Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by -sche (talk | contribs) at 04:50, 1 December 2023 (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xabbatog.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< November 30 December 02 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. The WordsmithTalk to me 02:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Xabbatog

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

All I can find is a single brief mention in one book, which suggests this is not notable enough for its own article (hence why, after a decade, the article is still just one sentence long), and indeed suggests that xabbatog may not even be real. (This came up on Wiktionary's Requests for Verification page, where we couldn't find evidence that it was real.) See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xab Pagri. -sche (talk) 04:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. It's quite possible this is real, but the only source is published by the Chinese government. Which still doesn't mean this isn't real, but we need better sources for pretty much anything written by China about Tibet. I couldn't find much else that I could rule out having been taken from WP, couldn't even find a recipe in English. It's possible that someone who reads Tibetan would be able to find some recipes, which would at least prove this dish is real. Foods from small countries without a history of food journalism or academic study are very difficult, especially when we're dealing with transliteration, which is why I would prefer to userfy. Valereee (talk) 13:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- There are no sources for this that I can find. Every mention appears to be a mirror of Wikipedia. When there is a dish that doesn't even have online recipes, I am extremely sceptical. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted‎ by Bbb23 per criterion A7. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 19:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Garrett Kelly

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

No references SlightlyToastedCheesecake (talk) 04:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to List of viral videos. Liz Read! Talk! 07:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sticking Out Your Gyat for the Rizzler

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

A 15-second TikTok audio clip of a child singing a parodied version of a song that doesn't have an article to begin with. All relevant sources I could find are really just articles that explain Gen Alpha/Gen Z slang to parents and use this song as an example of such lingo. Regardless, even if there was an in-depth review of this song from the most credible of sources along with a Wikipedia article about the song it's parodying or its artist, I still don't think this deserves its own article because it remains in the end as simply a child singing various slang and meme phrases, but that's just my opinion. Maybe it warrants a mention in a relevant article at, but it does not have enough notability or proper coverage to warrant its own article. Waddles 🗩 🖉 04:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to List of viral videos per NOPAGE. This is notable, but all the coverage of the song uses it exclusively to segue into discussions about gen alpha slang, or lazy "look how other people reacted" churnalism. There isn't enough meat on the bone for a standalone article.Mach61 (talk) 05:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've wrote it into List of viral music videos now. Mach61 (talk) 14:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mach61. This article reads more like a joke entry than an encyclopaedia article and there's no notability here for it to be saved. Buttons0603 (talk) 08:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. Wikipedia does not measure notability by level of "seriousness", and just because the topic of an article seems "absurd" or "ridiculous" does not automatically exclude it from the encyclopedia.
    In Wikipedia, what matters is whether a song has had more of an impact on culture (measured by both quantity and quality of sources), and in this case, it arguably has. That impact is larger than that of the original song, maybe not enough to grant an article of its own (at least at the moment), but certainly large enough to not be scrapped altogether but at least merged into another article. Sr. Knowthing ¿señor? 11:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm aware that very absurd or ridiculous topics can be covered on the site, but this is a run-of-the-mill meme that does get some coverage (whether its reliable coverage or SEO spam disguised as journalism) but eventually goes no further than that. The defacto consensus for when a meme is notable enough for an article appears to be when itself gets parodied or reinterpreted in another piece of media or is spun-off into something like a brand, TV series, an actual song, etc., but that's based on my judgement looking through articles of internet memes.
    I disagree that this has had an impact on culture in the same sense a newly-released song would, considering the coverage of this is exclusively "what is [x]?" mush that gets printed out for every TikTok meme or trend simply to cash in on the success or take advantage of SEO to drive traffic into their sites. It's a very common pattern that those sort of sources get used for every internet-related article on Wikipedia that inevitable gets deleted or draftified. That being said, if its notability is not enough to sustain an article but is noteworthy of being mentioned one way or another, I am not opposed to a brief section or mention within a relevant article like Mach61 made. Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Coverage in the New York Times is not routine. This meme meets the GNG, it's just that it makes more sense as part of a list. Mach61 (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 46.162.68.151 (talk) 22:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please explain why you wish to delete this article; this isn't a vote Mach61 (talk) 23:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge A merge may be a good option for this song, but it definitely does not deserve its own page. There is really no encyclopedic knowledge to be had with this song, it is just a 15 second audio clip with little notability. Hungry403 (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is something that many people want to know about, especially gen alpha teens who might want the meanings of the words to use them properly in context with friends. The article provides that information. I don’t see why it should get deleted. 141.157.217.57 (talk) 00:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@141.157.217.57: Well, you'd normally go to a dictionary if you were looking for the definition of words, Wikipedia isn't one. I'm sure you could even find these words on Wiktionary if not Know Your Meme or a Fandom article which might go more in-depth. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They can read the urban dictionary definition for it then. Hungry403 (talk) 04:27, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to list of viral videos per nom, WP:NOPAGE, and what Sr. Knowthing said. Though it could be argued the information in this article is somewhat encyclopedic (good snapshot of the internet both ironically and unironically for the past 365 days) and the sources are good for an article, this stuff can be summed up and put into a list pretty easily, and honestly an article like this is just inviting a new vandal each hour. Also, do note that because all of this is a meme, this discussion might be derailed by IPs trying to keep it because it's funny; not adding the notice since it hasn't happened yet, but just giving a heads up. AdoTang (talk) 03:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Should this article be deleted, I believe it should be redirected to the list of viral music videos element talking about the song. Sr. Knowthing ¿señor? 00:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done just that now (which is allowed, just usually proscribed) since that's the clear current consensus, and because it might reduce vandalism of this AfD. Mach61 (talk) 02:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. The WordsmithTalk to me 03:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

International Language Academy of Canada

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

Fails GNG. There’s two CBC articles about a Ukrainian student finding a job at the school but that’s it. Also the page was created by a user with COI. NM 03:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:44, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MEHL Hockey

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

Removed WP:PROD.

Non-notable league for non-notable sport. No non-WP:PRIMARY sources to be found. Simulated ice hockey is not even notable enough to have an article. A412 (Talk • C) 03:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

SAFE Credit Union

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

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

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

Delete: Appears this does not meet the WP:NCORP due to a lack of secondary sources. Let'srun (talk) 04:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the four newspaper articles? RecycledPixels (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RecycledPixels, I haven't examined the sources in this article but my experience closing AFDs has demonstrated to me that WP:NCORP is a very tough standard to meet. Liz Read! Talk! 03:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Comment already stated keep above. I'm reluctant to personally invest a significant effort into improving this article due to some potentially-perceived COI conflicts. But mainly because I'm not interested in writing articles about companies. But since I am very familiar with the company, I have spent a relatively small amount of time sorting through newspapers.com archives to add some reliable, independent references that I think should meet notability concerns. Since this company has invested in a sponsorship deal with the city's premiere concert venue, most of the top pages of search results will turn up trivial mentions of the company in the context of various performances. So you have to use your Google-Fu to exclude mentions of the performing arts center in order to fairly evaluate the notability of the article subject. But you'll still have to wade through a whole lot of articles about various branches being robbed, ATM thefts, and so-and-so just got promoted in the company, and other trivial, non-significant mentions. The company is not well-suited to the typical AFD thirty-second google search to glance at whether it's a notable company. It's the second-largest credit union in the city, by assets (I recently added that reference to the article). This isn't an article about some garage band, or an "up-and-coming" business trying to generate enough buzz to survive its next round of funding. Hope that helps. RecycledPixels (talk) 08:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as seen here, there are about 50+ instances of independent coverage just within the past two years alone. In addition to the vast expansive local coverage, there's a quote in the New York Times and a paragraph in the Associated Press. Left guide (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there is significant coverage in newspapers. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 23:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arizona–Texas Tech football rivalry

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

I cannot find any WP:SIGCOV showing that this subject meets the WP:NRIVALRY (or WP:GNG.) Let'srun (talk) 03:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article was created in August 2023 after it was announced that Arizona would join the Big 12 Conference, creating the potential for the "rivalry" to be renewed. We're way WP:TOOSOON to use that as a basis for this as a stand-alone piece. Cbl62 (talk) 05:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ejgreen77: I also did a "before" search and didn't find anything better than what you found. And the one passaage in your source where "rivalry" is mentioned is where the Texas Tech coach said he didn't really care whether a contract was signed to continue the series, noting "rivalry should be friendly and worthwhile." As you noted, this actually tends to undercut the notion that a truly notable rivalry existed even back in the Border Conference days. That said, a notable rivalry may develop in the future with both teams in the Big 12, but it's too soon to say whether that will happen. Cbl62 (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. If an editor wants to create a Redirect from this page title, feel free. Liz Read! Talk! 03:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endless-piston principle

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

No indication of notability. Zero sources. Orphaned for a decade. PepperBeast (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Chua et al. 2021, pp. 161, 206 are convincing. The authors cite one of the commercial WWW-site sources for the "endless-piston principle" and say that they are rotating displacement pumps. Chua et al. are engineering professors. Amusingly, the first sentence of the article outright says as well that these are rotating positive displacement pumps. Alas, from that our readers only get to progressing cavity pump via screw pump, when really they should be able to get there directly; but progressing cavity pump is where we have this by its actual non-commercial-puffery name, and that latter is where this commercial-puffery name should redirect, as a credible, but not proper, alternative name.

    We should not merge any of the content. It's a cleaned up version of the original version of the article which is a almost a straight lift, with some word changes here and there, from ViscoTec's own self-promoting commercial blurb. "Our pump technology provides additional benefits compared to other conveying mechanisms" becomes "Compared to other conveying methods, this pumping technology has even more advantages to offer", for one example. Wikipedia has copied and lightly re-worded an advert. Ironically, this copyright violation is of the very same page on ViscoTec's WWW site that the engineering professors cite and explain.

    In fact, deleting all of this copyright violating and advert-repeating edit history first and then putting a redirect in place seems the best outcome, to remove temptation.

    Uncle G (talk) 08:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

references
  • Chua, Chee Kai; Yeong, Wai Yee; Low, Hong Yee; Tran, Tuan; Tan, Hong Wei (2021). 3d Printing And Additive Manufacturing Of Electronics: Principles And Applications. World Scientific Series In 3d Printing. Vol. 3. World Scientific. ISBN 9789811218378. This type of material extruder belongs to the category of rotating displacement pumps […]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per @A. B., there are no sources. @Uncle G has found one source but it isn't very descriptive. I don't think this article can be rewritten without violating copyright, single source or notability. I think a paragraph or two written into the positive displacement or progressing cavity articles using Uncle G's source will be enough. Matarisvan (talk) 15:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. I see no consensus here. Maybe the situation will become clearer over time. Liz Read! Talk! 04:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Qusaya

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

Typical ONEEVENT. No coverage of person outside of news about his death.The article was previously PRODedd and Prod was removed with comment that person is notable. But there is no significant coverage enough to write a biography. Even the age is nog known. Kirill C1 (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is being a member of a national team enough?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: 1E article, fails GNG, NBIO, meets NOTNEWS, NOTMEMORIAL. Sources in article and BEFORE showed nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth, sources are brief articles about a recent event which mention the subject. No sources show the event will meet WP:LASTING and fails NOTNEWS.  // Timothy :: talk  12:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the page is not in bad shape and the subject meets GNG, looking for his Arab name there is coverage about him even before his death, eg. this article enterely devoted to him from Saudi newspaper Al Riyadiyah, which recounts his career and describes him as a major star. Cavarrone 20:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I see No consensus here right now among discussion participants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If the death is verifiable per WP:V, there should at least be a redirect to the airstrike. There will then be an incoming link from the Asian Games volleyball page, informing that this player perished in the airstrike, without the need of a standalone biographical article. That is, if the state of SIGCOV is not good enough to keep it. If it is kept, throw out the "volleyball players martyred" reference which clearly fails WP:NPOV. Geschichte (talk) 12:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:38, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miss American Beauty 1963

Miss American Beauty 1963 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 03:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd (twice) so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per a request on my talkpage, I'm reverting my closure and relisting the AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The WordsmithTalk to me 22:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Bosco

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

Procedural nomination following closure of this RfD. The page was created out of a redirect by an anonymous editor in April 2023; the redirect was then restored by Xexerss hours later without any explanation I can find. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. The WordsmithTalk to me 02:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sasi Shanker

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

Doesn't meet WP:BASIC Cray04 (talk) 03:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:33, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaCommons

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

Lacks SIGCOV. Google returns a single news article plus a couple of blog posts. NM 04:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This is a weird one. I'm not seeing the coverage to keep this, and I don't see any plausible redirect targets either despite the range of organizational collaborations here. Plausibly WP:TOOSOON, but as a publishing project it seems pretty dead, it's basically a blog these days. Suriname0 (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 04:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Corporate Counsel

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

Lacks SIGCOV. NM 04:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on grounds of WP:IAR. This is a 40 year-old organization that has branches around the world, has given testimony before the U.S. Congress, files briefs before the U.S. Supreme Court, is quoted regularly in books and other scholarly works, and has an annual benchmarking survey that is widely reported. After diligent search there does not, however, appear to be any lengthy description of its activities in an independent source. While it's thus entirely possible to justify the deletion on WP:NORG grounds, this would be one of those occasional exceptions where doing so would not make sense. Oblivy (talk) 10:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:33, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. I've read through all of the comments (naturallly) and the only consensus I see is that this article needs some attention from a knowledgeable and competent editor. There is enough support for Deletion that I can't close this as Keep and I doubt that relisting would help as this discussion has lost momentum. So, I'm closing this as No consensus as I believe that reflects the entirety of the discussion. Here's hoping this article draws the attention of an editor interested in the art of wood carving. Liz Read! Talk! 03:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History of wood carving

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

I am nominating it on behalf of User:Drmies and User:Uncle G (the former has redirected this a while back). I think it merits an AfD discussion, and I restored it, an action that has been criticized by them. Their criticism of the article can be seen here. I am not convinced this needs a WP:TNT myself (IMHO the topic seems notable, and the article needs a rewrite, since it has been noted it is significantly based on dated Britannica 1911 content, and contains some problematic statements), but clearly, we need more opinions, and I dislike redirecting things without even a PROD. So here we go. PS. Unreferenced content can be removed per WP:V. Perhaps someone interested could try to rewrite it, even into a referenced, neutral and up to date stub? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has always been tagged as using EB1911; most of Wikipedia on arts subjects started this way, this has just developed less than most. This vocab is inappropriate. Johnbod (talk) 03:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an abuse of AFD, and far from this being on my behalf I pointed out beforehand that AFD isn't for this. AFD is not "votes for rewrites". Rewrites we just do, just like this text was just rewritten in 2005 once before when it was our wood carving article; with normal talk page discussion, which we were having. It doesn't need the administrator deletion tool, Drmies didn't use the administrator deletion tool, I simply started a discussion of a rewrite (a middle path between an editor who redirected this text back to the article that it came from and an editor who reinstated it in toto) and pointed to Wikipedia:WikiProject Encyclopaedia Britannica#The good, the bad and the ugly and didn't even edit the article (but simply asked whether we should rewrite it because it is really bad), and AFD is entirely wrong for this. This is dishonest. Uncle G (talk) 07:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hang on a moment, no. The discussion appears to be whether there should be a TNT deletion based on the extent to which this article is derived from the Britannica material. Uncle G commented "I am strongly tempted to just kerrrzappp! this one."Special:Diff/1187674965 and kerrrzappping sounds like an admin tool deletion to me. For the record, I'm very much of the opinion that the appallingly lazy "One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain" which is cropping up more and more in Wikipedia articles, is going to be the death of Wikipedia. It is an unreference, a comment that some (but what??) of the above text is probably, but not guaranteed to be, a cut-and-paste plagiarism. It's an excuse rather than a source, a get-out-clause that in this case it's okay to plagiarise. And if all we're going to do is partially-plagiarise stuff that's conveniently not a copyright violation, why would anyone come here rather than simply Google? Go to Wikipedia, the place where humans who haven't even got the brains of an AI application will indiscriminately show you stuff that they possibly didn't even read, let alone write! Not a great look. So yes, there's a case for TNTing, but basically Uncle G is also right: it'd be a darned sight better if someone simply trimmed out all the copied material and got on with writing a better article. It didn't need AfD, but it was valid to bring it here. Elemimele (talk) 11:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not in my name it was not. And not when no-one wanted or said anything about deletion it was not. No-one did, and this is abuse of AFD. I even used the word "rewrites" twice in that very diff, alongside "editing, not deletion", so it's abundantly clear what I'm talking about even if one doesn't know the jargon. kerrrzappp! has been this sort of edit since 2005. This is not deletion, nor is it "TNT", coined years later by someone else for something else. It has been that way for approaching two decades, and I am mildly well known for this. Even to the point that someone made a WP:KERRRZAPPP shortcut after about 7 years of my doing this. Please catch up. Uncle G (talk) 13:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then rewrite it. The article was stealthily boldly redirected. I reverted the redirect since I believe this merits a discussion (also given my experiences with proposed deletion - I do not believe deletion or redirect here would be uncontroversial). You objected to my actions, clealry implying you would prefer a redirect over the current article. Since I am not sure about that (this article is poor but it is not obvious to me it is so poor as to merit a WP:TNT treatment), we need to discuss it what to do (keep, delete, redirect, merge, rewrite, etc.). This is what AfD is for. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Piotrus, I hope your reply was to Uncle G. I don't have a problem with you bringing the article here for discussion. I agree with your assessment; I don't think it's poor enough to merit TNT. I personally would delete the blatant copying because I personally don't like blatant copies even if they're legal, but I haven't done so because I don't currently have anything better to substitute for what I'd be deleting, and I think deleting legally-included text might be controversial without some consensus. Elemimele (talk) 13:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        @Elemimele It was (in reply to Uncle). I think you and me are on the same page. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it is not. It is for deletion. It's in the title "Articles for deletion". There was nothing unclear about asking "Should we start again?" and talking of rewriting rewrite this from scratch. Nor was it unclear that it was Drmies, not me who asked about starting again and said "rewrite" several times, who made the redirect. This is an outright abuse of AFD, and to do it falsely in my name when I explicitly said beforehand that it would be wrong is worse still. Uncle G (talk) 13:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Uncle G, I don't dispute for a moment that it was wrong of Piotrus to bring it here in your name. If you've got a problem with that, and Piotrus can't settle it with you, then ANI is the place to go, and it's certainly worth an enormous trout and an apology. The problem I have with the discussion that was supposed to be going on is that I can't find it. That might be my stupidity, but all I'm seeing at the article's talk-page is a few people complaining over a long period that it's a rubbish copy, with no suggestions what to do about it. Elemimele (talk) 13:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • We have a whole WikiProject at Project:WikiProject Encyclopaedia Britannica#The good, the bad and the ugly with suggestions, the problems of 1911 Britannica text not being at all unknown to us for many years, and rewriting is one of the tools. "restructure and rewrite the whole article" is the very first item. You even just linked to one person making a suggestion — me! I quite clearly suggested starting again and rewriting from scratch. And on the other side I was at the same time talking to Drmies about sources that I had found. I have even linked to where this was already rewritten once, years ago, above. (I'm not seeking administrator tool use of that form, either, by the way.) It's wrong to seek administrator deletion tool use in my name here, but it's doubly-wrong to just throw editorial discussions at AFD at all. Articles for deletion is not a general discussion forum for cleanup, rewrites, and editing 18-year-old EB1911 dren. It is for deletion. AFD is not Project:cleanup is another long-standing piece of jargon. Uncle G (talk) 14:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            @Uncle G: I'm sorry, I seem to have caused offence. I'm sorry, I was unaware that this Britannica project existed, nor that it was discussing the History of wood carving article. I linked to you only because I came across this discussion at AfD. I think it possible that there will be other editors who are interested in wood-carving but not in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, so the question is how to arouse their attention to do something about the article? Yes, AfD is not clean-up, but AfD is a reasonable place to bring things if TNT is a reasonable and justifiable outcome. Unfortunately it can be very difficult for those of us who are fairly recent editors to know about the multitude of projects. So far as this AfD is concerned, my !vote is Not bad enough for TNT, so carry on the discussion in an appropriate place. Elemimele (talk) 15:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        @Uncle G AfD is for deletion as well as for estabilishing when deletion is not appopriate. Since I objected to this being deleted without a discussion, we are here to judge the consensus for deletion or retaining the article. It's as simple as that. And yes, I brought it here for you because you said on my talk page that this article... should not exist on Wikipedia. If you were not asking for an AfD, think more carefully what you write next time. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Johnbod and the fact that Wikipedia uses the eleventh edition of Britannica as a valid source. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Is there really any doubt that ~20 minutes good searching will turn up good sources? Hyperbolick (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, we're now in a bit of a mess because we've got a rapidly-forming keep-consensus on an article that no one actually likes. There is a discussion about it on Piotrus's talk-page, User_talk:Piotrus#History of wood carving in which no one likes the article, Uncle G writing "This is biased, myopic, tripe from the British Imperial era; and shouldn't stand in Wikipedia", while Drmies writes "This article is a piece of crap and you know it". Uncle G has reasonably suggested starting again, but I think doesn't want a TNT deletion. The article's own talk-page has no concrete suggestions what to do (except changing AD to CE). If we close this as "keep" at the moment, all we end up with is a few discussions buried in places where no one will find them, and no actual change, and still an article that no one defends (I believe the keep-!votes are based on the subject being notable rather than the quality of the current article, but feel free to contradict me!). I will start a discussion on the article's talk-page asking for concrete suggestions about how we can proceed. Elemimele (talk) 14:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Elemimele The best outcome would be if someone were to boldl rewrite this. Or at least remove unreferenced/dated parts. But it is easier to vote than to (re)write, and sadly it is not a topic that motivates me. As for nobody liking the article, the related issue is whether we like not having that poor article more or less. I.e. is the current poor article better than the redirect would be? We don't need to like what we have to like not having anyting even less. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that bad - the topic has hardly moved on since 1911, & the text from then complains that there was little to report from the 19th century. None or very little of it is "unreferenced". The basic story is covered, & most concerns relate purely to ye olde prose style, although if you do know anything about the subject there are some odd omissions - where are Tilman Riemenschneider and Veit Stoss? The non-Euro coverage is very poor, sure. Imo the current poor article is still much better than the redirect would be. I agree a full rewrite is best, though some sections like Italian_Renaissance_sculpture#Wood can be slotted in. The article tries to cover wood as a material in sculpture and practical woodcarving for furniture, choirstalls etc together, which is probably a mistake. Most of the article really covers the latter. Some or all of this should probably be split off/left and a new Wood sculpture done. The furniture etc could be restricted to "in Europe", vastly reducing the extra work needed. But the Afd needs to close as keep first. Johnbod (talk) 08:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. There are inadequate sources for a BLP article and none have been brought into this discussion. This article can be restored to Draft space if additional sources can be located. Liz Read! Talk! 03:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Naoto Hori

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

The article has issues with notability and sourcing. Single ref to a Japanese sports stats catalog that does not seem to confirm most of the information here. No ja interwiki. The user who created this on en wiki has been banned for socking, and according to some related pl wiki discussion is responsible for cross wiki spam, mass creating articles on Japanese-related soccer players, many of whom do not meet NBIO. Someone on pl wiki suggested in the deletion discussion about this person (Naoto Hori) that the stats cited here suggest possible notability if sources ca be found (but said sources may not exist outside Japanese). My BEFORE yielded nothing, but perhaps someone with access to Japanese sources or a deeper knowledge of the sports field can find something to rescue this? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Although there seem to be more sources on the Japanese version of the article, most of them are just sports databases with player statistics. Even the articles that are linked to include only a trivial mention of him, e.g. the SoccerKing source (I can't even link to it, it's blacklisted on enWiki). Perhaps most of the media coverage of Naoto Hori might be in print (pre-internet ?) given his age. I think an editor fluent in Japanese would need to take a look around. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, he's from the pre-internet era so a bit hard to find anything although photo archives do bring up images. Given his professional career, it strains credulity to suggest that he wouldn't have substantial coverage in Japanese newspapers from the time (imo, Japanese newspapers are far more prolific in detailing athlete's lives than US newspapers). DCsansei (talk) 14:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per DCdansei. Made almot 100 appearances in Japan top flight in pre internet era so deniftely has offline sources. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 22:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Das osmnezz WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is not a great arguments. Where you able to locate any sources, or is this just hope? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. The WordsmithTalk to me 02:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Monroe Winter

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

Fails to meet notability criteria for musicians and ensembles under [[7]]. Holding a (presumably section) position in a professional orchestra and holding a professorship do not on their own qualify, and if the Robert Downey, Jr. event qualifies, it could be placed on the film's Wikipedia page without need for this entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcticwarp (talk • contribs) 00:54, November 17, 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding more legwork since nobody else has commented. Notability with respect to music would require one of 12 points in the linked list from my previous comment. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 would all be easy to find if satisfied. Point 6 requires being a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles. The first source in the article is titled "Virginia Symphony Welcomes New Musicians : Principal Timpani, Principal Trumpet and Core Violinists Announced", and in general a non-titled chair in an orchestra would not be considered "reasonably prominent." The Richmond Symphony link also just lists him as "violin" without any title. I only see "reasonably prominent" satisfied within the Wintergreen Festival Orchestra, which hasn't merited its own Wiki page. The only point someone could make an argument for here would be point 1's two independent sources, but I would argue the source from Mason News to be trivial, and the source about him tutoring Robert Downey, Jr could just be folded into a different article even if it doesn't qualify as a minor news story that wouldn't grant notability. I also checked Wikipedia's notability standards for academics[[8]], and I can't find any indication this subject satisfies them. --Arcticwarp (talk) 05:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to hear from more experienced editors than the nominator who has been active a week and has 9 edits to their account.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP - I just added a current source from the University of Central Florida, which brings this violin professor's background bio up to date. A basic problem on this article is that the sourcing has been nine years out of date, while the professor himself has continued with his career. There's a lot about him on Google. — Maile (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aberffraw (cantref)

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

Stub. Unreferenced since 2010; tagged with notability since last year. Can anyone save this or should be redirect this somewhere (where)? My BEFORE shows some passing mentions but nothing that obviously screams "this is notable, here's the def". House_of_Aberffraw#Aberffraw_hundred_(cantref) seems related, longer, referenced and a possible redirect target? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to see more opinions reviewing recently added sources to see if they are sufficient to Keep this article. If not, it seems like this should be closed as a Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The source by Henry Rowlands checks out, and is still cited by 21st century scholarship such as Longley 2009 which adds a couple of facts but should probably be read in light of Carr 2011 when it comes to LLifon in 1284. There's probably enough here, and more to say, although the redlinking of the commotes is over-optimistic, I think. It's those that should probably be redirects, to this article. Uncle G (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Longley, David (2009). "Gwynedd before and after the Conquest". In Williams, Diane; Kenyon, John R. (eds.). The Impact of the Edwardian Castles in Wales. Oxbow Books. ISBN 9781782973676.
    • Carr, A. D. (2011). "Jones Pierce Revisited: The evidence of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Century extents". In Griffiths, Ralph A.; Schofield, Phillipp R. (eds.). Wales and the Welsh in the Middle Ages. University of Wales Press. ISBN 9780708324479.
  • Keep Sufficient sources have been found. Acebulf (talk | contribs) 07:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (changed position from above), sufficient sources found. DankJae 12:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brunello Rosa

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

This article appears to fail WP:GNG and it was deleted a few years back for that reason. The Bloomberg article seems to be the only reliable source with significant coverage but the others quote him briefly or are non-reliable sources. I did a Google search but couldn't find anything additional to support notability. Delete. Citrivescence (talk) 03:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maristania Mengana

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

The subject was named the 2017 Cuban women's footballer of the year, and received a couple of sentences worth of coverage for this (1, 2). Other than that, all I can find are passing mentions. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 03:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. This was relisted for another week by Liz and no further input was achieved. Daniel (talk) 04:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No Pants Day

AfDs for this article:
No Pants Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have reviewed the previous deletion discussions and it seems like the sources for this are few, and many seem to trace back to Wikipedia. The Knighthood of BUH itself seems to taken down it's website. I am sure the sources prove that events have occurred at the UofT at Austin, but not sure about anywhere else. It's honestly possible the knighthood themselves created the initial article. Since this is localized to one University as far as i can tell, it should either be merged with the University of Texas at Austin article or deleted.

Do not confuse this with the No Pants Subway Ride, a much more popular unrelated event that happens in January. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A reasonable voice (talk • contribs) 00:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Soft keep BUT I think the best thing to do would be to delete the meat of the article related to UT Austin and have it be about the aforementioned No Pants (Subway Ride) Day itself, which is what I've seen the term refer to more often. Kazamzam (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kazamzam, what do you mean by "soft keep"? I've closed a lot of AFDs and I've never heard of a soft keep. Liz Read! Talk! 08:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As pointed out over 2 AFD discussions and the article's talk page, the No Pants Subway Ride, which is how editors have repeatedly tried to rescue this, has its own article. We are at the point where we really have to determine whether some day invented by a comedy club in a university in Texas is actually properly and independently documented in depth and has escaped its creators. "By a comedy club?", you ask. That's how a university magazine characterized it, and really didn't say much in depth about this at all. It was less well documented by the university magazine article than the Knighthood of Buh (AfD discussion) itself was, which we deleted, and which the magazine article was mainly about. Ironically, there is more text in the rants on the talk page about students making up stuff than there is about this day in any source that I can find. One of the sources in the article is an interview with the inventors describing this. After all of other editors's searches on the talk page and and in prior AFD discussions, we collectively have managed the Houston Chronicle as 1 independent source and that's it, after 18 years. Uncle G (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to No Pants Subway Ride. LuGusDeclanBibaElodieBarnaby 01:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- There is not a lot of RS coverage here, but there is enough between Austin and Berkeley to make this viable as a subject [11], [12]. The Chronicle article [13] on newspaper comics confirms my own (non-RS) recollection of that event. The article is in sad shape, but WP:DINC. If this were a new article, I'd probably suggest draftify, but it is referenced independently just enough to sustain an article. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plenty of sources on Newspapers Extended. If anyone looks at the article now and thinks it's not WP:HEY enough, I can add a few more, but the Boise and Billings events (no subway involved) should be enough WP:SIGCOV. Cheers! BBQboffingrill me 07:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I was going to close this as No Consensus as a bold NAC closure, however given the history of this subject I refrained and will simply provide an opinion that it seems no clear consensus has been achieved here. I am not myself entirely satisfied this is an article worthy of inclusion based on gut instinct. Coverage does not automatically warrant inclusion, we must consider whether on the totality, the subject itself needs coverage in a standalone article. However, there is no question that on its face, the article does appear to meet the general notability guideline. I do not think a clear-cut, unequiovcal argument for either Keep or Delete can be made. I believe that based on the discussion which has taken place, and considering the AFD history of this subject, no clear consensus has been reached, and never will be reached. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The 'delete' arguments were that there's "1 independent source and that's it, after 18 years" and the nom thought the May events were localized to Austin. Clearly those arguments are refuted by the text and sources that have been added to the article since. We have more than WP:THREE strong sources, and WP:SIGCOV of non-subway events in Berkeley, Billings, and Boise. As for your "gut instinct", with all due respect, that is not a Wikipedia policy; WP:GNG is, and A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. BBQboffingrill me 03:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see more assessment of sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Closed because this is actually Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan and Akdkdidm938493938!87 (talk · contribs) seems to be just messing around at this point. The rationale is copied and pasted from a recent edit summary by Wcquidditch. Uncle G (talk) 14:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)‎[reply]

Howard River (disambiguation)

Make shorter (WP:CONCISE, WP:PRECISE): most references to the program outside of the opening title card still call it just "Face the Nation", as do most TV listings — and there's no real good reason to title this in a way that we would have to change it every time the moderator changes

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. Liz Read! Talk! 02:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gaza Now News Network

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

Not seeing WP:SIGCOV of this news network that would establish notability. There's reporting in Arabic [14] about the head's family being killed in an airstrike during the 2023 Israel-Hamas war, and they got in trouble with Hamas in 2017 for livestreaming a public execution,[15] but not enough to establish notability. Longhornsg (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Based on improvements to the article since the nomination, happy to withdraw as nom.
Longhornsg (talk) 15:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First United Methodist Church (Peoria, Illinois)

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

Declined db-A7. This is an ordinary, non-notable church building / congregation. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCHURCH for inclusion in wikipedia. Structure is not on the historical registry and is outside of the boundary of Downtown Peoria Historic District per IL HARGIS[16]. Refs are just routine local coverage and doesn't indicate notability. Dual Freq (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP - Historic significance to Peoria: the church itself has its roots in the Methodist circuit riders. The first building was constructed in 1840. Prior to that, the Peoria Methodists met in individual homes. President Martin Van Buren visited the church in 1842 (source 4). — Maile (talk) 02:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to clarify, the 1840 structure that was built by Methodist Episcopal Church, a predecessor organization, no longer exists. A single visit from a president, after his presidency, to a building that no longer exists, is interesting trivia, but doesn't really demonstrate notability. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - It's a historically important building in downtown Peoria. Wikitehedia (talk) 04:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it does have a claim of significance as the oldest protestant church organisation in a city of 113,000 people. The church is also a historic structure built in 1916 that may be listed in future. There are sufficient references already in the article for WP:GNG which allows local references for a church as WP:CORPDEPTH does no apply to churches unless they pass it as well as GNG, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I may be biased because I added a lot of local sources (I'm interested in local history.) I agree with the reasons listed above. I believe the institution is notable even if it has changed buildings a few times. It is the oldest Protestant congregation in the city, has connections to the Methodist circuit riders, a presidential visit, started one of the main local hospitals, etc. There may be other sources available to improve the article and further demonstrate notability. 04:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NatFee (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep‎ per Fermiboson's apparent withdrawal. (non-admin closure) Schminnte [talk to me] 16:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Patsy O'Connor

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

Fails NACTOR. Previously deleted as expired BLPPROD. No secondary sources could be found. Fermiboson (talk) 01:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with an admin speedily closing as keep, if they wish to do so. Fermiboson (talk) 22:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Fully sourced at this point, can't see any reason to delete. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Turtle Pond Model Yacht Club

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

NORG fail. No non-primary source coverage. Fermiboson (talk) 01:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elsa Shala

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

YOUNGATH fail. Article has an unlinked draft which has been rejected twice at AfC. Fermiboson (talk) 01:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_December_1&oldid=1187747861"