< May 15	May 17 >

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 Russian Civil War#Anti-Bolshevik movement. And subsequently merge as appropriate from the history. The arguments against retention are stronger. They make the argument that the article violates WP:SYNTH. The "keep" opinions do not address or refute this, but argue that the topic is notable. But because that is not the reason for which deletion is sought, these arguments are beside the point and must be discounted. Sandstein 12:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Left-wing uprisings against the Bolsheviks[edit]

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

Over the years of occasionally editing this article and trying to find sources for expanding it, I've come to the conclusion that the scope of this article is almost entirely synthetic.

The article started its life as "Third Russian Revolution", which is a term that was used by anarchists of the time (particularly the Makhnovshchina and Kronstadt rebellion) to claim legitimacy for their revolts against the Bolsheviks. But since then, the article's title was changed to the much more vague "Left-wing uprisings against the Bolsheviks", a term I haven't seen used in any sources. This vague title has given way to some pretty bad scope creep, lumping together dozens of different (and sometimes opposing) movements that share little in common other than their supposed left-wing politics and their anti-Bolshevik orientation. (E.g. it currently implies a connection between the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly and later uprisings by Left SRs and anarchists, both of whom supported the assembly's dissolution)

If anybody has ideas for how to retool this article into something a bit more focused, and sources that could help with that, then I'd be happy to hear them. But as it stands, I unfortunately don't see a reason to keep this article around. I'm not sure how it can be effectively cleaned up and I don't think there's any good targets for redirect. Short of narrowing it back to the "Third Russian Revolution" scope, I'm not sure how this article can be improved. Grnrchst (talk) 09:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Russia. Grnrchst (talk) 09:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Armenia, Belarus, Georgia (country), and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I guess I may be ignorant here, but it doesn't seem like the issue of synthesis here is insurmountable. While it's certainly true that all left-wing movements (or indeed, all right-wing movements) do not share common alliance with one other, it seems like an obviously meaningful category to me. Although, looking through your edit history, it seems you may be more well-read in this area than me, so if you say that the contents of this article are really too disparate to reconcile in a single article, perhaps you are right. That said, if this is the case, I think it would be very much possible to retool the article to just be about the Third Russian Revolution; whether or not such a thing happened (clearly it didn't happen successfully) it's clear that a lot of stuff happened, and that that was a meaningful concept which people talked about and advocated for, et cetera. I think what you mentioned would be a good idea. Reworking it back to the "Third Russian Revolution" would narrow its scope to something that jp×g 05:01, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The issue is how does one categorise what constitutes a "left-wing uprising"? Both "left-wing" and "uprising" are vaguely defined here. The SRs were to the right of the Bolsheviks, Chernov himself wanted them to constitute a force against "despotism of the left and the right", and they ended up joining the White movement anyway. Is that enough to be "left-wing"? As for "uprising", does this just mean anyone that opposed the Bolsheviks in one way or another? Because the Georgian government certainly wasn't friendly with the Bolsheviks, but they never rose up against them either, they were already independent before the Red Army invaded.

The term "Third Revolution" has a narrower definition, as it was almost exclusively used by the Makhnovists and Kronstadters to refer to a revolution that would transform Russian society into a libertarian socialist one, not a reaction that would bring it back to before the October Revolution (i.e. the Constituent Assembly's goal). Even by its broadest and most synthetic definition, used by Murray Bookchin, such a "third revolution" is limited to the actions of the Makhnovshchina, Tambov Rebellion and Kronstadt Rebellion. Yet all of these are relegated to the "other revolts" section at the very end of the article. (He also gives some lesser nods to the Left SR uprising and Workers' Opposition, but ends up concluding that neither were truly "revolutionary") If one were to make a "Third Russian Revolution" article, it would be almost entirely different from this one.

But past talk page consensus already decided that this article shouldn't use the "anarchist slogan"/"propaganda term" and should instead be synthetically defined as "left-wing uprisings", which has resulted in it becoming a complete mess. Hence why I'm here. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:10, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the best target for an overview of this content? Perhaps a section of Bolshevism related to counter-movements (i.e., what the target of anti-Bolshevism would be)? czar 10:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:57, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No suggestions on keep or delete yet. CastJared (talk) 16:49, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge sourced content to Russian Civil War § Anti-Bolshevik movement, answering my own question above. This section heading looks like the natural inheritor of this overview content, which can be greatly summarized without loss of fidelity. The article isn't about a discrete event but a series of loosely connected events, making the case for a summary section rather than a lengthy topical rehash. czar 04:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support this merger proposal. -- Grnrchst (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you delete this page? It provides crucial insight into the early ussr and leftist dissent in soviet russia post russian revolution, if it needs better sourcing or formatting or rewriting or anything add notes to do that rather than outright delete it? There isnt a reason given? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.114.108 (talk) 09:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There’s plenty of verifiable sources, that support this article, plus it pass the notability guidelines. So, don’t understand the idea of merging or even deleting. Frankly, Islamism’s Hizb ut-Tahrir should be one with this deletion discussion instead. (Due to not, passing the guide lines) — 216.49.130.15 (talk) 18:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We consider each article on its own merits. There are obviously sources for the disparate events grouped under this heading but the question is what sources justify this grouping? If it's only a loose affiliation between these events, the parent article could sufficiently contain the overview, as it currently does. czar 12:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both articles needs better citations, that don’t violate WP:COI. 216.49.130.15 (talk) 22:47, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A notable article, but could be made more concise. Also, I disagree with Grnrchst in saying that SRs, which were to the right of the Bolsheviks, should not be listed as part of this page on left-wing uprisings against the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks were a far-left movement. By the same token, can nobody ever be an anti-Stalinist leftist given that they would be perceivedly more right wing than him should they oppose forced collectivisation? That's not to say though that this article couldn't do with some cleaning up though. Also the mention of the propagandistic term of "Third Russian Revolution" should be pushed down to the bottom of the lead section. It is propaganda, after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oak Pencil (talk • contribs) 12:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
216.49 and @Oak Pencil: The question is what reliable sources describe this grouping as independently notable from disparate reactions in the Russian Civil War altogether. What sources show left-wing anti-Bolshevik uprisings to be covered as a group rather than unrelated events as part of the larger timeline? This overview of could be adequately covered in the parent section, linking to all of the same breakout articles, without any loss of fidelity. czar 12:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how it meets GNG at all to be honest. There isn't significant coverage of "left-wing uprisings against the Bolsheviks" in any of the reliable sources I have available to me. I can't find anything that links all of these disparate (and often opposing) events together, much less something that conceives of them in a way that warrants its own article. I find it quite odd that issue has been taken with the "propaganda term", when that term is covered extensively in reliable sources, while this grab-bag collection of random happenings with a made-up title is seen as notable without any clear demonstration of its notability. If people that want to keep it could prove that its scope isn't synthetic, that would be fine, but I haven't yet seen anything to support this article's continued existence. -- Grnrchst (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Czar - Basically a WP:SYNTH POVfork. No doubt there were left-wing uprisings against the Bolsheviks, what's missing is any source that links them all together like this. We have number of articles like this (e.g., Afghan conflict that combines the Soviet war and the American war into a single conflict for some reason, and Iraqi conflict that does the same thing with the US war and the war against ISIS) and all they do is serve to combine the same content in two or more articles into one with no additional material except maybe some WP:FRINGE POV. FOARP (talk) 20:07, 25 May 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pytchair[edit]

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

Fails general notability. 100% pure corporate puff-piece. Only substantial contributor has a clear conflict of interest. 10mmsocket (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. 10mmsocket (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:44, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on basis that entire article written by undisclosed COI. Jack4576 (talk) 08:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (barely): Needs cleanup, rhis is a three paragraph article at most, but it meets GNG. [1], [2], [3]. // Timothy :: talk 21:08, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG as an aircraft due to ITV and BBC coverage at least WP:PROMO issues can be dealt with through normal editing. FOARP (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes GNG without a doubt. Article needs a bit of cleanup for improvement, but is clearly worth keeping in my opinion. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I cleaned up the article. Still more to be done. I think the registration and ownership info in the infobox should be removed, it is unsourced, but I imagine someone could find this info in a database, so I marked it cn. // Timothy :: talk 02:27, 24 May 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. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 05:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Watsco[edit]

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

Appears to fail NCORP. Nothing but routine business coverage seems to show up. Valereee (talk) 14:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. Valereee (talk) 14:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. This earlier version was significantly longer. Most companies traded on a major stock exchange are likely to be notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:00, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:43, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The arguments to delete are both numerically predominant and stronger from a policy perspective. While we do embrace bibliographies as valid encyclopedia articles, we do not have bibliographies corresponding to every biography of a published author or academic; indeed authors with separate bibliographies are the exception, not the norm. All of which is to say the need for a bibliography needs to be established on a case-by-case basis. The relevant policies are WP:SIZE, WP:DUE, WP:NOTDATABASE, and WP:NOTPROMO. The last two are particularly applicable to prolific academics, for whom exhaustive bibliographies may extend into hundreds of entries. Those arguing to keep this page have not justified the need for either an exhaustive bibliography or a standalone bibliography, and as such I find a clear consensus to delete. I would be willing to provide a userspace or draftspace copy upon request, but I would remind anyone looking to merge content from it of the need to comply with WP:DUE. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Murray Rothbard bibliography[edit]

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

This recently created article duplicates and adds to the external links in the "Works" section of the article about Murray Rothbard, who was an anarcho-capitalist writer, activist, and heterodox economist. It is unclear what criteria have been used to select the additional external links to the works. The article lacks the independent RS references or commentary that WP:NOTDATABASE recommends, but instead lists some WP:SPS as sources at the end. There have been no discussions on the main Rothbard article's talk page about this mostly duplicative new article. Llll5032 (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 April 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:LIST and WP:NOTDATABASE. Most important works should go in Murray Rothbard and individual works should be their own article of notable but this appears just indiscriminate. Better suited for Wikidata ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 07:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Neighborhood Review could use some help with formatting this bibliography - and there are multiple styles of it in Wikipedia. However, per Category:Bibliographies of people, Wikipedia embraces these lists, and we should not delete it. — Maile (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the list of bibliographies, is there policy guidance about when a separate bibliography page is warranted and when it is ruled out by too much WP:OVERLAP with an existing article? Which WP:LISTCRITERIA ("unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources") would you use to select published works by the subject? Llll5032 (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not mine to select. The above author is a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies, which has guidelines and a talk page. — Maile (talk) 01:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the helpful guidelines link. Perhaps its section on author bibliographies may offer some guidance. This bibliography's large WP:OVERLAP with the main article, lack of third-party sources for inclusion, and lack of contextual information are still concerns. I do not know if the article editor has consulted anyone in the WikiProject about these questions. Perhaps this AfD could be brought to the project's attention. Llll5032 (talk) 02:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to post your comments on the talk page of that project. I think it's important to know - for you and everyone else - that bibliographical lists are an accepted part of Wikipedia. And like everything else on Wikipedia, some of them land not so perfect and have to be worked on. That doesn't mean they should be deleted, anymore than a stub article should be deleted because it needs work. In fact, if you scroll down that project's page, you will see that many bibliographies attained Feature List status. And selected Feature Lists rotate with Featured Picture for a main page appearance. So, bibliographies of all stages of improvement are accepted on Wikipedia. That project sure doesn't need me to tell them anything. — Maile (talk) 03:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Maile! The bibliography project doesn't get much love. I appreciate you! Neighborhood Review (talk) 04:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks to all for your input so far. As mentioned above, I created the article. My primary interest in editing Wikipedia is bibliographies and formatting references and as Maile pointed out, I try to contribute to the work outlined at Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies. I believe the bibliography of Murray Rothbard meets all of the criteria laid out by the project in terms of notability and discussion in reliable and academic sources. I also think the concerns raised by Llll5032 and Shushugah are explained by the incomplete nature of the page at the moment. As outlined by the project, a bibliography page is intended to eventually contain all works by that author, and until that point the inclusion of new material will necessarily be relatively indiscriminate. Each work listed in the bibliography does not need to meet individual standards of notability; the notability of the author and their body of work as a whole is the standard which must be met. It is also the case that new, stand-alone bibliographies tend to be duplicative from the listed works on the subject page until the new page reaches such a stage of completion that justifies replacing the listed works on the subject page with a link to the stand-alone list. That seems to be the nature of the bibliography project unfortunately, but if anyone would like to point to an example of a shortcoming relative to a better example on another bibliography page, that would be helpful. Thanks again to everyone interested this discussion! Neighborhood Review (talk) 04:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding, Neighborhood Review. Re your explanation, "As outlined by the project, a bibliography page is intended to eventually contain all works by that author, and until that point the inclusion of new material will necessarily be relatively indiscriminate":

Can you please quote your source for that sentence and its logic from the Bibliography WikiProject? I don't see where a bibliography is outlined by the project to contain all works (including correspondence, contributions and monographs) and how it could justify relatively indiscriminate choices from all those works. Please cite. Llll5032 (talk) 06:56, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Notability of lists (whether titled as 'List of Xs' or 'Xs') is based on the group. A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." This passage explains that any published work relevant to the list subject, in this case Murray Rothbard, is not required to meet individual standards of notability. Notability standards here are group-based. Also, "For a bibliography on a topic to be notable, the members of that bibliography should be discussed as a group in reliable sources. This discussion may take the form of a published standalone bibliography on the topic, a bibliography in a published reliable source on the topic or recommendations for further reading on the topic published in a reliable source on the topic." This passage points out that the cited sources on the page demonstrate adequate notability for the list as a whole. And to address your last question, when I mentioned the indiscriminate inclusion of new material, I wasn't referring to the selection of material, I am simply saying the order in which new material is added to the page as it grows is not necessarily deliberate. It is understood to be under construction. Neighborhood Review (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those quotes note the topic should be "discussed as a group in reliable sources". But the sources you cited at the end of the article are all self-published sources. Did you consider basing the list on the best reliable sources instead? Llll5032 (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As an academic, Google Scholar suffices as a fairly complete list of his works. The most important works can be in the biographical article. I see no reason for an attempt at a complete, separate list. To my mind, this person rises no further than most academics on WP, and we just do not attempt full publication lists for that category. The publications list on the biographical article serve mainly to justify the person's NACADEMIC status and should consist of the most important writings. Including minor writings is not terribly useful. Lamona (talk) 16:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That seems fair to me, thanks for your input. Neighborhood Review (talk) 02:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This fails WP:LIST, WP:NOTDATABASE, and WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Not everything is WP:ITSUSEFUL. CastJared (talk) 07:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion - @Neighborhood Review and Llll5032: Having read Murray Rothbard as well as the list up for deletion here, I have a suggestion for a possible compromise that tidy up both, while leaving both intact. Neighborhood Review what I suggest is to give your list a substantive lead paragraph, containing enough info so the reader knows at a glance who the subject is that deserves this list. Llll5032, It's a very long article - the reader would probably appreciate the Works section being only a sentence or two, with a link to stand-alone bibliography. Really and truly, what the two of you have come up with is just too lengthy for one article. But it would work pretty good as a stand-alone bio, and a stand-alone works list. — Maile (talk) 19:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, Murray Rothbard article needs third-party citations and replace self-published citations. CastJared (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So it seems. The original creator of the article has not edited since Oct 2001. Looks to me like Llll5032 is working hard to revamp and save the article. — Maile (talk) 23:47, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Maile66 and CastJared. Some sources from inside Rothbard's movement appear reliable for details about his life, and I have tried to incorporate more of those in the Murray Rothbard article. However, I have not found WP:INDY RS from outside Rothbard's movement that much discuss his individual works-- which appears to rule out their suitability for a separate bibliography page. That is why I favor the suggestions of Shushugah and Lamona. His discussed works could be kept in context on the Murray Rothbard page (with some objective selection criteria), instead of having a separate bibliography article. Llll5032 (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adding: Lack of independent RS is a problem in the other Wikipedia articles about Rothbard's works as well. Almost all their citations are to the Mises Institute think tank (he was its founding vice president) and other SPS. Llll5032 (talk) 10:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion about the proposed solution would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Category:Bibliographies of people Nswix (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see the need for a separate list of bibliography when Template:Murray Rothbard already exist. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 19:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:REDUNDANTFORK. The article already contains a bibliography and Template, as noted, and this page isn't required. — Amakuru (talk) 07:37, 31 May 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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Mann (oncologist)[edit]

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

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

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

An orphan article. Could not find indepth coverage to meet WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF as an academic. LibStar (talk) 23:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, and Australia. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He publishes using the name G. Bruce Mann, sometimes abbreviated as GB Mann. This paper has 710 citations. This paper was cited by 161 others. He is a full professor at the University of Melbourne. This profile from the University of Melbourne may be helpful. This search from PubMed shows a list of publications. This Google News search on the name G. bruce Mann brings up some more recent publications. This page from a cancer centre may also be helpful. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, Eastmain. Contrary to nomination, subject well meets WP:PROF. ~~I will endeavour to add some recent RSs~~. I have added 4 RSs, and could easily add dozens but there's surely no need for CITEKILL. Cabrils (talk) 12:46, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per above comments. LibStar again demonstrates incompetence in participating in AfD discussions by (1) failing to WP:Before, and (2) a demonstrated failure to evaluate WP:PROF or SIGCOV guidelines appropriately.

There are at least 5 Australia-related articles from today alone where this is the case. Jack4576 (talk) 07:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - full professor, many citations. Bearian (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A great article with quality references. I think, the article meets WP:PROF criteria. --Loewstisch (talk) 18:19, 22 May 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. — Amakuru (talk) 11:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karan Adani[edit]

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

Hardly relevant, created by circumventing Wikipedia rules Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Gujarat. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Agree that it's a pretty lame article but the refs easily demonstrate GNG. The COI, if it's real, is not translating into a promotional style. Nom's rationale is also vauge. small jars tc 15:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant page and information - should be kept. 115.111.140.7 (talk) 04:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete PROMO, all the sources I can find are routine business mentions. Oaktree b (talk) 03:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with numerous articles,even if not indepth, he meets WP:BASIC, as articles can be combined to demonstrate notability. Pershkoviski (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tthe person is from most controversial Indian family now. I found a lot of news articles about Karan Adani. ABDB1 (talk) 13:23, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 13:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It has become evident that there is a dearth of substantial references from reputable sources that establish the notability of Karan Adani. The available sources either do not provide in-depth coverage or fail to demonstrate the subject's significance within its respective field or context. Additionally, there exists a record of individuals affiliated with the Adani Group engaging in the manipulation of Wikipedia entries in previous instances. Therefore, it would not be surprising if the identical group of individuals were responsible for the creation of this page from the outset. RPSkokie (talk) 08:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article does have COI tag but the accusation is regarding a user whose sole contribution to the page was the infobox image, which seems like a non-issue to me. The section in the signpost article is not a rationale for COI but a suggestively written collection of facts about a few editors to the page, which seem less related to each other the closer you look at them. (they manage to make "inexperienced editor" sound damning, and apparently Doc James linking a policy page on your user talk without even a warning template, and probably only as a precaution in response to the previous situation with another user's drafts, amounts to being "suspected of paid editing") It's not impossible that there's serious paid editing but there are no valid signs of it either. The article is, at least superficially, not promotional: even the third sentence describes him the son of a "controversial industrialist." COI is not the only reason someone might want to write this article, though it might seem like it to us outside of India, since Adani is a common name in the Indian press, as can be seen from several reliable sources on the article contributing to GNG. small jars tc 08:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not every wealthy scion gets his own article. I don't see this passes WP:SIGCOV. DGG might argue that wealth alone might create notability, but I would disagree. A willing to change my mind. Bearian (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearian. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Based on a quick Google search, I came across significant media coverage and looks like the subject is a prominent figure in the business. Additionally, he has been listed in the Forbes India Magazine's "Tycoon of Tomorrow" list. Pass WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Historical Heritages of Bihar (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I found this [[4]] [[5]] and This [[6]] it significant enough for him to pass WP:GNG and also him been appointed to Economic Advisory Council see [[7]], also winner of Economic Times Awards see [[8]].Epcc12345 (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is leading the whole Business Group. He is notable on his own, not on his father's hereditary notability. All his news and coverages are in Reliable Sources and most of the articles are in-depth to pass WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Thanks Mr Goldberg 11:14, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Epcc12345 - the SCMP coverage and the fact that he has been CEO of one of the Adani Group's companies for several years is more than enough to demonstrate notability. The concerns about undue promotion can be handled through editing. Walt Yoder (talk) 22:57, 29 May 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 Jenni Rivera discography#Compilations albums. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 08:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Las Cuentas Claras[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Compilation album without IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject (Compilation album) directly and in-depth. BEFORE showed mentions in articles about the artist and promo, but nothing with SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 23:28, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Mexico. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I searched on a few music sites, and while there were a number of songs and albums with the same name, this specific albun did not show up. Did not find any other worthwhile coverage as well. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jenni Rivera discography#Compilations albums as ((R from album)) as an alternative to deletion, where it is mentioned. ✗plicit 23:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Explicit as an ATD, and tag as an ((R from album)). CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:49, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of E City programmes in 2013[edit]

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

Fails LISTN. Programming guide for shows on Hub E City in 2013. Duplicate information in Hub E City. No objection to a redirect. // Timothy :: talk 21:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and Singapore. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without redirect per WP:NOTTVGUIDE. The content in Hub E City should also be removed for the same reason. Ajf773 (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tried searching in Chinese as well, but still didn't found any significant coverage of the program list. Fails WP:NLIST. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Liberal Party (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Disambiguation page not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Primary topic article has a hatnote to the only other use. PROD declined by @Soman: with edit summary "de-prod, revert to good version of article" but the version reverted to is improperly formatted for a disambiguation page with a primary topic. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as one is the obvious primary topic. OfTheUsername (talk) 22:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The hatnote seem suffice. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing much to say. Carpimaps ^{talk to me!} 13:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Realm of Nauga[edit]

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

Lack of notability, the majority of sources on the article are emails from a mailing list for Color Computer fans, and are unreliable and don't say much about the game. I was unable to find any reliable sources showing notability on Google or Archive.org. Waxworker (talk) 21:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Waxworker (talk) 21:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete found nothing either. Timur9008 (talk) 11:23, May 17, 2023 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable old game, no sources apparent. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I found a reference in the book "Playing Nature: Ecology in Video Games" by Alenda Chang. I'd like to see at least one more source. If not, I'm hoping someone can find a valid merge target. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:03, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To what extent does it cover Realm of Nauga? Merko (talk) 22:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to my own comment, the book^[1] has this:
"Some of my earliest and fondest memories of playing computer games involved measuring myself against game environments: hurrying across a field of bright green and blue — forest and water — in Realm of Nauga (1982) for the TRS-80, ..."

Merko (talk) 19:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Chang, Alenda Y. (2019). Playing nature: ecology in video games. Electronic mediations. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 978-1-4529-6226-9.

Delete Fails WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Wray[edit]

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

BLP, fails GNG and BIO. The single source is not about the subject (states, "Greaves then confirmed the appointment of Robin Wray as Town’s full-time youth coach. The New College PE teacher had been working part-time at Leeds Road for the previous two years.") BEFORE showed nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 21:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. The only source within the article fails WP:SIGCOV. I haven’t been able to find any sources that would help to establish notability. Fats40boy11 (talk) 18:51, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth sourcing to pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:09, 19 May 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 Dante XXI. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Convicted in Life[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NSONG. Single source is a has nothing, BEFORE showed database and promo, nothing from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth. // Timothy :: talk 19:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Brazil. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the parent album, Dante XXI. The song's video received an award but that is not particularly a source of robust information with which to build an encyclopedic article. The award is already mentioned at the album's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:08, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dante XXI as ((R from song)) per above. ✗plicit 23:36, 23 May 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 A Long, Dark Shadow. Content may be merged at editorial discretion. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 08:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Allyn Walker[edit]

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

Having thought about this more, even after initially defending it, at the end of the day I think this is a WP:BIO1E article on a low profile individual. They have been solely covered within the context of a single episode of backlash in late 2021 following comments they made in an interview, following which they resigned from their university, with pretty much no coverage following the incident, failing WP:SUSTAINED. Their citation record is a clear fail of WP:PROF. It's a reasonable proposal that the article could be transformed into one about their book A Long, Dark Shadow instead, per the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abigail Shrier. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to A Long, Dark Shadow per below. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Sexuality and gender, and United States of America. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very trivial coverage after the individual got fired, one from the Daily Mail confirming they were hired by a new university; this is about the only other thing I can find [9] and it's a trivial mention from 2022. No sort of sustained coverage in what we have as RS; it boils down to "person says something controversial, gets fired, then gets another job". We've moved on it seems, no longer interested in the story. Very much a WP:BIO1E. Oaktree b (talk) 20:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With an h-index of 4 according to Scopus (much lower than the Scholar figure of 10), this is not a notable academic and does not pass WP:NPROF. The Long, Dark Shadow book has been cited a total of 10 times according to Scholar, so is unlikely to be notable enough to justify having a page on it here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It passes NBOOK as it has been the subject of at least two academic reviews [10] [11]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to those, I found [12]. I think the book can qualify as wiki-notable. If there had been no controversy, this would be a mundane case where we refactor the page about the author into a page about the book. See, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daisy Deomampo, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Fox (musicologist), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alam Saleh. XOR'easter (talk) 00:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per BIO1E and the lack of coverage following the individual's firing. Cheers, atque supra! Fake scientist 8000 00:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E and WP:SUSTAINED ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 00:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with a redirect, but please purge the history per WP:IAR and WP:DENY. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 08:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like this application of IAR needs more justification than a link to DENY. Is the concern that people might read the content in the history, and use the information and sources cited on other articles, contaminating them with the aura of POV? small jars tc 14:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. With it being such a highly sensitive topic area, the POV which the creator was blocked for pushing needn't and shouldn't be anywhere on the website. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It also seems to me like a 1E. I probably would change my stance to keep if it was shown there was some in-depth thing about them other than this. SWinxy (talk) 04:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is part of a sustained campaign by a blocked user and several WP:SPAs to legitimize the WP:FRINGE euphemism “minor-attracted person”. WP:TNT and WP:DENY apply Dronebogus (talk) 09:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: This caused several impact by a blocked user and several WP:SPAs to cause a WP:FRINGE. Agreed with Dronebogus, WP:DENY and WP:TNT applied. CastJared (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to A Long, Dark Shadow: per WP:ATD-R. TJMSmith (talk) 03:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Redirect to the newly created book article, per above. —Alalch E. 08:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per 1E to the newly created article for the E in question. We might as well be rewriting the same article from scratch, but I guess doing it under the title of the book allows for the psychological distance necessary to WP:DENY 22spears' efforts. small jars tc 14:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems like this is a slam-dunk but just in case, there is an attempt being made at off-wiki canvassing to keep - Tweet. Zaathras (talk) 14:14, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. The Twitter account is followed by a friend, so idk. A generous interpretation would be to say they're trying to get the article improved. SWinxy (talk) 18:23, 19 May 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. ✗plicit 23:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Beachcomber (TV series)[edit]

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

Does not seem to have any significant coverage to meet notability requirements. aaronneallucas (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. aaronneallucas (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Older show from 60's but was able to find some sources. News-Journal, The Palm Beach Post. I'd say passes GNG. WikiVirusC^(talk) 00:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I originally removed the PROD because I found sources at newspapers.com, but I don't have access to clip them. Luckily WikiVirusC was able to access some and list above. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – for better or worse, the community has long decided that all television series are notable. — Trey Maturin™ 16:02, 19 May 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. ✗plicit 23:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert A. Kinzie III[edit]

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

Reason Akoawahine (talk) 18:28, 16 May 2023 (UTC) The family of recently-deceased Robert A. Kinzie III has contacted me (as the Instructor of the class in which the page was created) and asked that the article be removed in the interest of privacy.[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Hawaii. Shellwood (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They would have to contact wikipedia themselves. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have contacted Wiki, particularly because this was a first-time class project, and have been advised that I needed to initiate the discussion for this request. It seems to me that a family should have some rights in what Wiki publishes about their loved one. Akoawahine (talk) 20:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He is dead so they have no say in this. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"He" is their husband, father, and grandfather. Akoawahine (talk) 21:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Family still does not have any say over an article about a deceased relative. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 18:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: No valid reason for deletion has been presented. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't think we should let people request a relative's article be deleted. I don't see anything in the article that constitutes a privacy violation.

aaronneallucas (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He appears to pass WP:PROF#C1, and no valid reason for deletion has been advanced. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well sourced article with an easy pass at PROF. "The family" doesn't seem aware that the individual is notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They are aware, they are grieving, and they request deletion because RAK III would not have approved. Akoawahine (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not care about the wishes of the dead. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To put it a little gentler: while we do sometimes take into account a living person's wishes if they are a low-profile notable individual, I'm not sure we've ever done so if the subject is deceased and it is their family who requests deletion. If his research is significant in some way in the field of biology/zoology, as the article and his citation count suggests, then it is likely he is a notable figure as a leading academic in those fields. Curbon7 (talk) 21:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking at his scholar profile, he seems to be a prominent academic in his area of study. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While unfortunate that the family feels this way about the article, he passes WP:PROF and seems notable. ULPS (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: I was assigned to create this biography for a college course, and if Kinzie's family would prefer for it to be deleted I would like to abide by their wishes Kmalco13 (talk) 20:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One it has been put on Wikipedia, it is up to the community to discus and an administrator to make the final decision. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 02:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not a BLP, plenty of evidence of passing PROF. It's not maudlin, or especially laudatory, nor obviously an attack. If there is a problem they can contact me or an admin with more details. Bearian (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If there is private information, such as date of birth, that can be removed without resorting to AfD. Bearian (talk) 15:36, 22 May 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 Portuguese Cricket Federation. ✗plicit 23:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Federação Portuguesa de Cricket[edit]

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

As I understand it, the articles Portuguese Cricket Federation and Federação Portuguesa de Cricket both are about the national governing body of cricket in Portugal. This one is without references. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Cricket, and Portugal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This would seem to be a sensible choice for a redirect to the other article, wouldn't it? Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, same subject. --Soman (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Portuguese Cricket Federation. Same thing, just unsourced as per nom. ULPS (talk) 13:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Portuguese Cricket Federation. Whilst this article was created first, and the duplicate English name article created years later, this article is unsourced and the English language name is the more likely search term on English Wikipedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Portuguese Cricket Federation Per Joseph2302. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Portuguese Cricket Federation, agree with above arguments. - Nabla (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Portuguese Cricket Federation. I agree with Joseph2302 – the English name is a more likely search term on English Wikipedia, as well as this article being unsourced whilst the duplicate is sourced. Fats40boy11 (talk) 06:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

United Airlines Flight 1722[edit]

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

Non-notable incident, fails both WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING. Basically an airliner took off, lost some altitude for undetermined reasons, recovered with no damage, injuries or deaths and continued to its destination. The regulatory authority, the US FAA, declined to investigate and the NTSB had indicated they may have been interested in investigating but never published a report. It was a total non-event, with no lasting effects, no changes in procedures, no airworthiness directives or any other outcomes. Just not notable in any way. Ahunt (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Hawaii. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 18:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of significant third party coverage, changes to procedures or other follows up from an investigation. No indication this was anything in any way notable other than a minor error with no consequences such as happens all the time. Canterbury Tail talk 18:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a minor incident with no clear significance. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - May not aviation-specific notability guidelines but it does meet WP:GNG by virtue of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. ~Kvng (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: - I did not cite any "aviation-specific notability guidelines". You can note that the policy I did cite in this nomination is applicable to all Wikipedia articles and specifically says Wikipedia is not a newspaper ... News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion... - Ahunt (talk) 19:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Deeday-UK's PROD rational was doesn't meat criteria of Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents and you seconded with just not notable and then included a bunch of aviation-specific discussion in your justification for deletion above and somehow I didn't see WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING. So now that I do, I'm changing my !vote. Thanks for your patience. ~Kvng (talk) 03:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  For the record, the PROD was not mine; I only fixed what looked like a messy edit involving a pre-existing PROD template. --Deeday-UK (talk) 18:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:NEVENT. All coverage was published the same week.~Kvng (talk) 03:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only routine news coverage, no WP:SIGCOV. Doesn't come close to WP:EVENTCRIT. I wouldn't even consider this notable enough for a list of aircraft incidents. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnotable. Does not meet WP:AIRCRASH guidelines.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that WP:AIRCRASH says, Because this is an essay and not policy and also because it should not be applied to stand-alone accident articles, it is recommended that it not be cited at Articles for Deletion discussions for either keeping or deleting. ~Kvng (talk) 03:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Not notable. Moreover, poorly made and does not meet WP:NEWS per above. 🛧Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！) 05:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough, by using the logic you used while creating this page, the qatar b787 nosedive should have an article on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.220.79.9 (talk) 01:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all of the above. This event was (mercifully) not notable.TH1980 (talk) 03:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kvng. Very minor incident (compared to other events) that resulted in no injuries and no damage. Nythar (💬-🍀) 23:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Electromics[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Electromics

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

Nonsensical unsourced technobabble. Not a real thing that exists in reality. Captain Hindsight (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article does include references, but the first one is to a journal from a publisher that might be considered predatory. The second reference appears to be from a legitimate journal (no Wikipedia article on the journal, but one on the publisher). Googling "Electromics" brings up a lot of instances of "electronics" being misspelled. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Instances of the misspellings (typographical errors) of electronics are commonplace and are readily found by Google. Given the importance of electronics as a discipline and as an industry in modern life, this is not surprising. Aguiseppi (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only the first reference uses the term, and anyone can start a new word. We need evidence that it's caught on before we can have an article. I suspect this word won't catch on because it's not a logical extension of the 'omics family. Genomics is about looking at genes, proteomics about looking at proteins, and either can be done on subsets of organisms subjected to particular treatments, such as exposure to electric fields. Gene expression may well be changed by electric fields, but this would be an application of transcriptomics, not a new 'omics. At the very least, this is too soon, and it's more likely misguided. Elemimele (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As the few citations provided indicate, this type of work has been ongoing for some considerable time. While the term and its definition were introduced in the cited 2023 paper, with the view to providing coherence to this field of study, the practiced art is clearly not new.

A parallel emerging terminology is “Electrogenetics” – the combination of electronics and genetics. See this citation. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpa.2022.102151 Aguiseppi (talk) 21:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not promote new terminology for established fields. If the terminology is good, it will be successful, and we can write about it then; not before. XOR'easter (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as COI/promotion of a non-notable neologism. (The first reference says explicitly, Here, a new term is defined, electromics.) Article was created by user account Aguiseppi, last author of first reference is Anthony Guiseppi-Elie. Article should not exist and should never have existed. XOR'easter (talk) 17:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And the article Anthony Guiseppi-Elie needs a fluff-ectomy. XOR'easter (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why link these engagements? Aguiseppi (talk) 21:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I took a crack at it, not really much that could be sourced or was really of anything WP:DUE, so it's stubified. Tempted to PROD it, but I haven't dug too deep yet on if they do actually meet notability since the fluff made extra work on that front. KoA (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the few citations provided indicate, this type of work has been ongoing for some considerable time. While the term and its definition were introduced in the 2023 paper, with the view to providing coherence to this field of study, the practiced art is clearly not new and is well documented. Aguiseppi (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused by this position. User is an open, active contributor whose identity is known and not hidden behind a pseudonym. If author does not create the article, then who? Author has cited supporting literature sources broadly. Aguiseppi (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the term is broadly viewed as a term seeing wider use, someone else will create the article, as has been done with all the other articles on Wikipedia. It is highly recommended you do not contribute to articles where you may have a conflict of interest, including writing about your own work, as it appears you do here. Tollens (talk) 22:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a pretty straightforward WP:NEOLOGISM case even outside of the COI concerns. KoA (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retain. This is an important are of legitimate scientific inquiry and practice that has been ongoing for many years but without a common definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aguiseppi (talk • contribs) 13:56, 19 May 2023 (UTC) — Aguiseppi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Most of the very small number of Google scholar hits for "electromics" combined with "gene," "biology," etc. involve misspellings of "electronic." The handful of papers that actually use it in the sense put forth by this article are almost all authored by the same person. Maybe the term will catch on one day, at which point it would certainly be appropriate to have a Wikipedia page on it. But at the moment, it's a textbook case of WP:NEOLOGISM. --Tserton (talk) 09:59, 21 May 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 2022 Nevada lieutenant gubernatorial election. Redirect target may be modified, and content may be merged, at editorial discretion. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 08:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Debra March[edit]

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

I don't believe this meets GNG or NPOL. March is the former mayor of a small city and briefly ran for Lieutenant Governor (but did not win the primary). Originally, I hoped to expand the article, but there don't appear to be sources with significant coverage to do so. Most sources in the article are only tangentially related to March. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Nevada. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: being major of a city of ~300,000 is notable enough for GNG I think. Jack4576 (talk) 12:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which notability guideline grants automatic notability to cities of 300,000? Again just inventing criteria to meet your own keep desire. LibStar (talk) 13:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We've typically held that mayors of larger metropolises are notable here in AfD anyway; [13]. We need some sourcing to prove they've passed GNG. I don't think this individual has that. Oaktree b (talk) 15:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing notability, NPOL isn't met. Oaktree b (talk) 12:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2022 Nevada lieutenant gubernatorial election. Not seeing notability per WP:NPOL, but I think preserving the page's history may be helpful if she decides to seek office in the future. 14:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Merge properly sourced info into 2017 Henderson mayoral election and use a hat note to point to 2022 Nevada lieutenant gubernatorial election. BLP, fails GNG and BIO, but there is a perfect target for a merge and sourcing to preserve a basic bio in the election article. Info will be preserved and the target article will be improved. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 07:09, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2022 Nevada lieutenant gubernatorial election. Fails WP:NPOL but worthy of redirect. LibStar (talk) 04:45, 22 May 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 and redirect‎ to Jason B. Parrish. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 08:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Parrish[edit]

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

No apparent notability. Zero actual sources, the only source repeatedly used in the article is a link to the author's website. ULPS (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ULPS (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no book reviews, nor mentions of any kind in Gnews, Gnewspaers or Gscholar for this individual. Not passing AUTHOR. Oaktree b (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Indeed, Mr. ULPS, Parrish lacks the citation-laden mantle of notability we demand. As we consign this parochial author to obscurity, we might ponder if our policies, in their stringent purity, serve the vast encyclopedia we steward, or paradoxically, undermine its comprehensive ambition. For are we not chroniclers of all knowledge, however humble the source? Jack4576 (talk) 14:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A rose by any other name still requires citations saying as such, for we are just dust in the wind. Sic transit gloria mundi. Oaktree b (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jason B. Parrish: The author has no individual notability. But the redirect that was there initially is to a notable individual. BangJan1999 15:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Oaktree's searches. Only source provided is his own website. Fails WP:AUTHOR. LibStar (talk) 02:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Oaktree b and LibStar. Doesn't pass WP:NAUTHOR. No reliable, independent, or significant-coverage-demonstrative sources can I find. Nythar (💬-🍀) 18:09, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not finding any reliable sources proving notability.--SouthernNights (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect to Jason B. Parrish. I'm not coming up with anything at all. SWinxy (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jade Cargo International destinations[edit]

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

Fails the 2018 RFC on airline destination lists. Per the subsequent AN discussion these should be nominated for deletion in orderly fashion.

I think the WP:NOT argument here is clear: this is essentially just a catalogue-listing of all of the services offered by a commerical enterprise. In this case, the article is listing the services of a cargo-shipping operation and not even a passenger airline per se.

Even if the WP:NOT issues could be dealt with somehow (and they are enough to warrant the deletion of this article), the article would remain a failure of WP:CORP since there are no sources at all cited in it. A BEFORE search is not necessary in a case like this, but for the avoidance of doubt I performed one and did not find anything that could rescue it - only fan-sites, specialist press, etc., none of which would pass the audience requirements of WP:CORP (this piece in Airways Magazine was possibly the best, but that's specialist press/a fan site).

Not bundling at present as bundling seems likely to be challenged. Bundling should only be proposed where unbundling is unlikely to be requested. FOARP (talk) 13:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Lists, and China. FOARP (talk) 13:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, also the fact that the entire article is unsourced and sources to verify all of this content would prove difficult to find. I can see some merit in having lists of airline destinations for commercial passenger flights (so long as these are sourceable - and a lot indeed are), however not for cargo flights. Ajf773 (talk) 10:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator and per WP:IINFO. Nythar (💬-🍀) 01:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Akode Islamic Centre[edit]

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

The article contains sources that mention the subject and routine announcements. Some sources are about the selection of new committee members of the center. A WP:BEFORE search did not show any good citations. Fails WP:NORG and GNG Thesixserra (talk) 04:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Schools, and India. Thesixserra (talk) 04:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If this article is to be kept, it needs a rewrite starting from the first sentence: "Akode Islamic Centre is a system for moulding a generation that upholds knowledge, morality, and high human values." That sounds high-minded but is far from informative. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:53, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Islam, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Thesixserra, your analysis rings with truth, lamentably calling for the excision of this article due to our adherence to WP:NORG and GNG. Yet one ponders, do such strictures not risk the dilution of our noble endeavour, to amass and disseminate knowledge to all corners of the globe? Jack4576 (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not seeing enough third party sources to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 02:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:51, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Patty Mayo[edit]

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

Moved out of draft solely sourced to primary non-reliable sources. Not enough in-depth coverage from independent sources to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Massachusetts. Shellwood (talk) 11:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One could say that Patty Mayo doesn't cut the mustard when it comes to WP:GNG. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
spread a bit too thin perhaps. Oaktree b (talk) 14:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Heavily promotional piece sourced entirely from the subject's own YouTube channel. Ravenswing 12:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage found in RS, Dexerto and the like. Delete for lack of sourcing and the appearance of PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 14:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Onel5969, verily, your judgement rings true. It grieves the spirit, this erasure, compelled by our own policies. Yet, one ponders if, perchance, these same policies imperil the broader mission, consigning obscurity to the notable yet unheralded. A conundrum, indeed! Jack4576 (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entire article written with sources from his channel. No coverage other than a couple of articles and a police statement that talk about his staged videos. Dawnbails (talk) 14:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poorly sourced. Fails WP:BIO for lack of independent coverage. LibStar (talk) 07:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT and WP:BLP. This is a disaster of BLP violations wrapped in poorly worded nonsense. 15:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian (talk • contribs)
Delete. Does not appear to have reliable sourcing. The best I found were [14] [15] [16], but those aren't suitable for N or BLP. SWinxy (talk) 17:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:51, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ivica Vidović (footballer)[edit]

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

Was draftified in hopes of improvement, moved back after the addition of a single, 4-line announcement. Zero in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Croatia. Shellwood (talk) 11:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:52, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Brennan (soccer)[edit]

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

Was draftified, then returned to mainspace after the addition of a single, non-reliable source (it's a PR piece by the Delaware nation, not an actual article). Gets the usual routine sports coverage, but no in-depth sourcing so as to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Georgia (U.S. state). Shellwood (talk) 11:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:01, 16 May 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 MÄR#Manga. Sandstein 06:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of MÄR chapters[edit]

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

We have a lot of these chapter lists (not exactly sure WHY…) but most of them are for series with even a modicum of real-wold impact. This is probably one of the most obscure series out there, we don’t need multiple articles of exhaustive documentation on it. Dronebogus (talk) 10:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Lists. Dronebogus (talk) 10:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to MÄR. References also seem to be to web listings by publishers and/or sellers. And yeah on the "WHY"... is anyone even reading that? What purpose does it serve having the information broken down like that? BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it’s mainly a holdover from when FANDOM wasn’t really a thing Dronebogus (talk) 13:23, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep; per WP:NOTPAPER: Keeping articles to a reasonable size is important for Wikipedia's accessibility, especially for readers with low-bandwidth connections and on mobile platforms, since it directly affects page download time (see Wikipedia:Article size). Splitting long articles and leaving adequate summaries is a natural part of growth for a topic (see Wikipedia:Summary style), which generally allows for size splits like this. However, this series isn't super long and not many of the volumes have summaries. At the very least, the content should be preserved, be it here or in the main article via a merge. Link20XX (talk) 03:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to MÄR. The list isn't that prominent and could be better off merged with the main article. Only split if there is a valid reason for it.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:55, 18 May 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 MÄR#Characters. Content can be merged from history if desired (but very selectively and only if sourced, per this discussion). Sandstein 06:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of MÄR characters[edit]

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

Massive fancruft wall for extremely minor early-to-mid 2000s anime/manga, should be very, very, VERY selectively merged at most. Dronebogus (talk) 10:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Lists. Dronebogus (talk) 10:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Very extensive plot summary with sparse references to manga (WP:PRIMARY). Sadly, this is just WP:ITSUSEFUL but not encyclopedic content (aka WP:FANCRUFT). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- So far, the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ginta Toramizu has some decisions to redirect to this page. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to MÄR as per above. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 19:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge to MÄR; not enough non-fancruft to warrant an article but a small listing on the characters is recommended per MOS:ANIME. Link20XX (talk) 03:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with the character section at MÄR. I was able to get a character section placed there so that the character information can go there in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect, excessive in-universe content, nothing useful to merge in my view. Stifle (talk) 10:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or very selective merge. Mostly WP:PLOT information, but some of it can be covered at the main article. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:30, 23 May 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. Significant coverage has not been demonstrated. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 08:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Wolstenholme[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. 2 of the 3 sources are primary. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 05:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, Korea, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:13, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: appears to have received specific media coverage from both foreignpolicy.com, as well as an telegraph.co.uk article regarding her having been identified as personally riding a rollercoaster alongside the DPRK's Supreme Leader. The status of her diplomatic posting and this reporting of what occurred during per posting; reported on by independent and reliable sources lead me to tend toward keep over delete. Jack4576 (talk) 08:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC. Diplomats are not inherently notable but there are multiple in-depth, and independent sources on this diplomat.--User:Namiba 18:44, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Source eval:

Comments	Source
Who's Who	1. "Wolstenholme, Karen Suzanne, (born 16 Oct. 1962), HM Diplomatic Service, retired; Ambassador to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, 2011–12; FCO Services, 2013–16". Who's Who. 2011. doi:10.1093/ww/9780199540884.013.253944.
Article is about "Barnaby Jones works as a junior diplomat at the British Embassy". Only content about subject is, "The British Ambassador to North Korea is Karen Wolstenholme."	2. ^ "British diplomat takes roller coaster ride with North Korea's leader Kim Jong-un". www.telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved 9 May 2023.
Primary source - Foreign & Commonwealth Office	3. ^ Jump up to:a b "Change of Her Majesty's Ambassador to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea". Foreign & Commonwealth Office. 27 September 2010. Archived from the original on 8 March 2011.
Government annoucement about appointment, info is from government, not IS	4. ^ "Appointments: Ambassador to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea". The Times. ISSN 0140-0460. Retrieved 9 May 2023.
Two sentences about a government annoucement regarding an appointment	5. ^ "Woman tapped as next British ambassador to N. Korea". The Korea Times. 29 September 2010. Retrieved 9 May 2023.
Government report about a government employee, not IS	6. ^ House of Lords (2012). The Parliamentary Debates (Hansard).: House of Lords official report. H.M. Stationery Office.
Government report about a government employee, not IS	7. ^ Parliamentary Debates (Hansard).: House of Commons official report. H.M. Stationery Office. 2010.
One of several individuals interviewed about life in North Korea; interview, not IS; brief, not SIGCOV.	8. ^ Lynch, Colum (22 November 2021). "The Life of Diplomats in North Korea". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 9 May 2023.
Primary source - Foreign & Commonwealth Office	9. ^ "Change of Her Majesty's Ambassador to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea". Foreign & Commonwealth Office. 25 June 2012. Archived from the original on 7 August 2012.

The two keep votes above did complete BEFOREs, but were unable to find any sources to present other than those already in the article.

Jack's comment here [17], specifically ...as well as an telegraph.co.uk article regarding her having been identified as personally riding a rollercoaster alongside the DPRK's Supreme Leader. is completely false.

This is a BLP and this incident at the theme park was a serious diplomatic scandal. There statement is completely false: The subject of the article was not the person photographed as the source clearly states.[18] Jack clearly didn't read the source before their keep spam and in the process attributed a diplomatic scandal to an innocent person. // Timothy :: talk 20:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Very small article about a weak notable diplomat supported by reliable references.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:25, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - on further reflection, I believe BLPs require a high degree of documentation than regular articles. Weakly referenced BLPs watched by few editors are especially vulnerable to malicious actors. This person's job as a diplomat makes this even more of a risk. If this were not a BLP, I'd stick with my earlier "weak keep"--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This a WP:BLP as a far as I can see. It needs real secondary sources to prove the person is notable. I know I keep harping on about this, but it does need to be absolutely notable for a BLP. I think this is probably below borderline at the moment. I never signed up to 1 is ref is good. WP:THREE has always been best practice for proving an Afd. scope_creep^Talk 10:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Essex County Cricket Club players. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 08:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William Gunary[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:SPORTSCRIT #5.

Non-notable player; only played in one game and scored no points while doing so. No significant coverage in article, and none could be found. BilledMammal (talk) 08:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Cricket. BilledMammal (talk) 08:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "Scored no points" isn't a logical argument, but sure. That would be the equivalent of "scored no goals". I'd be surprised if we can't find anything - not the most common name out there. Bobo . 08:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Despite earnest effort, I have perused Newspapers.com and NewspaperArchive, yet no trace of our forgotten Essex batsman emerged from their digital depths. A lamentable void, indeed! Jack4576 (talk) 08:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Getting rid of county players is where we have arrived. There will always be something. Bobo . 08:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Alas, by the iron hand of 'SIGCOV', we consign this gallant cricketer to oblivion. Despite the duck, each wicket tells a tale, enriching our tapestry of knowledge. But, policy, unflinching, trims our canvas of obscurity, and in its zealous pruning, Wikipedia's mission, to capture all human understanding, is subtly, yet fundamentally, compromised. Jack4576 (talk) 08:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we were trying to capture "all human understanding", nothing would ever get deleted. But then I'm not a normal human... *good natured smile* Bobo . 08:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a decent merge target if it ever got that far, which for a county player would be sad. Bobo . 08:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Lamentable, unnecessary, wicked, and vile; such actions sell short the potential of our cherished project Jack4576 (talk) 10:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic, it's hard to tell... the "potential" of any project is for it to be philosophically "complete". The "aim"? As has been commented on many times, we speak as a community at cross-purposes depending on which direction we class as "complete", and have been doing so for a long time. Bobo . 10:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am sincere. I yearn for a project with better values than the lamentable incumbent guidelines; and I hope one day my fellow Wikipedians will one day join me too. Perhaps it will have to wait for the next generation. Jack4576 (talk) 11:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Quite a few hits in The Recorder (Eastern Counties Times) (via BNA) if someone has time to investigate further... William Charles "Bill" Gunary was a farmer. He played club cricket for Dagenham and later Ilford, where he was captain from 1929–1932. All very local and routine though, so unlikely to be enough to warrant keeping an article about him. It should also be noted that he was a bowler, so the article's current focus on his batting is undue (a consequence of the dubious practice of synthesising articles from database entries and statistics). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Improving coverage as a bowler is not all that hard to fix... Bobo . 10:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The established consensus with articles such as this - established over a number of years - is to redirect to the obvious list if one exists - in this case List of Essex County Cricket Club players. There is clearly some contemporary media coverage of him and in cases like this it's entirely possible that other sources come to light that might make the article more viable as a standalone piece. In those terms, under WP:ATD - a *policy* not a guidelines - we should preserve the article history and attribution. A note can be added to his name to expand on what we have so far whilst we're at it, along the same lines as the other 3 notes that are already part of the list. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Essex County Cricket Club players As of now, I'm not seeing enough, and those who are quite good at finding information haven't found much, for a GNG pass. However, there's the usual suitable redirect here per WP:ATD. Will reconsider if more is found though. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:17, 17 May 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. It's unclear why this page would serve as a disambiguation. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 08:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exotic India Art[edit]

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

Retail store lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:NCORP. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Alas, the unforgiving rule of 'SIGCOV' compels me towards deletion. However abundant, the sources lack reliable character. Thus, we find ourselves, tragically, abetting the erosion of obscure, yet worthy knowledge. Such are the sacrifices we make to policy, inadvertently undermining the very spirit of our noble enterprise. A regrettable turn, indeed. Jack4576 (talk) 08:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would be more appropriate to consider implementing a disambiguation practices for this article, as certain aspects of its content may lack reliability. Simply executing or deleting the article would negatively impact the valuable contributions made by our well-researched contributors. I eagerly await any feedback I can receive regarding my opinion. Kartikguide (talk) 05:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 11:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 16 May 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 08:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019 North American winter storm[edit]

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

does not satisfy the notability guidelines for events greyzxq ^talk 16:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada and United States of America. greyzxq ^talk 16:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 2018–19 North American winter#Mid-February storm complex Per non. Indeed does not seem to be notable. 108.58.27.76 (talk) 13:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also delete January–February 2019 North American cold wave and January 2019 North American winter storm (category 1, the lowest on the Regional Snowfall Index). Very little, if anything, worth merging. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- We should not delete the cold wave article, because (1) it brought the coldest temperature to Illinois in state history, (2) it has over 110 references, (3) it caused 22 deaths and nearly a billion dollars in damage, and (4) it brought a nearly unprecedented cold wave to places in Montana. I agree January 2019’s winter storm article should go, however. 107.77.223.214 (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE. Media (local and national) obsessed that year over school closings and the political optics; it became one of the two or three major issues in that fall's local elections and even into 2021 (ask Mayor Garcia how she feels). I remember having to dress in multiple layers of clothing, and commuting an hour as a teacher, only for DiBlasio to flip-flop. See, e.g., [19]. Few nominations have been done with so little reason. Bearian (talk) 14:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bruh that CNN article is from five years before the snowstorm happened. Also, such evidence of coverage has not been provided. Also, the storm only produced around an inch of snow in NYC. I think you got this confused with February 2014 nor'easter. 69.118.237.29 (talk) 23:21, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – while the winter storm doesn't have a lasting effect, it does have in-depth coverage of the winter storm. Numerous sources cover this, including CNN, ABC7 Chicago, ABC News, Boston Globe, CBS News, and others. Even though the winter storm dropped just one inch of snow in New York City, snow fell in the Western United States, breaking records and falling in unusual places for the first time, including snow for the first time at a national park in Hawaii, Seattle broke the city's snowfall record, and prompting a state of emergency for the state Washington. I'd also agree that BEFORE is also a factor in this as well. These sources can also be helpful in improving the article and reflecting on the effects of the storm, especially the Western United States and Hawaii, and maybe even adding sources for the unsourced sentences. And, if y'all want to start deletion discussions for the articles January–February 2019 North American cold wave and January 2019 North American winter storm, you can do so on a separate deletion discussion page! Tails Wx 00:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Passes WP:GNG. Five unique secondary reliable sources (plus more listed by Tails Wx above). Article is a start class, so we aren’t looking at a stub-insta merge style situation. At this exact moment, I’m not entirely opposed to a merge since a merge into 2018–19 North American winter wouldn’t be a bad idea either. If an editor was willing to add more references and do some slight expansion to the article (maybe a low-C class article), this should be considered a strong keep then. My weak keep is strictly based on it passing notability requirements, but if others are considering a merge (assuming no expansion occurs) then I’m not opposed to it either. Elijahandskip (talk) 01:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It fails WP:NOPAGE IMO, by not significantly expanding on the section above. That’s grounds for merging. It also needs a lot of citations, if anyone feels like improving. 69.118.237.29 (talk) 23:03, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Tails and Elijahandskip Jack4576 (talk) 09:28, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as for arguments before relisting. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. February of 2019 had several storms in North America such as the wind storm in Albany, floods in California, "snowmageddon" in Oregon, and the snow storm in Hawaii that have lasting coverage. I think if this article were expanded to include the other storms (rather than just the one from Feb 11-13 in the Northeast) then the article can meet notability. Otherwise, it's just one of many storms in the month of February that could be covered in the larger article. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:12, 16 May 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 2022 FIFA World Cup#Stadiums. ✗plicit 01:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sports City Stadium (Doha)[edit]

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

I have seen 2022 World Cup bid, and there are 2 stadiums not built for 2022 FIFA World Cup, but this one is noticeable because it's last edited 3 years ago. After opening Google Maps, it's shown the stadium isn't exists, that means it might be cancelled, so it's might be not relevant anymore. Also this should be deleted too: https://football.fandom.com/wiki/Sports_City_Stadium Chuanchauau 01:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Football, and Qatar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2022 FIFA World Cup#Stadiums, where it can be mentioned. Giant Snowman 20:06, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge: per Giant Snowman Jack4576 (talk) 09:30, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above as plausible search term. Fats40boy11 (talk) 08:45, 17 May 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 Fresh & Onlys. ✗plicit 01:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shayde Sartin[edit]

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

Only WP:ROUTINE coverage as part of a group, not notable as an individual performer. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and West Virginia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Fresh & Onlys. Found no coverage where the subject wasn't mentioned as part of the group. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Esteemed colleagues, I find myself torn by the unyielding dictates of our rules, in which our cherished entry, the tale of the minstrel Shayde Sartin, meets its untimely end. Despite assiduous efforts, 'SIGCOV' remains elusive, a phantom in the archives. It is a melancholic spectacle, this purge of the trivial, the obscure - a cruel game where the lesser-known are cast aside. A regrettable testament to our time's relentless pursuit of prominence. Jack4576 (talk) 09:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Tutwakhamoe. I believe that is the best option. Nythar (💬-🍀) 17:56, 19 May 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. BusterD (talk) 12:56, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aj Diyan Kurrian[edit]

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

Delete Fails GNG and WP:NFILM. Source eval:

Mention >> 1. Zafar, Abdul Hafiz (9 January 2019). "نوین تاجک". Duniya News (in Urdu).
Mention, "In memory of Wajahat Atre", Not SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth >> 2. ^ Nadeem, Inaam. "وجاہت عطرے کی یاد میں". Hum Sab (in Urdu). Retrieved 22 April 2023.
Database record >> 3. ^ Jump up to:a b "Punjabi film Ajj Dian Kurrian". Pakistan Film Magazine. Archived from the original on 12 November 2021.
Name in list, not SIGCOV >> 4. ^ Jump up to:a b "Pakistan's "Oscars"; The Nigar Awards". Desi Movies. Archived from the original on 31 May 2022.
Name in list, not SIGCOV >> 5. ^ Jump up to:a b "Nigar Awards (1972 - 1986)". The Hot Spot Online website. 5 January 2003. Archived from the original on 25 July 2008. Retrieved 24 March 2023.

BEFORE showed database and promo, but nothing with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepthy. // Timothy :: talk 09:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:NFO. The film received 2 Nigar Awards including the "best film award" for the year 1977. Its an older film and more offline coverage is highly likely to exist in old Urdu newspapers and film magazines. Insight 3 (talk) 10:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Translated excerpt from the source Duniya News:

"... She first acted in Syed Kamal's famous Punjabi film "Aaj Diyan Kadiyan" in 1977. It was a comedy film. In it, she played Kamal's daughter and is studying in college with her five sisters in the film. Late Jamshed Ansari was with him in this movie. In this film, she acted in both Urdu and Punjabi languages. This film by Syed Kamal was the second part of his film "Jat Kadiyan Te Darda" which was released in 1976. Like 'Jit Kadiyan Te Darda', this film of his also turned out to be a super hit."

Translated excerpt from the source Hum Sab:

"... In 1977, Wajahat Atre composed the music for the film "Aj Diyan Kadiyan". A song from this film "Kaliyan Na Jaana Saade Naal Naal Chalo Ji" became the guarantee of success of the film, the chorus song was sung by Naheed Akhtar, Mehnaz and other singers. This song, made in the style of pop music, is heard even today."

Insight 3 (talk) 04:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KEEP - per WP:NFO which states "A topic related to film may not meet the criteria of the general notability guideline, but significant coverage is not always possible to find on the internet, especially for older films. This debunks the idea of significant and in-depth coverage of older films... it's not always possible. It's enough that the film was a commercial success at the box-office, when released in 1977. It received the 'Best Film' award and the film's music director received the 'Best Music' award for 1977...Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Keep voters provide no sources that show notability for the subject, mentions in relation to other topics do not demonostrate notability. // Timothy :: talk 06:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have you even cared to read WP:NFO? Moreover, WP:SIGCOV does not require the subject must be topic of a source: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Insight 3 (talk) 08:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies WP:NFILM c.3 - winner of Nigar award for best Punjabi language film in 1977. Discussed in Gazdar's Pakistan Cinema 1947-1997 (OUP 1997), p.155: "The other was Syed Kamal's first Punjabi venture Aj Diyaan Kuriyaan..." Given the time of production and the award, it is completely reasonable to assume there are offline sources (especially in Urdu and Punjabi). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific analysis of sources actually demonstrated to be available would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep the film has been shown by one of the references to be a winner of a nationally recognised award, I'm surprised this is still under discussion Jack4576 (talk) 08:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Goldsztajn. This film appears to be notable. BookishReader (talk) 17:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I would like to see more discussion on NFO. Keep voters did not explain about GNG, but comments are welcome on this sentence "A topic related to film may not meet the criteria of the general notability guideline, but significant coverage is not always possible to find on the internet, especially for older films".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 07:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like some people want this discussion to continue for eternity. Will any admin intervene to end these ridiculously absurd relistings? Insight 3 (talk) 08:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This film is obviously notable. It is only the absurd worship of online sources in English that means that this is continually relisted. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:13, 17 May 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 Dundee School Shootings. Okay folks, this was a messy AfD to close and if someone wants to go down the DRV route I won't take it personally.

Numerically it's almost a tie, with a 6-5 lead in favour of delete, with a couple of other !votes.

Moving to policy, the delete !votes are consistently policy backed, while a couple of the Keep votes were not (even including one which while not saying the magic words could be reasonably read as an IAR position). The non-delete/keep !votes are adequately policy-backed.

So why not delete or no-consensus? Well, most of the discussion had this as a dichotomy, due to the lack of an event article to underpin the BLP1E reasoning, before the creation of the merged event article towards the end. Several delete !votes specifically noted that they would redirect if it was an option, which it now is. I have also been BOLD and gone on the basis that the Keep !votes would prefer a redirect to a delete outcome. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marion Young[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. Fails WP:1E. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Scotland. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a major player in a tragic event, and awarded GM. PamD 07:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If there was an article on the event, I'd be happy to see her redirected there, but not to either the perpetrator Robert Mone or her companion Nanette Hanson. With nowhere to which to redirect, I think she merits this short article. PamD 08:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tragedy is completely and totally irrelevant when weighing notability. If anything, it deserves special scrutiny given how often articles are created on tragedies as they happen only to have no sustained coverage. The question is whether George Medal is notable enough to meet WP:ANYBIO and whether every George Medal recipient should have an article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't believe 1E should apply when the one event is the very reason the person was awarded the highest UK civilian honour - as is the case with nearly all the other recipients. --10mmsocket (talk) 07:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Young got George Medal,which is a tier below George Cross (which Nanette Hanson got for her part in the same event). PamD 08:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. As you say, she was a major player in this event and my opinion is still that it should be kept. 10mmsocket (talk) 11:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NOTNEWS is what resonates for me on this one, as well as BLP1E. Yes, it was a tragedy, but this person had a role in a single incident. Being awarded for her bravery that day is not enough to make this person notable. Lamona (talk) 04:01, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - without question. This poor soul is notable for only one event and generally, we cover the event rather than the person. If not deleted, this should be redirected to Robert Mone#murder of Nanette Hanson. It's not just notability, it makes more sense to have this event within one section. Nanette Hanson may be a candidate for AFD also, but that's for another time I suppose. I author and edit many true crime articles, we almost never include a standalone article on the victim, no matter how tragic the circumstances or valiant their actions.MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:28, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a political theorist in Gscholar and a deaf lady looking for work in the 1980s are about typical of the hits you get when searching for this name. I'd redirect, or just delete it. This was 50 yrs ago and if nothing's been written about her role in the events since then, I doubt we'll find something for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 03:04, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I've added a few sources published around the 50th anniversary in 2017. Admittedly two are from the same journalist, same day, but the third has a different byline. The incident gets continuing coverage, and she gets at least a mention but in these instances more. Comments that this should be a sub-part of an article about the incident have some merit, but her role was not insignificant, and better to have an article about a hero/victim than one about the criminal.

Just because most hits are for other people isn't relevant. Search for "Marion Young" and "Mone" or "George Medal" and you get her results. Note that images of contemporaneous news stories (one of which is cited in the article) are reproduced here[20]

Oblivy (talk) 03:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She is only mentioned for one event. It does not make sense at all to have a standalone article on the victim of a crime. IE, imagine if we had stand alone articles for firefighters on 9/11 who received coverage for their conduct and received an award? It would make much more sense for the event to be covered with a section on the individual. Same applies here. She deserves coverage, in the section about the event which is within the bio of Robert Mone. MaxnaCarta (talk) 00:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I suggested above, I don't see how it makes sense for the murderer to get an article but it's not justified for another participant in the incident (she's not just a victim). Is your rationale that he has two events because he escaped from prison? She got a medal; is that another incident? Oblivy (talk) 05:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Oblivy if the murderer isn’t notable then we should rename the article and alter it to be about the event rather than the perpetrator or victim. This is how we cover notable murders. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 11:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, maybe that's the best approach. I think WP:CRIME is broad enough to support her having an article, but it's a close call. The idea that the perpetrator should get an article but the victim shouldn't doesn't seem right. So the proposal would be to merge with Robert Mone and rename that article as something like Dundee School Shooting? Oblivy (talk) 12:46, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added a note to the talk page for Robert Mone. Oblivy (talk) 13:37, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: she is notable for having received the UK's highest civilian honour. In the absence of an article on the event to merge/redirect to. This article ought not be deleted in the meantime. Jack4576 (talk) 09:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the George Medal is the second highest civilian gallantry honour after the George Cross. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. The contemporary coverage I found was about the crime, her marriage and the awarding of the George Medal. They didn't go into detail about her life. I can't find any sources that significantly cover her. Dougal18 (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More opinions are welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 07:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or rather complicated option described below. Did anyone actually read WP:1E? It commences: "When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both." That is to say, it's about deciding, given that an event is notable, whether we write the article about the event, or the person involved. The event is clearly notable, it was being written about (extensively) 40 years after it happened, so it's got lasting impact. Young was one of the most important people involved. Therefore clearly we need an article, and the only question is whether we have an article about her, or the event. We don't have an article about the event, so until we've got one, we have to keep the article about the person. 1E is grounds for moving the article to have the name of the event rather than the person, not grounds for deletion. But if we move the article to cover the event, what do we do with Mone, who unfortunately is famous for more than this; he also broke out of psychiatric hospital and killed more people? Since this is all closely related, I do think one option would be to merge everything in Mone, Hanson and Young into a single article, and create redirects for them individually. Young and Hanson are both worth remembering; the event was a very major one, and both played vital roles in it. The worst outcome of this would be deletion, but it's difficult to know where to send a redirect without an article on the event. Elemimele (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft under an appropriate title for the event and create appropriate redirects when the article is moved to mainspace. Article meets BLP1E about this honorable individual, but the information can be preserved and presented well in an expanded article about the event. // Timothy :: talk 20:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

comment This discussion seems to have fallen into the doldrums. May I renew/amplify my suggestion above, which is to MERGE with Mone's article and then RENAME that article to Dundee School Shooting or something similar. There seems to be an opportunity to get consensus, considering @Elemimele and @PamD comments above.

I put a note on Talk:Robert Mone but nobody came here to discuss.

As a matter of mechanics, I'm not sure how this would work - I can do the work to merge the two, and I've got the rights to move the article. But I'm worried if I'm WP:BOLD somebody may object to the move, and then we're left stuffing this poor lady's story into his article which I would argue is disrespectful to her memory and no more/less an infringement of WP:1E than this article. Oblivy (talk) 07:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would be okay with this article being merged to Mone and the resulting article being renamed to Dundee school shooting, preferably leaving a redirect at Marion Young to aid readers in finding her story. This would be in keeping with 1E. I agree, it would be completely wrong to stuff this article into Mone and leave that article under his name. If you're prepared to do the merge, Oblivy I think it's a sensible solution, count me in favour. If the process gets messed up half-way because someone objects to the move, we can always undo back to the status quo. Elemimele (talk) 09:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have merged the three articles, changed Robert Mone to Dundee School Shootings. It handled the redirect automatically Fingers crossed that this doesn't get a lot of objection - there aren't a lot of editors on the Mone page, but one never knows.

Assuming this goes to plan, seems next steps would be to AfD or even WP:PROD Nanette Hanson. Oblivy (talk) 02:16, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per my latest comments

Keep You don't see that many folk getting the George Medal. UK society has recorded the event, we should as well. scope_creep^Talk 14:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG; and despite the horrific nature of the case she was involved in, that doesn't automatically make her eligible for a page. — Amakuru (talk) 11:30, 31 May 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 Children on the Edge. There is consensus that she's not independently notable. If anyone wants to merge content from the redirected page to the charity they are welcome to do so. — Amakuru (talk) 11:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Bentley[edit]

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

The bulk of the article is about the charity Children on the Edge rather than its executive director. The education section is based on a non-independent source. Only the three sentences of "early life" are independent biographical content, and only their source (Nick Ryan) has written in any depth about Bentley. No evidence of significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time separate from coverage of the charity. This article appears to have been created "to amplify the latest information" from the charity. I'm loathe to preserve the undisclosed paid editing content by merging, but would be okay with a redirect to the charity. Worldbruce (talk) 13:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and United Kingdom. Worldbruce (talk) 13:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the charity. More notability there than the individual. Oaktree b (talk) 15:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. In 2022, Rachel Bentley received the Order of the British Empire. Regardless of how well or badly the current version of the article may be written or cited, that establishes her notability. I've added and cited that information, which wasn't previously included. MaryMO (AR) (talk) 02:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for adding that. The consensus in other deletion discussions has been that an OBE is not a sufficiently significant honour to meet WP:ANYBIO. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernest James Scott, for example. If she received significant independent coverage in connection with the OBE, that could help her meet WP:GNG, but the Sussex Express page is merely a reprint of a press release from the charity.[21] --Worldbruce (talk) 05:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  You are pointing to another AFD article that shows how people voted, that should not have any bearing wethere OBE itself is an award meeting the guidelines. OBE is major award and for sure meets the guidelines. Unfortunately this is not specifically stated in the guidelines, so if anybody disagrees, they are welcome to participate in this independent AFD. We should not rely on another AFD result for this one. Pershkoviski (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  But it's not just one AfD discussion. Every discussion where notability of OBEs has been an issue has come to the same conclusion. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Order of British Empire award is an award well known that would make them qualify under WP:ANYBIO. They also have enough news coverage. Pershkoviski (talk) 23:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "O" in OBE stands for "officer", not "order". The full title is "Officer of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire". One is not awarded it, but becomes one. Along with MBEs they are pretty commonplace: there are tens of thousands of each. It is, in fact, contrary to the press release linked, the fourth highest rank in the order, coming after GBE, DBE/KBE and CBE. The higher ranks might make someone notable per WP:ANYBIO, but not being an OBE. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong delete~~ I do not see any notable secondary sources dedicated to her in particular. Most of them are her nonprofit's website or talk about the nonprofit.128.6.36.94 (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

delete notability is not inherited, bulk of article is about the charities. Previous discussions regarding OBE not showing enough notability. Equine-man (talk) 20:37, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:22, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 02:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No comments since last relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 07:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Children on the Edge. Bentley is only noted in association with that charity, she has not received the attention necessary to establish notability as an individual person. Regarding the OBE, WP:ANYBIO explicitly establishes that meeting its criteria does not guarantee that notability criteria have been met and that a standalone article is warranted. Saying "The subject fulfils ANYBIO and that's it, notability established" misunderstands the intent of ANYBIO. In this case, she was appointed to the OBE specifically for her charity work at CotE. The coverage of her is basically coverage oriented toward CotE, which just so happens to involve her extensively as a key figure in that charity. However, she is not notable outside from that, and thus, any noteworthy content would be better in the article about the actually notable charity. Actualcpscm (talk) 15:08, 29 May 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. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 08:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Table manners in North America[edit]

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

I am proposing this page for deletion for the following main reason: the page is not about the thing that it claims to be about. In fact it is about the History of table manners in North America and is heavily slanted towards the etiquette inherited from Europe. It does not even (as far as I can tell) acknowledge that Other People Exist and that people in North America who do not share a European heritage have very different norms.

In terms of policy, I'm arguing that WP:NOTESSAY applies and that it is essentially impossible to write a page on this subject without a large dose of WP:OR and bias. I accept sources exist. I accept on that basis the topic is notable and noted. But this page has not been substantially edited for many years, has displayed bias for many years and has asserted that something extremely complicated (ie eating norms within a highly multicultural society) are relatively simple (ie the norms inherited from Europe are the basis for etiquette for everyone there). I can't see how this can be overcome. JMWt (talk) 07:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 07:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick keep and comment: the article does provide references, I think a review and perhaps pruning is in order, but not deletion. I refer humbly to table manners for consideration and juxtaposition. --Ouro (blah blah) 10:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the subject is clearly notable. I'm sympathetic to the idea of addressing imbalance, but I can't see how we're ever going to end up with an article covering social norms of eating in a wide range of cultures if we simply delete the article because it's unbalanced. That leaves no incentive for anyone ever to correct it. And there is no deadline. Elemimele (talk) 18:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The current state of the article is not a valid WP:DELREASON. As said above, there is WP:NODEADLINE. The article is reasonably sourced and can be salvaged with editing as an alternative to deletion. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The editor's talk page identifies them as a 2018 WikiEd Student Editor at Everett Community College. This was the editor's one and only Wikipedia creation. Given that, the subject matter was likely classroom-assigned, and makes more sense. — Maile (talk) 04:07, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP Lightburst (talk) 01:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Dahlhaus[edit]

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

There may be publicity issues, or WP:COI that are not publicly disclosed ALSTROEMERIA🌸Čijukas Kuvajamas 07:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Germany. ALSTROEMERIA🌸Čijukas Kuvajamas 07:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: promotional article created by now-indeffed editor. Note that this person is a "keynote speaker" trained by Simon Hofer (speaker), whose article was created by the same editor (and Speedied G-11). The "world championship" seems to have been in the 20-24 age group only. The creating editor seems to have access to information such as date of birth which does not seem to be in the sources. PamD 07:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, essentially advertising for this person's speeches. —Kusma (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree this is PROMO. Nothing notable for this individual found. Oaktree b (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There was a substantial discussion on de.wiki leading to the deletion of an article on this person: [22], although that was in 2016, before the subject's Triathlon age band wins. AllyD (talk) 18:16, 17 May 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 is disagreement here over the quality of the sourcing in this article but overall I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Farmington, New Mexico shooting[edit]

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

No lasting significance. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 06:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is sad to write "just another US shooting" but that is the fact. Nothing noteworthy here, no ongoing significance, no evidence of WP:LASTING. WWGB (talk) 06:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Ongoing significance"? This isn't an INT item, it's an article. The notability standard for an article is in-depth coverage by independent reliable sources, and there os plenty of such coverage here. Nsk92 (talk) 09:30, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:ROUTINE and WP:MILL. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nsk92; also, it's far too early to be claiming something has no lasting significance. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, from WP:LASTING: It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable. As noted below, it's only been a day. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While mass shootings are routine and are normalized as part of life in the United States, it's good to keep track of them as a constant reminder of indifference by the wider American society. In addition, there are stand-alone articles with fewer casualties as listed on the list of mass shootings in the United States, so I don't see why not this shouldn't be the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.117.78.43 (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's been a day since this happened; the nominator is being very hasty in his conclusions. As per Nsk, it has passed GNG; it has gotten coverage nationally and internationally (in the UK and Greece, for example). It is also possible we get more coverage, considering the perpetrator has not been named yet. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 13:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant rampage shooting with extensive coverage, and lasting notability. Juneau Mike (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as other have said lasting significance can't really be proven a day after the fact, it definitely has had significance the day of and the through the day after which is when we have nominated. Sources are available for GNG. WikiVirusC^(talk) 14:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its hard to keep track of these shootings in conventional news media. A shooting like this especially with 4 casualties needs to be on the record. Avindratalk 17:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and New Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no WP:SIGCOV, only WP:ROUTINE coverage that does not contribute to notability. No evidence that this currently meets or will ever come close to meeting the requirements of WP:EVENTCRIT. Keep votes run the gamut of WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: among others, I see WP:ITSIMPORTANT, WP:NEWSUBJECT, WP:ITSINTHENEWS, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebiguglyalien (talk • contribs) 2023-05-16T19:24:29 (UTC)
"There's no SIGCOV" are we looking at the same topic? There has been coverage by national and international sources. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 19:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's WP:ROUTINE coverage that amounts to a news story. To be significant coverage, it has to be more than "this thing happened at this time and this place". See WP:N and WP:NEVENTS for what's expected. The bar is a lot higher than this, as it should be. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

only WP:ROUTINE coverage that does not contribute to notability Are you equating a mass murder event with a press release, an award being received, or other run-of-the-mill events like a cat being stuck in a tree? Because those are the examples given, and I don't see them being in the same league whatsoever. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that it's not a news report? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you reading what you link to or just plastering ALLCAPSREDIRECTS and hoping for the best? Because WP:NOTNEWS is a circular reference to WP:ROUTINE, which brings us back to you equating a mass murder to a press release, sports match, film premiere, etc. BTW, as to WP:LASTING, we're still seeing updates on this event onto the second day, with more details about the event itself, additional witness statements, victim details, and an ongoing investigation into what caused the perpetrator to actually do what they did. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying the event is routine. I don't care what the event is, because that's not what the GNG considers. I'm saying the coverage is routine. I've posted a source assessment below. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care what the event is, because that's not what the GNG considers. So the examples are there because...? —Locke Cole • t • c 16:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The murder of three people is never routine, even in the gun-happy United States. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless it's Lake Wales, Oklahoma City, Sumter, Birmingham, Bolingbrook, Cocoa, or New Richmond, to name a few. I'm not sure why this shooting is any different. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm puzzled. Are you saying these murders aren't notable because those murders haven't yet been covered in Wikipedia, which is a permanent work in progress? This is a complete fallacy which gets trotted out from time to time. Wikipedia has not yet covered all the notable events in history and likely never will. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment:

Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Thebiguglyalien
CNN		WP:PRIMARY source. Only relays the sequence of events and gives quotes from people involved. No analysis or interpretation that would amount to significant coverage.	✘ No
KOAT	~ Local reporting varies in reliability.	Local reporting has limited use for WP:GNG. WP:PRIMARY source. Only relays the sequence of events and gives quotes from people involved. No analysis or interpretation that would amount to significant coverage.	✘ No
Durango Herald	~ Local reporting varies in reliability.	Local reporting has limited use for WP:GNG. WP:PRIMARY source. Only relays the sequence of events and gives quotes from people involved. No analysis or interpretation that would amount to significant coverage.	✘ No
NBC News		WP:PRIMARY source. Only relays the sequence of events and gives quotes from people involved. No analysis or interpretation that would amount to significant coverage.	✘ No
The Guardian	The Guardian is to be considered on a case by case basis, but there is no immediate reason to question the reliability.	WP:PRIMARY source. Only relays the sequence of events and gives quotes from people involved. No analysis or interpretation that would amount to significant coverage.	✘ No
NBC News		WP:PRIMARY source. Only relays the sequence of events and gives quotes from people involved. No analysis or interpretation that would amount to significant coverage.	✘ No
USA Today		WP:PRIMARY source. Only relays the sequence of events and gives quotes from people involved. This one is a bit better because it goes into detail about an investigation, but it still lacks analysis and interpretation.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

This source assessment is based on the sources currently in the article. If there are any sources that count toward WP:GNG, they should be added to the article. If not, then the article should be deleted. I do not believe that such sources exist, hence my vote to delete. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources you've labeled as WP:PRIMARY are actually primary sources. But at least I see where your confusion is around this, except for the two local sources, those are all WP:SIGCOV. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper reports at the time of the event are usually (though not always) primary sources. Statements of facts as they're developing and eyewitness accounts as about as primary as it gets. WP:PRIMARYNEWS goes into detail on this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thebiguglyalien: Would you be willing to re-check this given that the number of sources has increased by over double the original amount? --Super Goku V (talk) 01:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to read every source in detail like I did with those first seven, but I'm not seeing anything promising. Are there any that provide analysis, study, interpretation, etc? Are there any that suggest compliance with WP:EVENTCRIT? Are there any that provide WP:SIGCOV instead of just WP:PRIMARYNEWS sources? If no such sources exist, then this article should be deleted. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't believe that there is anything to be checked, then feel free not to as we have different opinions about this. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This shooting has lasting significance as it is a perfect example of this phenomenon. More than 100 rounds of ammunition were fired between the suspect and police, with people being shot at random and the weapon that was used was an AR-15. Sad to say that this article exists in the first place, but it fits the description of these specific types of attacks in that country. It is not WP:ROUTINE and since a lot more information is available now, it passes WP:SIGCOV. Jennytacular (talk) 00:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article at the time the deletion discussion started was just a stub article with four sentences and three sources. Since then, the article has increased to twenty-four sentences and eighteen sources from thirteen different news organizations. I believe that this expansion resolves the issues that have been brought up. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:47, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The event has received a deep coverage by the sources. Also, "it may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect." --Mhhossein ^talk 04:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect - Keep, or redirect to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2023. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is now more than enough reliable sourcing to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 21:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:49, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mylyn Kuve[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable civil servant. A WP:BEFORE search returned only a small handful of passing mentions. Curbon7 (talk) 05:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Oceania. Curbon7 (talk) 05:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - civil servants aren't notable, and there doesn't appear to be sourcing for GNG.--IdiotSavant (talk) 06:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the Emperor (novel)[edit]

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

Article has zero citations, is almost entirely just a plot summary, and the subject fails WP:GNG Di (they-them) (talk) 05:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. Di (they-them) (talk) 05:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with Nominator and article doesn't have any Reference. Historical Heritages of Bihar (talk) 18:15, 16 May 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 Horus Heresy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Horus Heresy characters[edit]

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

This list is entirely unsourced, each entry seems to fail WP:GNG, and the list itself fails WP:LISTN. Seems to be entirely WP:FANCRUFT. Di (they-them) (talk) 05:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Lists. Di (they-them) (talk) 05:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fancruft is not a reason for deletion. Had you considered merging or redirecting to The Horus Heresy if it remains that no or insufficient RS'es are found? Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, a redirect to The Horus Heresy might be a good option. Di (they-them) (talk) 05:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Although the article doesn't meet WP:GNG at the moment, a redirect to The Horus Heresy is probably the best idea. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge there’s no characters section at the redirect target, so redirection makes no sense Dronebogus (talk) 10:42, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Horus Heresy as the main topic. There are insufficient reliable sources for a separate article. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Horus Heresy as a WP:ATD. WP:ALLPLOT content that fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. No objection to recreation if it can be sourced. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Madhabpur Model High School[edit]

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

This is a school like all others in Bangladesh, with no evidence of unique notability that would support an article. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 04:30, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Bangladesh. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is disappointing. I can't find reliable sources references either, but nobody would say "This is a school like any other in Nebraska". The current standards for notability of schools tend to exclude most schools in places like Bangladesh except for a handful of schools for children of the rich, while American high schools are usually notable because of extensive coverage of scandals, high school sports and murders. :-( People might not have fully realized this during the 2017 discussions about school notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: no offense is meant. You are right. I live in a country like Bangladesh where poverty is sadly commomplace and, as you say, schools do an effective enough job without the types of cost-intensive activities that might bring media and other attention. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 05:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Eastmain 'tis a grave concern that such sterling institutions, as these apparently reputable schools, find no place in our esteemed annals. Ought we not to question the rule that stifles these voices, thereby enforcing a lamentable Anglospheric bias? I urge my fellows to consider: does this not belie our mission to bestow knowledge upon the world, unabridged? A reconsideration of these guidelines would strike a blow for global equity, and thus, I humbly suggest, elevate the dignity of our collective endeavour. As it stands, a delete vote is inevitable for its alignment with our lamentable inclusion policy. Jack4576 (talk) 11:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it had a Bengali article with sources I'd reconsider. But as it stands it fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NSCHOOL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historical Heritages of Bihar (talk • contribs) 18:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dauki Union, the community where it is located, per WP:ATD. It is one of three secondary schools there (the others being Bademaju Badal Smrity Academy and Bashira Malik Dawki Secondary School).[23] Listing them there could improve the union article. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG, if someone wants to redirect it, they can add it to the community article (since it is not mentioned there), and create a redirect.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shah Mustafa[edit]

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

Out of the 15 references in this article, most of them simply list the figure in a list containing the names of hundreds of Shah Jalal's disciples. Majority of these sources do not meet the standards of Wikipedia. Much of the content is ahistoric and retrieved from unqualified bloggers. Ibn Battuta makes no mention of this figure at all, and the figure's supposed descendants does not make him notable in his own right. This article contains a lot of puffery but lacks reliable sources. Jaunpurzada (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh, India and Islam. --Jaunpurzada (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If there is content from unqualified bloggers, or other sources that Wikipedia does not consider reliable, it would be more effective to remove that before discussing whether or not the entire article should be deleted. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Let me list all of the references:

Not a reference, should be a footnote.
Dead link of unknown credibility.
Reliable source but he is mentioned in four brief sentences, with the main focus of the chapter being Shah Jalal.
Unidentifiable book with an unidentifiable author.
Can't access this book, but most probably mentions him briefly in a long list of Shah Jalal's disciples
Although newspaper editorials aren't ideal sources for this topic, it is a reliable website. No information on Goswami, who is most likely a journalist.
Ibn Battuta does not mention Shah Mustafa at all.
Mentions him briefly in a long list of Shah Jalal's disciples
This is an insecure news site which is not well-known and the author is not known.
Insecure news site, reports the commemoration of his death anniversary and some legends pertaining to him.
Can't access this book, but most probably contains the same information as the other Bangla Academy journals
Reliable news site, main focus is on death anniversary commemoration.
Government report, mentions his tomb as a tourist attraction
Reliable news site, main focus is on death anniversary commemoration.
Seems to be an old website, very briefly mentions the figure
Banglapedia reference on his descendant. Notability is not inherited.

As it can seen, most of this page has been WP:OR and PUFFERY and does not meet the guidelines of Wikipedia. Most of the reliable sources out of these are focused towards his death anniversary commemoration which is common for all Sufi saints in the Indian subcontinent and does not display an independent notability. The reliable sources mention little information whereas the bulk of this information on this article has been taken from the unidentifiable/questionable sources or constitute original research. This article should be deleted as it is just like Khanda Jhokmok and Aziz Chishti.Jaunpurzada (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Busheska[edit]

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

Copied into main space from declined draft Draft:Angela Busheska. Draft was declined for relying on primary sources. This version should be draftified/deleted so that only one version of article exists and it is not ready for main space WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DaffodilOcean (talk) 01:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Based on primary sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC).[reply]
7,8,12 and 17 are in depth reviews 139.147.221.224 (talk) 23:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these "30 under 30 lists" aren't notable, rest of the awards are trivial. A strong student perhaps, but nothing we need for a wiki article. Oaktree b (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is the official Forbes list 139.147.221.224 (talk) 23:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

and it's not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 12:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Environment, and North Macedonia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
one thing is maybe the country, if you take a look most of the activists are US / West Europe centered Wiki121121121 (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - not all of these sources are primary, two of the articles in Macedonian (refs 7 and 8) are more in-depth coverage of Busheska. Ref 7 was published the year before she was named to the Forbes list. ~~~~ (sorry, signature was lost on that comment) DaffodilOcean (talk) 22:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
12 and 17 are not primary as well. 139.147.221.224 (talk) 23:30, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

says the 3-edit spa. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Keep - while she is young, her recognition extends beyond the Forbes list, e.g., the Diana Award. There are young climate activists participating in global discussions, and she appears to be one of them. There are multiple news articles in the Macedonian press covering Busheska. I have added these (non-primary) sources to the article, and removed some of the primary ones that were in the prior version. DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
here is one more notable award: https://explorer-directory.nationalgeographic.org/angela-busheska 209.40.95.241 (talk) 03:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are not helping this discussion with links to the websites. Do you examples of news articles talking about her? DaffodilOcean (talk) 04:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Undergraduates are almost never notable. The trendiness of climate activism in the last 10 years has drawn a large cadre of people, so simply "participating in global discussions" is not terribly notable. There's also no convincing claim to notability in the lede. This is a SPA-created article that was born less than 2 hours after its creating account appeared and the initial version of the article was highly-detailed with obscure, unsourced biosketch information. It is almost certainly a vanity autobio. 128.252.154.8 (talk) 19:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
here is another one, just three people are chosen each year by Nico Rosberg: https://greentechfestival.com/awards/ 209.40.95.241 (talk) 03:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are several new or low-edit-tally accounts responding here with additional sources that do not actually further the case for keeping, for example the "Green Tech Festival" one here. At least one is an IP from school that the subject of this article attends. If the responder is the same person as the subject of this article, my advice would be to refrain from further input and just let the debate play-out. 128.252.172.8 (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, regarding the "Selected publications" section, conference papers in mechanical engineering are not notable in the conventional way that they are in computer science. Refereed journal articles are what count. Moreover, "Selected publications" is usually used to highlight a short list of the most interesting or impactful papers for people who've compiled a very long publication record. Having that sort of section here for an undergraduate feels like it's trying too hard. 128.252.172.8 (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Since she does not meet any NPROF criteria, she must be evaluated via GNG. The sources are still almost entirely primary news announcements, passing mentions, or non-independent.

source analysis
1 is her student newspaper N. #2 is a release from her university N. # 3 (first Inovatinost article) is directly from Lafayette N. # 4 (second Inovatinost) reads like promo for her app and is of uncertain provenance, but regardless does not contain much secondary coverage N. #5 is a plea for fundraising with no independent coverage of Busheska N. #6 is a passing mention + quote in a recap of Macedonian Olympiad results N. #7 is an announcement/interview on her inclusion on the We are Family Foundation list, and apart from a couple sentences is entirely quotes or coverage of her app N. #8, 9, and 10 are announcements from/profiles by awarding orgs N. #11 and 14 are coverage by the event organizer of an event she participated in N. #12 is an announcement for the Youth Climate Summit that has a single sentence mentioning she will participate N. #13 is a brief mention + quote about her participation in an online debate N. #15 is from her school N. #16 is a mention in a list of awardees from a press release ((spa)) is missing a username and/or IP.. #17 is a brief award announcement in what appears to be an unreliable tabloid-like source N. #18 is a short blurb on her from an org she participates in ((spa)) is missing a username and/or IP.. ((spa)) is missing a username and/or IP.#19 is her profile on Forbes N. #20 is an interview from the same outlet as #18 and contains very little independent info.

source analysis

1 is her student newspaper N. #2 is a release from her university N. # 3 (first Inovatinost article) is directly from Lafayette N. # 4 (second Inovatinost) reads like promo for her app and is of uncertain provenance, but regardless does not contain much secondary coverage N. #5 is a plea for fundraising with no independent coverage of Busheska N. #6 is a passing mention + quote in a recap of Macedonian Olympiad results N. #7 is an announcement/interview on her inclusion on the We are Family Foundation list, and apart from a couple sentences is entirely quotes or coverage of her app N. #8, 9, and 10 are announcements from/profiles by awarding orgs N. #11 and 14 are coverage by the event organizer of an event she participated in N. #12 is an announcement for the Youth Climate Summit that has a single sentence mentioning she will participate N. #13 is a brief mention + quote about her participation in an online debate N. #15 is from her school N. #16 is a mention in a list of awardees from a press release ((spa)) is missing a username and/or IP.. #17 is a brief award announcement in what appears to be an unreliable tabloid-like source N. #18 is a short blurb on her from an org she participates in ((spa)) is missing a username and/or IP.. ((spa)) is missing a username and/or IP.#19 is her profile on Forbes N. #20 is an interview from the same outlet as #18 and contains very little independent info.

JoelleJay (talk) 00:59, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not meeting any criteria, "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" Citations101 (talk) 20:25, 22 May 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Estonian Association of Gerontology and Geriatrics[edit]

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

PROD declined (courtesy @Aymatth2: ), but the issue isn't the quantity of sourcing, but rather the depth. I don't read Estonian, but nothing I can find online indicates depth required for WP:ORG for this small organization. Star Mississippi 01:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Estonia. Star Mississippi 01:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Pray, Star Mississippi, in your pursuit for depth, have you ventured to employ Estonian search terms, or does your verdict rest on anglophone sources alone? I find reluctance in casting a 'delete' vote when linguistic comprehension, as is relevant here, appears limited. Jack4576 (talk) 10:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

as I noted when I PRODded it, there's also no sourcing in the Estonian article. I searched on Eesti Gerontoloogia ja Geriaatria Assotsiatsioon which brings up the same as English. Confirmation it exists but zero in depth. It does not appear to be a large organization that attracted attention in either language Star Mississippi 13:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is a bit out of date, but all the information is sourced, mostly from reliable independent sources. A web search on "Eesti Gerontoloogia ja Geriaatria Assotsiatsioon" gives plenty of hits. This one is typical. Not very exciting maybe, but a valid subject. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's no indication that the Estonian Nurses Union is independent of the Association since its constituents include nurses Star Mississippi 15:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Some nurses involved in geriatric care will belong to both organizations, but that does not mean the Nurses Union is associated with EGGA. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'd invoke WP:NOTPAPER. This is clearly an established professional body of a specific field in a small country, that is not the centre of any particular controversy. Thus it is unrealistic to expect there to be tons of articles online. There is indepth coverage, such as this article in Estonian Medical Journal, https://ojs.utlib.ee/index.php/EA/article/download/10703/5888/ discussing the role of the organization. See also p. 214, "In addition , the Estonian Association of Gerontology and Geriatrics ( EGGA ) has conducted several national and international surveys ( health and social services ; coping and well - being of the older population ) ." I find a number of other google books hits of studies using studies by EGGA as reference material. --Soman (talk) 20:30, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Soman. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KaSelly[edit]

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

Failed AFC but editor moved it to article space anyway. Bio not yet shown to meet WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 00:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Africa. UtherSRG (talk) 00:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Failed AFC, fails WP:GNG as all sources are promotional in nature. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Honourable curators, a lamentable truth presents itself: the textual tapestry of KaSelly, suffused with undue promotion, beckons the axe. Yet, I rue the vexing paradox: a refashioned article, stripped of its promotional palette, would meet the same fate. This grievous state of affairs stokes the ember of underrepresentation, a bane that continues to shroud the vibrant narratives of Africa within our digital archive. Jack4576 (talk) 10:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OMG! That comment needs to be preserved for all time! - UtherSRG (talk) 11:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promo for a non-notable "designer". No sources other than the fluff one in the article that I can find. Oaktree b (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agrees with all Delete comments and nomintor. Historical Heritages of Bihar (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Oaktree b. Fails GNG and lacks SIGCOV. Nythar (💬-🍀) 09:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just promotional material really. ULPS (talk) 20:48, 22 May 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 is consensus that the list may serve a valid navigational purpose iff clear inclusion criteria are set out; there are many comments here suggesting that only wiki-notable restaurants be included, but determining the criteria is out of scope here. Were this article to balloon into a list full of non-notable entries, the arguments for deletion would carry a lot more weight. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of restaurants in Hungary[edit]

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

There is no way to include all restraunts of Hungary. And there isn't a clear limit to flit the restraunts, which make the page to be advertisement of those who in the acticle --燃玉(Ranyv)(talk) 00:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Shopping malls, and Hungary. --燃玉(Ranyv)(talk) 00:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but only the ones with articles, i.e. actually notable. Why pick on Hungary? Lists of restaurants#By country has 16 more country lists. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF. Timothytyy (talk) 07:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those who yearn for erasure seem to dance a duplicitous waltz, embracing consensus in fair weather, yet shunning it amidst the storm.

Verily, the existence of similar articles stands as a testament to consensus achieved.

OTHERSTUFF, thus, is not a ghost to be evaded; rather, shines a mirror to the illustrious archives of our communal accord. Jack4576 (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The point of OTHERSTUFF is to prevent whataboutisms as a means of deflecting criticism. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nom and voters, please give your stances on whether it fails WP:NLIST. Personally I see no harm of keeping this but I won't oppose deletion. Timothytyy (talk) 07:42, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not a List of restaurants in Hungary, it is a list of two notable restaurants in Budapest (and two non-notable ones). Does the author of the list think that there are no restaurants in the rest of Hungary? Or that there are no places in Hungary apart from Budapest? For what it's worth I eaten in good restaurants not only in Budapest (not at the ones listed), but also in Visegrád, Balatonfüred, Tihány, Badacsony, Szigliget, Szeged, and doubtless others that I've forgotten. A more serious list might be possible, but it would take a huge amount of time and effort, and the existing list is so extremely far from justifying the title that the only reasonable option is to delete, rather than, say, expand. Despite many edits the current list is not very different from the one created in 2014. Athel cb (talk) 09:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honourable fellows, though your points ring with veracity, I implore you to reconsider. Indeed, our Hungarian list might be deemed scanty, yet is it not our duty to nourish its growth rather than decree its doom? Shall we condemn the sapling for not being the oak? Do recall, Rome was not built in a day, nor shall our list be. Let us opt for expansion over obliteration, guide the hands of our editors to construct a worthy account, reflective of the rich culinary tapestry that is Hungary. Keep. Jack4576 (talk) 10:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the nine years since the article was created there has been essentially no growth. OK, there was a spurt of additions of Starbucks etc., but these were (rightly) deleted. Athel cb (talk) 12:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any use of this list. Wikipedia isn't a travel guide, so this (very incomplete) 'list' seems useless. It should be turned into a category for convenience. Timothytyy (talk) 12:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having a category is fine (if there is not one already? [there is: Category:Restaurants in Hungary), but that is not a substitute. wp:CLNT explains how categories, lists, and navigational templates are complementary. Basically if there is a category there can be a list, which can include references, photos, maps, discussion in context, and more [including redlinks identifying notable items not having articles yet, where notability is supported by an inline reference, as have been added by me. --00:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC)]. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 21:49, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honourable fellows, though your points ring with veracity... This practically reeks of a ChatGPT-penned post. Zaathras (talk) 14:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOTTRAVEL and this isn't picking on Hungary in particular, it's just an ill fitting article. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Not a travel guide" is not relevant; that is about not including telephone numbers and opening hours etc., not present here. --Doncram

Keep, per Clarityfiend & Jack4576, the article could grow in the future as more "blue" restaurants are added. Alexcalamaro (talk) 04:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it has been multiple years with no updates forthcoming. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 07:10, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So what. There's no rush. I might go to Hungary soon myself, and if I do I will add to it. Or someone else will.

And, if you think it's too short, I suppose you should argue it should be merged back up to worldwide List of restaurants, and only re-split out again when it is of a certain size. That's an editorial decision, not for AFD. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 21:49, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Clarityfiend & Jack4576 & Alexcalamaro. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 21:49, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Zaathras (talk) 14:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... or perhaps it depends on how you define that term? If traveling, I would certainly be consulting Wikipedia as well as WikiVoyage and other sources which are less comprehensive about history, etc.

Anyhow this list-article absolutely does not violate Wikipedia's wp:NOTTRAVEL policy, which is about not including phone numbers and the like, and not trying to exhaustively list _all_ examples (of restaurants in Hungary, in this case), which this list-article does not. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 23:40, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The list-article has been expanded by me to include 14 rather than just 4 items, and it now includes all Michelin Guide-starred restaurants in Hungary. As such the list-article is now one of 25 members of Category:Lists of Michelin Guide starred restaurants (which has lists in various nations and cities). Note that lists of restaurants are accepted in Wikipedia, and this now compares better to others. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 23:40, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More entries, which are red links. Not exactly useful. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 23:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You added non-notable restaurants in an attempt to make the subject look more expansive than it actually is. This is similar to ref-bombing, and as disruptive. Zaathras (talk) 23:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Huh?!? Why would you think any one of them is not notable? The ones i added are all top-rated. You try to open a restaurant and win a Michelin star. And try to prevent there from being plenty of coverage! Try English language Google News search for any one of them. For Salt, for example, you immediately get to a CNN feature about it. The notability of each is already supported by reliable references in the article. It doesn't matter that most are redlinks, or if they were just mentioned without creating links at all (though redlinks are good to have). I simply do not understand why anyone would still oppose this article, if they did any browsing at all. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 05:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you think any one of them is not notable?, the sea of red may be a hint. Zaathras (talk) 13:24, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, right, you won't state that you have done any searching at all, and you have no objection to any source among 17 already included in this list-article. The redlinks for all of the top restaurants added (all supported by inline sources) suggests to me that the English wikipedia doesn't have too many Hungarian contributors, or at least not too many contributors focusing on restaurants in the former Eastern Bloc. Deleting a list-article is not the way forward. I interpret the objections generally as just "I don't like it", or as ignorance that redlinked topics can be notable (i.e., that Wikipedia is not finished) even in face of sources suggesting or proving notability of them all. I probably won't respond further.--Doncram (talk,contribs) 14:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"this doesn't have a wikipedia article" is not an indication of notability or a criteria in any notability guideline. Per WP:OTHERSTUFF Equally, because articles must wait for someone who is interested in the subject to notice they are missing before they are created, a lot of articles do not exist that probably should. I would be moderately surprised if a Michelin starred restaurant wasn't notable, almost all of them have a significant amount of coverage in food guides, travel guides and reviews. 192.76.8.86 (talk) 17:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTPURP-NAV. This is a valid navigational list created as part of a larger scheme of "list of restaurants by country" lists. 192.76.8.86 (talk) 17:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only half of the list is linked, so I don't think WP:LISTPURP-NAV can apply to the list asis. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid navigational list. While there aren't currently articles for the red links right now, that doesn't make them not notable. There's WP:NODEADLINE for that. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But what makes them notable? What are the inclusin criteria of the list? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restaurants that meet WP:NCORP are generally notable enough for their own article. Having a Michelin star generally is enough to presume that significant independent coverage exists. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 19:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, a restaurant that meets NCORP is notable by definition. That is what NCORP is for. But having a Michelin star is not generally enough to meet WP:SIRS, and thus NCORP. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:NLIST, no evidence that this is discussed as a group. The list has no inclusion criteria (see WP:LISTV#INC ), and is thus indiscriminate, and in the WP:NCORP area this is important because it could fall foul of WP:SPIP in that we are promoting some restaurants at the expense of others. The sources given on th epage do not establish notability. Note that WP:NCORP does not apply to individual list entries, but the point here is that the list promotes certain restaurants at the expense of others, and without a secondary source collection for it to be based on, it becomes publicity, which is exactly what NCORP seeks to avoid. Fails WP:NOTGUIDE. Keep votes appear to be spurious based on navigation (which this list is not) or OTHERSTUFF. I do recognise Doncram's efforts to base entries off the Michelin guide, but duplicating the guide then fails WP:NOTGUIDE. What is needed is a secondary source for the list, and that remains lacking. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTGUIDE would be a reason to delete content that duplicated the Michelin guide (if not already deleted as a copyright infringement) but not a reason to delete articles about the restaurants, or lists of restaurants with entries in the guide. Peter James (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright can exist in a collection (called database right in the UK, but copyright in some jurisdictions). If the list duplicates the collection, then the list, not the linked articles are what fail WP:NOTGUIDE.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Michelin guides are not just lists. They are guides because of the style and content of entries. Otherwise guides would be the same as lists and we would delete all. Peter James (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There can be a list of restaurants with articles, for navigation purposes (WP:CLN and WP:CSC), and another WP:CSC criterion "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group" for List of Michelin starred restaurants in Hungary, most of which are notable. Because the lists would be short and significantly overlap, it's reasonable to combine them in one list. Peter James (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There could be such a list, but this isn't it. Just an arbitrary listing inflated with red links, and what blue links there are have maybe 3-4 sentences worth of content each. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 09:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the two that had no clear reason for inclusion in the list[24]. Peter James (talk) 10:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no plausible way we could list every restaurant in Hungary, clear failure of WP:NLIST. — Amakuru (talk) 11:37, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although this could potentially turn into an indiscriminate list of restaurants, it hasn't and it would be quite easy to set out inclusion criteria to ensure that it doesn't. Lots of lists only include entries with standalone Wikipedia articles (WP:CSC), and we haven't got many of those. The entries in the list which don't have articles all have Michelin stars, there can't be many of those (no country has more than a few hundred) and they're very likely to be notable. As for WP:NLIST I find it hard to believe there aren't sources on the subject of restaurants in Hungary and the list would have navigational value even if there aren't. Hut 8.5 12:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTPURP-NAV. This is not a pointless cross-categorization. It definitely serves an encyclopedic purpose. For example, it saves time to a reader wanting to learn about Hungarian cuisine, in complement to the article. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 16:06, 31 May 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.