMIC. Two years ago, I started a similar page for Nina Banks when she assumed the presidency of this same organization, and within a week the New York Times wrote a lengthy profile of her: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/05/business/black-women-economists-nina-banks.html I believe the same thing will happen with this subject. EAWH (talk) 12:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Probably best if we waited until after that happened, anything can happen between now and then and they might not ascend to the position. As it stands now, not notable. TOOSOON, but for one day, I suppose it can pass. Keep Oaktree b (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to this tweet, the subject is now President of the NEA. --EAWH (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is the sourcing, it's all non-reliable/non-neutral. The NEA website isn't really a neutral source; it would be best if this event was covered in an un-related piece of media. Oaktree b (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not the only person arguing to Keep this papge; Oaktree b also said the page was worth Keeping.--EAWH (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Keep. I agree that the president of the NEA association/group is notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is every president of every learned national society of 2000+ members inherently notable (that would be tens of thousands of people...)? What distinction do you make between "minor" and "major" academic societies? JoelleJay (talk) 02:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:05, 22 February 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. Joyous! | Talk 05:21, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Smothers Jr.[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC / WP:ENT. A contributor to the previous AfD said that major American newspapers had run articles about Mr. Smothers. Those were duplicate copies of this Reuters human-interest story. I looked for additional sources and didn't find much. Here's some trivial coverage of his band [27][28]; his father mentioned him in an interview [29]; a National Post article about the children of celebrities included a paragraph about his family situation [30]. gnu57 13:23, 22 February 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Goodies guest stars[edit]

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

This list of guest stars fall very closely to WP:NOTDIRECTORY. At the moment the list is inferior to any IMDb listing but even with added context, having a list of guest stars (either stand-alone article, or added to the parent) seems like a bad idea for this kind of show. Gonnym (talk) 11:39, 22 February 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Souk Ludhiana[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. This article has no sources from July 2011. It has promotional sentences like "is the largest shopping mall in the commercial capital of Punjab." I am unable to find significant coverage from WP:RS. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 11:37, 22 February 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eatme.io[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Listed sources and the few others I have found seem to be either not reliable, not independent or a PR. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 10:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. I don't know that one article is enough for precedent, but there isn't going to be a consensus to delete this article and I don't see a relist changing that. Star Mississippi 03:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andhra Kesari University[edit]

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

[31] It's an announcement of a college bill pass. [32] Nothing to do with notablity of college. [33] annocument, that college will open. [34] PR Material of the owner's dreamy world [35] Funding News [36] Event Based PR News [37] PR Material, Every college tries for providing job. None of them helps for notablity and pass WP:ORG Lordofhunter (talk) 03:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep: It is Notable as It's chancellor is Governor of the State himself and passes by Government of Andhra Pradesh. Misterrrrr (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC) - WP:SOCKSTRIKE - Beccaynr (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's too soon to create. Notability is not inheritance, and can't the page be notable if established by notable authority, right? Please share the source, which proves that it pass WP:ORG. Lordofhunter (talk) 09:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to do with inheritance. All to do with common sense and consensus, which has generally been that universities founded by state legislation are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:29, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But Wikipeida has it's own guidelines. Please check WP:INHERITORG If you think, sources exist, please share. Lordofhunter (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing whatsoever in WP:INHERITORG is relevant to this article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp Would you be able to locate some past AfDs or other discussions? That would help [me] in my comment — DaxServer (t · m · c) 20:56, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One that's just been closed, in fact. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:21, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:15, 22 February 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 Tenant of Wildfell Hall. Star Mississippi 15:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Graham (The Tenant of Wildfell Hall)[edit]

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

No need for a separate article. Almost all of it is simply a regurgitation of what the novel says about her. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:06, 22 February 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:01, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

West Coast FC[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no hint of notability other than the fact that it exists. Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:19, 22 February 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 Gorillaz#Band members. Star Mississippi 03:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Russel Hobbs[edit]

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

What makes this fictional character/musician notable? This article has no reception section, mentions seem in passing (fail WP:SIGCOV) or are niche reviews/comments on a piece of fiction (interview/character fictional biography) released to promote his fictional band. As such, this article seems to fail WP:GNG. A summary of this could be merged to Gorillaz#Band_members, which is very bare-bones at present. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I remember there was a deletion discussion for Noodle (from the same V-band) and I think it ended no consensus. Personally I think they should all be covered at the parent article but I would want it to be a single unified merge— having articles for some members but not others of a fictional group with only four (consistent) characters in it is kind of silly.
Dronebogus (talk) 07:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - here is the link to the prior AFD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noodle (character) (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dronebogus We have to start somewhere. It's totally plausible some of the band members are notable and others are not. The section in their article should provide a decent summary for all, and the ones which are notable can keep their dedicated articles. Not seeing anything silly here :) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:57, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per rationale above. At the very least this is a completely plausible redirect, so nomination for deletion seems to nominate WP:BEFORE. Dronebogus (talk) 07:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article has a lot of information about the character on the article and it has been lasting for 17 years, so leave it there, just like 2-D, Murdoc Niccals, and Noodle still remain on the website. RTSthestardust (talk) 21:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:ITSLONG... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:56, 24 February 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. Legoktm (talk) 05:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Latin American Foundation for the Future[edit]

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

No coverage to meet WP:ORG. Nothing in gnews and a plain Google search yields directory listings. LibStar (talk) 02:40, 22 February 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Vozul (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ana (programming language)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SOURCES Vozul (talk) 02:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Issues with verifiability and notability have been resolved. Vozul (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it fails WP:GNG. Ana is notable among a significant fraction of solar physicists, a field that is eminently notable itself, and is used by an (admittedly now small) number of them. On the other hand, other languages that served a niche market and are now never used (such as Logo (programming language)) are also notable. Ana is notable in the context of IDL (programming language) history, as it is the only known fork of that language that survives from the time when IDL was freely distributed under a proto-open-source license. One bottom-up clone of IDL, Gnu Data Language, is known to exist; IDL, GDL, and Ana form a unique group of vectorized data analysis languages based primarily on FORTRAN, but interpreted and suitable for performing vectorized operations on large data sets. IDL and GDL are widely used to this day throughout the space science community, and though Ana seems to have largely faded in recent years it formed a major part of the shift, in the late 20th Century, toward vectorized high level languages for scientific use.

The article certainly fails WP:SOURCES, but that is a good reason for it to be fixed, not for it to be deleted entirely. 216.147.124.46 (talk) 03:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that was me Zowie (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC) -- my editing skills are a bit rusty and I forgot to log in.[reply]
OK, I stepped in and added a couple of references to key papers: the Title 1989 paper that (in addition to describing several granulation results and introducing subsonic filtering) showed Ana's versatility; and the Hurlburt et al. 1997 paper that introduced the TRACE Image Viewer. Hopefully that helps with WP:SOURCES as well. Zowie (talk) 03:39, 22 February 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 is this article isn't needed. If someone wants to work on this in draft space for a potential merge, let me know. Happy to provide. Star Mississippi 03:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Culture of rice[edit]

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

Written like an ad and does not cite any sources whatsoever. shelovesneo (talk) 01:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A10, duplicates the scope of History of rice cultivation under an incorrect title. And there are major disagreements in key facts. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Original Creator here

Now, what seems to be the problem here? The article was created last night, so I'm not quite sure if it's expected to be completed in one night. Of course it won't look very good right away. I've added citations today and will continue working on the article. It was one of the articles in the requested articles list. Are we clear? Noel Malik (talk) 00:38, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noel Malik is correct in saying that is listed at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences#Agriculture, and had been there since 17:01, 24 September 2019. The request looks like this:
Nevertheless, the article covers the same ground as history of rice cultivation.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:19, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The request was based on a mistranslation of the French word "culture", which has several meanings, one of which is "farming".-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:32, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the title could be changed to be less ambiguous, but that's besides the point. the article covers the same ground as history of rice cultivation. – Couldn't this only be true if rice cultivation was a mainly historical activity? A more legitimate complaint would be that most of the information you would want on a rice cultivation article is already included between rice and paddy field. small jars tc 09:11, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Noel Malik: I'm not quite sure if it's expected to be completed in one night – the draft feature is helpful if you want to avoid this kind of scrutiny when you've just started writing. small jars tc 09:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Original creator here (again)

I'm putting a hold onto this article for now. You can decide if there's a point in producing the article if the content is already there in the History of rice cultivation article, although it doesn't make sense for a "history of rice cultivation" article to exist if there's no article on rice cultivation itself Noel Malik (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want an article on present-day rice production, it already exists at rice.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:37, 23 February 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 Rochester Institute of Technology. Star Mississippi 03:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RIT Observatory[edit]

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

I'm not getting anything that shows significant notability; almost everything is local open house announcements, and the website seems to have evaporated. There's nothing remarkable about the equipment listed (the Meade instrument isn't even their top-of-the-line). I'm also not inclined to merge it to the RIT article given that a school which has an astro department is going to have 'scopes; it's like remarking that a school that has a chem department has labs. Mangoe (talk) 01:32, 22 February 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changez Charity[edit]

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

No significant coverage to meet WP:ORG. Only 1 article links to this. LibStar (talk) 01:27, 22 February 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 Paul Farmer. Consensus is sourcing is insufficient for a standalone article. History is under the redirect if there's merit to merging sourced information as a matter of editorial discussion. Star Mississippi 03:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wingdie Didi Bertrand Farmer[edit]

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

This subject does not appear to meet the requirements of WP:BIO. The independent coverage in the article is about her late husband Paul Farmer. The other references are either primary sources or not independent. My own searches didn't turn up much better, e.g. this which is still about her husband. I suggest that we merge anything relevant into Paul Farmer. SmartSE (talk) 13:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I found more if I searched for "Didi Bertrand Farmer", although mostly passing mentioned. The New Yorker piece that I added was the best, and it wasn't much. However, I do think all the short bits of information could be combined and likely pass WP:BASIC. I found the article to be a bit bloated and I cut it down, some more editing and citations are needed, but I think the encyclopedia is better to have the article. CT55555(talk) 14:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CT55555: Thanks but that source is still very much about her husband, with mentions of her in passing. WP:BASIC still requires "significant" coverage in individual sources even if none of them are "substantial" but we can't use many small mentions to justify notability. SmartSE (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lamona: That looks to be an h-index of 7 which is a long way from meeting WP:PROF. SmartSE (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Smartse:, as I said, she is not an academic, and I wouldn't judge her on Western academic criteria. The articles are evidence of on-the-ground social research, done outside of academe. We don't have policies for that realm, but my gut is that getting published in BML and Lancet without any of the support of an academic position is worth quite a bit. Lamona (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 03:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elma S. Beganovich[edit]

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

This is partly procedural since the three !voters for keep at the previous AFD five years ago where all subsequently blocked as socks. Even despite that, I am also not seeing coverage in reliable sources as required to meet WP:BIO. SmartSE (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A Forbes contributor piece and an interview in Marie Claire, and this [38]. None of which is extensive coverage. I'd give it a weak keep if we had one decent source, but I don't see any. Oaktree b (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two of the deletes are "per nom", which doesn't address the keep argument. Two of the delete arguments are substantial, in that they attempt to analyze available sources. Both were before the keep argument, and therefore these sources should be discussed before consensus is determined.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 03:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Mission, Arizona[edit]

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

The correct name is Immanuel Mission, and it is indeed a mission, started by Plymouth Brethren back in the 1920s. I could find a little about it, though I think it comes about to the parish church level of notability. At any rate, that's a different article, seeing as how the only data from the current article that's correct and useful are the coordinates. Mangoe (talk) 20:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources I can find describe this as a private school, not a community. Maybe there are some houses around it but it’s hard to tell from what little photos there are of it. In any case the fact that no-one has caught the obvious misspelling in the title in six years is pretty good evidence this is yet another mass produced junk article about a name in a database padded out using generic information from another database. Dronebogus (talk) 13:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not so obvious, and there is no misspelling at all. The populated places database includes both "Emmanuel Mission" and "Immanuel Mission" as variant names, and always has. The existence of variant names is actually a mild positive indicator of importance and age of a rural place like this, IMHO based on my observing historic sites. St. Michael's Mission (Window Rock, Arizona) is one of three other mission schools in Apache County which are listed on the National Register of Historic Places having local significance. This one is definitely old enough to be listed, and there will be some history available about it ... from satellite view it is another isolated complex with water (in a couple ponds or tanks), chapel, school building(s), and dwellings like others I have visited in person. I can't immediately tell if there is an original building from 1924 founding date or thereabouts, and in condition justifying listing as a historic artifact evoking the long history there. In 2015 there were 74 native American, 1 white, and 1 asian children, in grades K on up to perhaps high school(?). Just a tad more info and this should be kept as a combo about a continuously populated place (people live there), a historic school, and any historic building(s). --Doncram (talk,contribs) 22:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The misspelling is obvious if you step away from GNIS and look at sources discussing it as a mission, or for that matter, if you look at the sign out front. GNIS doesn't name things; it recognizes the names that are already there and tries to eliminate those that are incorrect. By now, you and I have both had plenty of experience with GNIS fallibility, and in this case it isn't clear at all where "Emmanuel" comes from, because contrary to the the source citation in GNIS, I can find no topo map which labels it "Emmanuel" until the 2014 edition, by which point they had started modifying the maps to fit GNIS. Now the oldest map I've seen is from the mid-1950s, and it's possible that older maps might have had the wrong name. But if they did, the label was wrong then, and the later "Immanuel" label represented a (possibly intended) correction. So at this point I would say, yes, it is obvious even from GNIS's own supposed source.
As far as the possibility of NRHP listing, well, it is not listed. And if it were ever listed, well, yes, and article would be in order, but the only usable component of the present article would be the coordinates, as would be the case if the mission/school were held notable through appeal to the GNG. I looked, and I did find some info on the mission, but I just could not find enough outside interest. If you can do better, do so, and write an article on it. In these latter days, though, I have to think you are aware that "surely there are sources" doesn't cut it as an argument. Mangoe (talk) 02:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! For the record,
  • the first has a citation of a water report in 1950 about potential irrigation water from Poc Tinlin Wash near Emmanuel Mission on the Navajo Indian Reservation, which is this place;
  • the second, in "Journal of the 27th Convocation of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Missionary Diocese of Arizona" from 1919, reports on progress of an Emmanuel Mission in or near Wickenburg, Arizona (which is in Maricopa and Yavapai counties) which is >300 miles away and before this one was created, so is a different place;
  • the third shows Emmanuel Mission on a map of Land Management Districts within the Navajo Reservation in "The Navajo Yearbook of Planning in Action" for calendar year 1954, which is this place.
--Doncram (talk,contribs) 06:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I am working on getting some more info for the article. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 19:59, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This locale is notable, at most, on a regional level, not a worldwide one. TH1980 (talk) 01:07, 26 February 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Shrine Centers[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory and it lists a bunch of external links in the article. This list can be found on the Shriners International website is Wikipedia is not the place for it. Corky 00:59, 22 February 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.
More