Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< February 12	February 14 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jet Solidaire

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP. Cited sources are PR or otherwise non-independent. Searching online, I was able to find some brief coverage in Le Figaro ([1]), but on its own that does not get us to WP:NCORP. The creation of this article alongside articles on simple.wiki and es.wiki, but not fr.wiki, is unusual and suggestive of possible cross-wiki spam. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Aviation, and France. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hi guys. As usual, I have created this article because I think it is notable (almost 10 sources including Le Figaro as mentioned above). But as always, we decide all together. --BobVillars (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, review of sources in Le Figaro is too brief to meet WP:SIGCOV in my opinion. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing the "10 sources" again,
Aerobernie, basically an ad, section headings include Pourquoi choisir Jet Solidaire ? (why choose Jet Solidaire?), Un service d’excellence (a service of excellence), Des critères de sélection draconiens pour une sécurité optimale (Draconian quality control for optimal security), etc. This is not independent coverage, and they advertise services to "enhance your online presence and engage your audience" (nos services peuvent vous aider à valoriser votre présence en ligne et à engager votre audience de manière significative. on their about page.

A-Speakers FR, a bio for the company's CEO on a database. Does not appear independent, not secondary.

l"internaute, interview with the CEO with no further analysis or commentary from the publication itself, not independent.

JH-Coach, a blog run by a self-help coach, not reliable

Aerocontact, database listing, not secondary coverage, likely not independent

ASF-FR, press release from an organization announcing its partnership with Jet Solidaire, not independent

Entrepreneurs d'Avenir, unbylined press release, which notes at the bottom lien URL https://www.jetsolidaire.com. Not independent

That's actually the end of the reference list; I guess BobVillars may be counting the company website in the external links section, as well as the Figaro article that I found. The Figaro article is an okay source; the only okay source for this topic, which means we fall short of WP:ORGCRITE by a handy margin. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Figaro article is 7 years old and they've had nothing as good since MNewnham (talk) 01:32, 21 February 2024 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Finch (Person of Interest)

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

No claim to fame. The article is a victim of fancruft, solely describing the character in an in-universe style, and worst of all, it has no reception, which is a necessary part of WP: Notability (fictional characters). ''Flux55'' (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Reads like a fandom article. Tooncool64 (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It even is a Fandom article. A note at the bottom says that "As of this edit, this article uses content from "Harold Finch" [at Fandom]", with "this edit" pointing to the very first edit, i.e. article creation. Geschichte (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing is sourced, except to the show itself. I can't find any RS that discusses the character at length... Oaktree b (talk) 20:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not even any coverage for the show past 2016; what's found are all articles discussing a particular episode, nothing about the character. Oaktree b (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't find WP:SIGCOV for this character. Mostly the show or the actor. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: only mentions. reads like a fandom as mentioned above, and not WP:SIGCOV per Shooterwalker Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:33, 20 February 2024 (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 WSFJ-TV. or the Ohio list referenced. That can be re-targeted if needed. What's clear is the consensus for a redirect, target doesn't need continuation of AfD which is unlikely to garner participation as indicated by prior weeks Star Mississippi 02:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WQMC-LD

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of coverage beyond routine business transaction reports in industry sources. Let'srun (talk) 02:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Ohio. Let'srun (talk) 02:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WSFJ-TV: that may sound unorthodox, but it seems like much of what has happened to this station have tied in to changes at that station. This was a run-of-the-mill TBN repeater until TBN swapped it for WSFJ, which gave W23BZ its "own" programming and made it a bit less "non-notable", but that was only good for something on its own in the pre-2021 looser "notability standards". WQMC-LD later ended up becoming "Urban One TV" (and no, that press release posted on the website of co-owned WXMG does not count toward notability, what with the lack of independence and all) on March 1, 2021 — the same day Scripps, which had ended up with WSFJ by way of Ion, shuttered Ion Plus and took Bounce TV from WQMC. This station feels like one of those that should have more significant coverage than it does (especially since there is also a Telemundo affiliation), but runs into such coverage being less likely to be generated within this century. (Alternatively, this is also one of those rare times where I'm more willing to consider a redirect to List of television stations in Ohio#LPTV stations than has even been considered in any of these AfDs.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support redirect if someone is willing to add content to the article to go along with it. Ben Azura (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2024 (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. Star Mississippi 02:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Deere

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

I couldn't find sources to show he meets WP:N or that there is a good WP:ATD. This ahs been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 05:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found this, it seems like a RS [2], but it's not enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm seeing (1) some routine coverage of the publication of his new books, (2) a couple of passing mentions of his name in articles on other topics, (3) some advertisements, and (4) a couple of book reviews. None of that seems like it meets the threshold for notability.

— Moriwen (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would be good to check for a pass of WP:NAUTHOR: if multiple of his books pass WP:NBOOK with 2 reviews, that would be a NAUTHOR pass. The Christianity Today book review linked above as "routine coverage" is by no means routine coverage; it is an NBOOK-qualifying source for Even in Our Darkness (as long as it is an independent RS, which I do not know). If a second review for that book is found, that book passes NBOOK and he's part of the way along to NAUTHOR. (Routine coverage in an NBOOK context would be this kind of thing.) Note than an NAUTHOR pass does not require biographical coverage of the author. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as well as the Christianity Today review there is also this piece in the Publisher's Weekly here which states that two of his books sold 400,000 copies combined which suggests there should be reviews. I found this review here and a number of reviews listed in Google Books but i didn't get any previews, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 06:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third relist to review the newly proposed sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Most of what appears in a quick google is blogs and other unreliable sources but I found a couple more CT articles(probably paywalled) a full review] of his first book when it was published and news coverage of his firing from DTS. He looks to meet WP:AUTHOR, I think. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:25, 20 February 2024 (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 Dorothy Ayer Gardner Ford. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Levi Addison Gardner

AfDs for this article:

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

Biography of a politician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. The main notability claim here is that he was mayor of a small town, which is not an automatic inclusion freebie in and of itself -- mayors don't automatically get articles just because they existed, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on substantive coverage and analysis about their mayoralty: specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects their leadership had on the development of the town they were mayor of, and on and so forth, but there's absolutely none of that here.
The only other notability claim being attempted here is that he was the grandfather of a more notable person -- but notability is not inherited, and people who are not themselves notable in their own right don't get articles just because they were related to other people. And the footnotes here are both just genealogy sites, which are not support for notability at all, rather than reliable source media coverage or books about him to establish his notability.
This is different enough in form from the first version to not qualify for immediate speedy as a recreation of deleted content, but it isn't providing any stronger evidence that he would pass any notability criteria in his own right independently of being a grandfather. Bearcat (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Illinois. Bearcat (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: For a rather ho-hum president, there's a surprising number of things written about the family, but not about Levi... [3]. Hits in Gbooks as well, but most seem to be family tree things, nothing extensive. Oaktree b (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ The only sources I could find were either for his relation to Ford or people with similar names in other parts of the country. While it's impossible to know what else there is in newspapers that havent been digitaly archived without looking thorugh them, I can't see anything to meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOLITICIAN. I would suggest a merge but it's already on Ford's page so there's nothing to really add. Shaws username . talk . 19:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, while I'd be ok with deletion per my resasons above, draftifying makes sense to me given the time and effort required to track down news reports from the era. Shaws username . talk . 20:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, it is possible for this article to be improved. Youprayteas (talk to me? | contribs) 19:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would agree. He initially seemed notable to me, being the grandfather of a president and being the mayor of a town, but if one cannot find more sources, I myself would encourage deletion of the page. Thanks - Roger — Preceding undated comment added 19:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, on second thought, I move we move the page to a draft, where it may be improved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerNotable (talk • contribs) 19:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect (optional Draftify if author wants more time to see if they can dig up some sources). The current sources do not show any notability and a quick newspaper search and google failed to find any sources to help. KylieTastic (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC) — Changed from deleted to redirect per later comments. KylieTastic (talk) 10:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Draftify~~ Redirect: If @RogerNotable wants some time to look up other sources, that's fine with me as an ~~alternative to deletion~~ alternative to deletion. Regarding lack of newspaper coverage, that's not a major concern for me since historical newspapers are usually primary sources. I'm also not concerned that this page was deleted before; the first deletion discussion was largely "per nom" and conclusory !votes. Given that Gardner was Gerald Ford's grandfather, I suggest that Roger look at some biographies of Ford to see if there's any significant coverage of Gardner in them. If he was notable during his life, there might also be entries in biographical encyclopedias, such as The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography. If those searches turn up nothing, I would think Gardner is probably not notable. Changed !vote to redirect per @IgnatiusofLondon. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC), 00:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat. Doesn't appear to meet GNG, unconvinced he will be able to. SportingFlyer T·C 21:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dorothy Ayer Gardner Ford his daughter as a reasonable search term. There isn't really any evidence of independent notability, but it makes sense, IMHO, to send people looking for him to the couple of sentences in his daughter's article. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm fairly confident we can find sources to support an article of reasonable size, though whether it will meet notability criteria is another question. I can't access The Chicago Tribune, but I am seeing hits at 1 and 2. I've added a source from the Ford Library Museum, and can see more coming (e.g. 3, 4). My instinct is that there is a possibility of notability that does not merit deletion, so preserving the page history by redirecting to a sensible target is a preferable WP:ATD than deletion, if the article cannot be kept. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 03:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also seeing local newspaper hits I can't access: 5 and 6. To be honest, these kinds of sources are probably the most likely to establish notability independent of the subject's family. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 04:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, at the time of her marriage in 1912, The Harvard Herald spoke of Dorothy as "one of the most popular of Harvard young ladies" (7), which suggests to me that there is likely plenty of historical local newspaper coverage about the family. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 04:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion around whether or not to pursue an alternative to deletion would be helpful in attaining a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dorothy Ayer Gardner Ford. I've incorporated the sources I found into the article. The sources do not suggest notability independent from the subject's involvement in his daughter's marriage or his being Ford's grandfather: when the subject is discussed, it is always in either context. The sources I have added contain details about Ford's relationship to his daughter which an interested editor could merge into Dorothy's entry. As a WP:ATD, preserving the page history allows the article to be recreated if further sources emerge: there are likely to be further sources offline that an interested editor could consult, and I don't think it's unreasonable for some local historian or newspaper to run an article on the early politics of Harvard someday which might push notability. If someone could also check out the Chicago Tribune sources above that I can't access, I'd be grateful to know if they add anything. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 04:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article, especially after work was done on the article since its nomination. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Association for the Study of Dreams

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

Does not meet WP:ORGCRITE. I am unable to find significant independent coverage in RS; a total lack of results on Google Scholar is particularly concerning for an academic organization. On Google Books there's some results, but they all appear to be from people affiliated with the organization, e.g. [4]. Interestingly, one of the most prominent authors in the search results is one Clare Johnson ([5]), who is not mentioned in the Wikipedia article but whose Google Books author bio mentions leadership of this organization. Absent clearly reliable sources, and noting the classification of these books as "self-help" texts, I'm a bit concerned that we may be laundering a fringe organization, and/or that there may be more than one organization by this name, one more reputable than the other (but neither of them notable). Dreaming (journal) could be a potential WP:ATD target, but the prior concerns of reputation laundering give me pause. Both this article and Dreaming (journal) cite this website to claim that the peer-reviewed Heidelberg University publication IJoDR is published by IASD, but the actual website makes no claim to affiliation with IASD, and its Editorial Team masthead makes no mention of any figures listed at this article. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Psychiatry, Psychology, and California. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The IASD is legit (eg see governance and notable members), and is notable in the real world, but (as is obvious) there's a lack of reliable sources to establish notability at Wikipedia. Have listed it at the article rescue squadron. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 19:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The association is certainly not fringe, nor is their journal, Dreaming. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 20:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL ("IASD") may be helpful. Google books search, too.

Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 15:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editors, the page does indeed not show sufficiently the academic and scholarly nature of the International Association for the Study of Dreams, so thank you for spotting this. It is indeed incredibly thin. First clear matter is that the IASD publishes with the American Psychological Association the academic journal Dreaming, this should be stated at the top instead of the section on the International Journal of Dream Research. Dreaming has a current impact factor of 1.8, which is a high impact factor for psychology, meaning that each article is cited by 1.8 articles in the 2 years after publication. The journal is also 95th out of 147 multidisciplinary journals, which is very creditable: https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/drm/. Being published by APA is very prestigious, for example APA publish many of the world's top psychology journals, such as Journal of Experimental Psychology. (The International Journal of Dream Research is relevant as it publishes the abstracts of the IASD annual conference each year, but this journal is published by Heidelberg University and not IASD, so the journal Dreaming should be more prominent on the page.) The list of researchers in the Governance and notable members sections is also very sparse, given there has been a new president every year since 1983. Professor Ernest Hartmann of Tufts University was a past-president and very eminent author and psychiatrist, he is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Hartmann, also a president was Stanley Krippner, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Krippner, and founding member Stephen LaBerge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_LaBerge. Booklist of founding members and past-presidents is here: https://www.asdreams.org/booklist-presidents/. There is also a lack of publications mentioned on the wikipedia page, some of the presidents' publications could be added there. All credit to the editors for this having been spotted, the page gives a poor impression of the world's most important dream research association. I can make suggestions for improving it and for showing the notable nature of the association. (And to disclose, I was IASD President 2001-2. There are many professors in the list of presidents, such as Katja Valli, professor in Sweden and president 2013-15, and Michelle Carr, president 2021-23 and associate professor director of the world's leading nightmare sleep lab in University of Montreal, and David Kahn, of Harvard Medical School and president 2007-08.

Thank you, DreamerMTB 86.129.93.134 (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What would be most convincing would be examples of news articles, peer-reviewed journal articles, or books by academic publishers, that describe the IASD, its impact, structure, history, etc. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed, point taken. There are a large number of academics who are IASD members, in disciplines from film studies to anthropology to psychology to neuroscience. There are also many psychotherapists and psychoanalysts. I will ask them for such citations, as well as providing some myself. For example, Blagrove, M. & Lockheart, J. (2023) The Science and Art of Dreaming, Routledge, page xiii, 'This research was encouraged by discussions with the eclectic mixture of disciplines and people at the conferences of the International Association for the Study of Dreams, which also publishes the academic journal Dreaming.'

Thank you.

DreamerMTB

86.129.93.134 (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Please see the Golden Rule. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 09:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait and see?: Could we now reconsider this AfD and instead template the article for reference improvement? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 17:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editors, Here are three science publications of studies that acknowledge funding by IASD. I will send more after these three. 1. Article in the journal Sleep, which is the highest ranked sleep science journal: Carr M, Nielsen T. Morning REM sleep naps facilitate broad access to emotional semantic networks. SLEEP 2015;38(3):433–443. https://academic.oup.com/sleep/article/38/3/433/2416949 acknowledgement is in pdf version and here

2. Carr, M., Blanchette-Carrière, C., Solomonova, E., Paquette, T., & Nielsen, T. (2016). Intensified daydreams and nap dreams in frequent nightmare sufferers. Dreaming, 26(2), 119–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/drm0000024 article acknowledges IASD but is behind paywall. Copy on Researchgate is here: http://www.dreamscience.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Carr-et-al-2016-Intensified-Daydreams-and-Dreams-in-Nightmare-Sufferers.pdf

3. Carr, M., Blanchette-Carrière, C., Marquis, L-P., Ting, C.T., & Nielsen, T. (2016). Nightmare sufferers show atypical emotional semantic associations and prolonged REM sleep-dependent emotional priming. Sleep Medicine, 20, 80-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sleep.2015.11.013. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S138994571502064X?via%3Dihub

Thank you, DreamerMTB 2A00:23C7:7AA9:7700:8937:49DF:3401:DF5F (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editors, Here are three further science publications of studies that acknowledge funding by IASD. 4. Schädlich, M., Erlacher, D. & Schredl, M. (2017) Improvement of darts performance following lucid dream practice depends on the number of distractions while rehearsing within the dream – a sleep laboratory pilot study. Journal of Sports Sciences, 35, 2365-2372. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02640414.2016.1267387 5. Sparrow, G., Hurd, R., Carlson, R., Molina, A. (2018). Exploring the effects of galantamine paired with meditation and dream reliving on recalled dreams: Toward an integrated protocol for lucid dream induction and nightmare resolution. Consciousness and Cognition, 63, 74-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2018.05.012. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1053810017306244?via%3Dihub 6. Eranimos, B., & Funkhouser, A. (2023). An exploratory study of the Eastern understanding of déjà rêvé (already dreamed) experiences in Kerala-Indian culture. Dreaming, 33, 153–163. https://doi.org/10.1037/drm0000230 http://www.dreamscience.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Eranimos-Funkhouser.pdf Thank you, DreamerMTB 86.129.93.134 (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editors, [I suggest here further text that acknowledges the importance of IASD for the science of dreaming.] As a result of an event at the 2008 conference of the International Association for the Study of Dreams, Mark Blagrove changed his research from quantitative and statistical investigations of groups of dreams to the investigation of insights that occur when single dreams are considered by the dreamer (Blagrove & Lockheart, 2023, pp.119-120). The single dream that elicited this change in research focus is reported in The Psychologist, professional magazine of the British Psychological Society (Blagrove, 2009). This change in research focus led to studies by Blagrove with other IASD members on the insight and empathy effects of group discussions of single dreams (Blagrove et al., 2019; Edwards et al., 2013, 2015). Blagrove, M. (2009). Dreaming—Motivated or meaningless? The Psychologist, 22(8), 680–683. https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/dreaming-motivated-or-meaningless Blagrove, M. & Lockheart, J. (2023). The Science and Art of Dreaming. New York & Abingdon, Oxon.: Routledge. Blagrove, M., Hale, S., Lockheart, J., Carr, M., Jones, A., & Valli, K. (2019). Testing the empathy theory of dreaming: The relationships between dream sharing and trait and state empathy. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1351. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01351. Edwards, C.L., Malinowski, J.E., McGee, S.L., Bennett, P.D., Ruby, P.M., & Blagrove, M.T. (2015). Comparing personal insight gains due to consideration of a recent dream and consideration of a recent event using the Ullman and Schredl dream group methods. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 831. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00831. Edwards CL, Ruby PM, Malinowski JE, Bennett PD, Blagrove MT. (2013). Dreaming and insight. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 979. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00979.

DreamerMTB 86.129.93.134 (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above appear to actually contain independent coverage of the IASD. It also seems somewhat tendentious to suggest that the linked Blagrove paper conveys anything regarding the relevance of the IASD, as the extent of its coverage is as follows: At the risk of self-indulgence, I relate the following dream, from the morning of 12 July 2008, the last day of the 25th Conference of the International Association for the Study of Dreams, in Montreal. It illustrates the use of free-association, and the sudden realisations that can occur during this process. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Significant independent coverage of this organization is lacking, including the above that was added to this discussion. Fails WP:ORGCRITE and GNG. As stated above, books are written by affiliated authors. Notability is not inherited from persons affiliated with an organization nor from publications or academic journals produced by the organization - please see WP:INHERITORG and WP:NOTINHERITED. Hence, none of the above posted material indicates notability for this organization. Also, no organization has notability simply because it exists and has received kudos through the grapevine - please see WP:ORGSIG. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I believe that references 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12 (Kramer, Gervasi, Love, Bogzaran, Stuever, Henig, and Auchincloss) now meet the Golden Rule. The original name Association for the Study of Dreams (ASD) yielded three lengthy pieces from The Washington Post. Still looking. @Steve Quinn:

Please consider your own "top three" from these references before !voting to delete.

For your convenience, here are the three verified Washington Post citations:

Gervasi, Susan (5 January 1994). "Travelling in A Dream World". The Washington Post. Washington. Retrieved 16 February 2024.
Henig, Robin Marantz (8 June 1987). "Interpeting Dreams". The Washington Post. Washington. Retrieved 16 February 2024.
Stuever, Hank (6 July 2000). "The Dream Catchers". The Washington Post. Washington. Retrieved 16 February 2024.

Will wade through this in-text Internet Archive search suggested by GreenC at the article rescue squadron page this evening: search results (for "Association for the Study of Dreams" in the text). I expect that most of the 1,159 results will be trivial mentions or links to the association's viral ethics code.

Bogzaran, Fariba (1 June 2012). Integral Dreaming : A Holistic Approach to Dreams. SUNY Press. pp. 161–162. ISBN 978-1438442372. looks good, too.

Thanks. That's my best shot, @Rosguill: Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 13:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editors, 1. I have entered the journal title Dreaming into Scopus, the major journal database, https://www.scopus.com/sources.uri, this gives a current citation score of 2.8 (i.e., on average each article is cited 2.8 times in the two years after publication in the journal), and the journal is ranked 102nd out of 209 general psychology journals. Coupled with the journal's publisher being the American Psychological Association, this is external evidence for the scientific and research quality of the journal and the Association that owns and publishes the journal. The journal's office is at Harvard Medical School. 2. I have followed the advice on magazine blogs here: 'Some newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online columns they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.' In this Psychology Today blog IASD is described as 'the professional society for dream scholars/scientists' by Patrick McNamara, who has never held office in IASD. He has spent most of his career at the Boston VA and Boston University School of Medicine in the Neurology departments. He currently is Professor of Psychology at Northcentral University. https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/dream-catcher/201706/some-resources-people-interested-in-sleep-and-dreams 3 The list of experiment grants jointly awarded by IASD and the Dream Science Foundation to sleep labs and psychology departments worldwide in 2023 and since the first awards in 2006 is here: http://www.dreamscience.org/grant-awards-published-studies/. Many of these awards have resulted in peer reviewed journal papers, I listed six of these above. Regards, DreamerMTB 86.129.93.134 (talk) 09:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think the opponents of this deletion have proven their case for GNG. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editors, I suggest the following addition to the IASD page. Lucid dream researcher Stephen LaBerge, PhD, was one of the founders of IASD in 1983. He is listed as a founder on the IASD website in this alphabetical list of IASD Presidents and Founders, https://www.asdreams.org/booklist-presidents/, and in this announcement of his keynote address at the very prestigious neuroscience Donders Institute, in the Netherlands, his bio lists him as a co-founder of IASD https://dreslerlab.org/laberge/ . His page in Wikipedia is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_LaBerge. Regards, DreamerMTB 86.129.93.134 (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, DreamerMTB. Since that doesn't add to the notability of the subject (the IASD), if you don't mind, I'll copy that request across to the IASD's talk page, and I'll see what I can do to incorporate it into the article. Sorry, I'm engrossed in the last quarter of a book at the moment. Thanks again, and regards, Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 17:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blogpost by Professor Patrick McNamara in Psychology Today on the International Association for the Study of Dreams. Professor McNamara has spent most of his career at the Boston VA and Boston University School of Medicine in the Neurology departments, and has been the recipient of grant awards from the National Institutes of Health to study sleep and dreams. He is currently Professor of Psychology at Northcentral University and has not held office in IASD. https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/dream-catcher/201202/the-international-association-the-study-dreams

DreamerMTB 86.129.93.134 (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yes that's another and we have that covered. I'm hoping that someone will be able to assess the citations listed above under "Update", to establish whether or not the article now passes WP:GNG. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 17:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three quotations downloaded from archive.org 21st February 2024, https://archive.org/search?query=%22Association+for+the+Study+of+Dreams%22+&sin=TXT Bulkeley, K. (2017). An introduction to the psychology of dreaming. ABC-CLIO Page 115 The early years of the 21st century have brought many new opportunities for spreading information about the psychology of dreaming to a broad public audience. The primary driver of these opportunities has been the emergence of the worldwide web, which has radically transformed the way we communicate, teach, work, play, and interact. Virtually every researcher, sleep laboratory, and dream-related organization has a website providing access to a wealth of materials, enabling people from any place with an internet connection to learn about current findings in dream psychology. For example, the International Association for the Study of Dreams (IASD) sponsors online conferences, organizes collaborative research projects, and offers many ways for people to connect digitally with academics, clinicians, artists, etc. all over the world (www.asdreams.org). Many other groups in dream research and education link to each other through the IASD, creating an extensive network of therapists and practitioners from a wide variety of backgrounds.

Hunt, H. T. (1989). The multiplicity of dreams: Memory, imagination, and consciousness. Yale University Press. Page 4 Meanwhile, on an organizational level, the Sleep Research Society (srs) and its small cluster of researchers focusing on physiological, neurocognitive, and content analysis approaches to dreams have been supplemented by a more eclectic organization, the Association for the Study of Dreams (asp). Within ASD, a diverse group of Freudian, Jungian, existential, and other psychologists interested primarily in dream interpretation and “dreamwork” has banded together with others attempting to relate dreams to altered states of consciousness and transpersonal psychology, and a small number of srs experimenters.

Miller, J. (2017). Dream patterns: revealing the hidden patterns of our waking lives. Scotland : Findhorn Press. Page 154 The IASD is a scholarly association for the study of dreams, including dream interpretation, dreams in culture, creativity and dreams, the physiology of dreaming, and lucid dreaming. They publish two magazines and a newsletter, hold conferences (both traditional and online), and provide classes on dream work. Their website has many useful resources, including bibliographies, videos, podcasts, recordings from past conferences, and even images from dream art exhibitions.

DreamerMTB 86.129.93.134 (talk) 23:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll copy these across to the article's talk page, and have a look at them later. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 08:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have declined the first reference (author not independent, and not really that significant coverage). Have added the second and third references (with quotations: we can worry about wording and copyediting after this AfD). See article talk page section, and thanks again. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 11:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, try these archives of the pay-walled sources above: [6][7][8] Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for archiving these. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 08:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editors, Major art exhibition book published by Cornell University Press stating exhibition and book were endorsed by several scholarly societies, including the Association for the Study of Dreams.

Dreams 1900-2000: science, art and the unconscious Mind. Edited by Lynn Gamwell. Cornell University Press, 1999. Book of exhibition held in New York, Vienna and Paris (1999-2001).

Page n5 “The exhibition and book are sponsored by the Lucy Daniels Foundation, and have the endorsement of the American Psychoanalytic Association, American Psychiatric Association, Division 39 for Psychoanalysis of the American Psychological Association, American Psychological Association, Association for the Study of Dreams, International Psychoanalytical Association, and the World Psychiatric Association.”

Retrieved 25th February 2024 from https://archive.org/details/dreams19002000sc00unse/page/n5/mode/2up?q=%22Association+for+the+Study+of+Dreams%22

DreamerMTB 81.154.219.215 (talk) 18:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editors, The International Association for the Study of Dreams (1997) IASD Dreamwork Ethics Statement is cited as used in a 2014 paper on dream-sharing in the Journal of Tropical Psychology, published by Cambridge University Press. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-tropical-psychology/article/abs/dream-sharing-as-a-healing-method-tropical-roots-and-contemporary-community-potential/AB4122B8F8646BB8E184675C777F14A0 [apologies I can't access the full paper, link here goes to abstract and full reference list, latter includes IASD as author.] DreamerMTB 81.154.219.215 (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll look into these. Have copied these suggestions across to the article talk page. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 20:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Substantial analysis of the proposed source material would be quite helpful. Further walls of text would not be.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Probably the first and third Washington Post articles given a few comments above are about the organization or a conference they've put on. Rest is confirmation that they exist and provide funding for research. I think it's ok for notability now. Oaktree b (talk) 13:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the sources founded by Esowteric provide enough coverage to prove notability. Rublamb (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as WP:G11‎. Unambiguous advertising or promotion: WP:UPE sockfarm creation. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rao And Sapru. (non-admin closure) GSS ^💬 20:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mini Films

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Written in a way to appear WP:INHERENTly notable based on films; however, it is considered a company so references must meet WP:ORGCRIT. Unfortunately, references are all about the films, brief mentions, churnalism, WP:NEWSORGINDIA, or otherwise unreliable. CNMall41 (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am also just seeing this so could be a G5 candidate once a CU is available. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ye Yint Aung (footballer, born 2000)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, I'm unable to find any significant coverage in secondary sources having searched in English and Burmese. My ability to search in Burmese is limited, and further impacted by the existence of Yair Yint Aung, whose name in Burmese is spelled the same as this topic. Still, I attempted to search in Burmese by including search terms for teams that this subject has played on, and didn't find any coverage more significant than brief mentions in lineups or match summaries. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Myanmar. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ~~I found Myanmar Digital News in addition to the transfer report already in the article but I don't think that it's enough for GNG.~~ Scratch that, sorry, that article is about Ye Yint Aung. The 2000 born one doesn't seem to be notable at all. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Lightburst (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World Jenny's Day

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, coverage is limited to PR and unreliable sources. I was not able to find coverage that would establish that this is a WP:DUE addition at say, World Mental Health Day, which the subject coincides with. There's a mention at Karen Darke supported by this PR piece which should probably be removed if that's the only source that can be found to support it. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Events, Psychology, and England. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Might be an article about Jenny herself, which has a small amount of coverage. But nothing for this (I don't want to call it a holiday), day of remembrance? World Mental Health Day is notable, I'm not sure this particular day of remembrance really caught on with the public. Oaktree b (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seemed like the coverage of the suicide was a bit more tabloid-y than what would generally justify such an article, but I do agree that we are closer to identifying coverage for Suicide of Jenetta Barry than we are to the actual subject of this article. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge contents to World Mental Health Day. Doesn't really need a standalone page. Youprayteas (talk to me? | contribs) 19:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources do you think establish that coverage about Jenny's Day would be WP:DUE for inclusion there? _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Given the direct attention and endorsement from the British Prime Minister and its specific focus on teen suicide (which sets it apart from the broad strokes of World Mental Health Day), an issue of significant societal concern, "World Jenny's Day" warrants retention. Teenage suicide is often lumped into other nebulous categories, and objectively, this has already commanded significant celebrity and broad-based appeal interest.

Now added is the fact that this is a fully registered charity. _signed,Ssteedman ^talk 21:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find no good sources on which to base an article - as the nominator says they all seem to be based on PR. In general there are far too many of these awareness days. There are far more than 365 worthy causes, so every day (except possibly 29 February) is an awareness day for several things. The fact this this is not notable in Wikipedia terms doesn't subtract from its importance. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:MILL. Not every registered charity is notable, and many of them as run of the mill. Importance isn't the same as notability. Bearian (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2024 (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. GNG established with SIGCOV met. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matheus Machado (footballer, born 2003)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, I was unable to find any coverage in secondary sources about this player, instead coming across material about the more notable Matheus Machado even when searching using additional terms relating to the career attested at the subject article. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Belgium, and Brazil. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, found this [9] and was able to ascertain that it's in-depth direct coverage. Geschichte (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. Giant Snowman 19:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – There sufficient coverage to establish WP:GNG [10] [11] [12]. Svartner (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per above, some good commentary on the footballer's football work Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:15, 20 February 2024 (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 00:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sher Shah Interchange

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

Notability not established with significant sources, apparently a pretty generic piece of highway infrastructure Reywas92^Talk 17:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 17:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment see previous AfD discussion (bundled, no consensus after minimal participation). IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 23:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 23:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Just a basic flyover MNewnham (talk)

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EFES Insurance

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No indication of significance. Brochure advert scope_creep^Talk 17:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I would have speedied this, non-notable insurance broker, 6mths old. No coverage found for this business. Oaktree b (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Youprayteas (talk to me? | contribs) 19:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this reads a bit promotionally. i found a few press releases online but that doesn't seem to work for wikipedia notability Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No SIGCOV. Fails NCORP requirements. Rupples (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2024 (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 mass shootings in the United States in 2024. It was in the news, but that does not make it notable as required for such articles. However this is a viable AtD. Star Mississippi 03:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 New York City Subway shooting

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:TOOSOON. A fight that turned into an unfortunate shooting. Many of these happen across the good ol' US every month. Lettlre (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, United States of America, and New York. Lettlre (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While tragic, this appears to be a run of the mill fight between two groups of teenagers. It is probably not notable as a standalone article per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NCRIME. The NYPD is currently operating under the assumption that this was not random. Numerous people are killed in the subway every year, some of whom have been shot, so this really does seem like a non-notable breaking news article at this time (i.e. I'm not seeing how this is different from other incidents where passengers were killed). – Epicgenius (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also have no issue with redirecting to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2024. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Numerous people are killed in the subway every year, some of whom have been shot, so this really does seem like a non-notable breaking news article at this time..."

I disagree. Reuters says that [s]hootings are especially uncommon: in 2022, when a man with a handgun injured 10 people on a train passing through Brooklyn, it was the first mass shooting attack on the subway system since 1984. It's only been the second one since 1984. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 04:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's only been the second one since 1984.
— User:Wikiexplorationandhelping 04:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
A minute of searching turned up this shooting from 2007 where four people were shot. In addition, I'm not sure you can disagree with the fact that numerous people are killed in the subway each year; there were 11 people killed in 2022 for example. If you're disagreeing with my comment that this doesn't seem notable, then that's fair, but I do think it falls under WP:NOTNEWS and that all coverage of the shooting thus far is breaking news coverage, which falls under WP:PRIMARYNEWS. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Wait. Per WP:Deadline, there is no need to immediately delete just yet. This article was just created. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, plenty of sources exist from a Google News research. There is even coverage on Reuters, Associated Press, and Al Jazeera. So I would say this would pass GNG. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of these are WP:PRIMARYNEWS sources (specifically, breaking news or eyewitness news sources describing the shootings); they are certainly reliable and independent, but secondary sources would also be needed to prove the lasting notability of an event. This is also an issue I brought up at the stabbing-spree AFD three weeks ago. So I'm going to repeat what I said there: WP:PERSISTENCE states that "a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." None of these sources show any evidence of persistent coverage; they are all reporting on breaking news.
Since, as you point out, there is no deadline, it should not hurt to wait to create such articles until significant coverage, not just primary news sources, do exist. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Rather routine coverage of a subway shooting. The article now is barely half a paragraph long. At best, it could get a mention in an article about "New York in 2024" but nothing notable about this event needing an article. Oaktree b (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That has changed somewhat. I've made quite some improvements since. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 04:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We've been here before with the exact same user creating the deleted article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 New York City stabbing spree (and with the same exact reason to keep, that 'we need time before it gets deleted'). @Wikiexplorationandhelping:, please find another interest area to contribute to or learn how to build an article in draftspace, as this is tiring to argue; it's an average crime for the area and hardly anything that would get notice outside the first-day burst of coverage. Nate • (chatter) 19:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What makes this different is that somebody died, and the suspect(s) is(are) not in custody as of this comment. There's likely going to be some sustained coverage for a little while. If this article gets deleted, I'll try to go through AfC whenever I create a New York City event article. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. Whether someone died has nothing to do with a subject's notability.

2. It's not "sustained coverage" if we're getting updates on an ongoing situation. That's just regular coverage. Sustained coverage would be if years from now they write articles or books looking back on this.

3. We don't write articles based on what there's going to be, we write articles based on what there already is. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, this subject lacks coverage from secondary sources as it stands and it is unclear if this event will have lasting notability. Let'srun (talk) 03:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2024. Agree with the WP:NOTNEWS concerns here but redirection is a good WP:ATD in case this ends up being notable (though that seems unlikely). Elli (talk | contribs) 04:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One death, just another unremarkable shooting in NYC. WWGB (talk) 06:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Question What is in essence the difference with (non-fatal) 2022 New York City Subway attack? 64.141.44.242 (talk) 07:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 2022 attack received a significant and lasting amount of media coverage outside of the New York area, this one hasn't. TheAmazingRaspberry (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Happens everyday in the US.

Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 11:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2024 per Elli. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are still continuous updates on this event, as seen with US News, and ABC7. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 02:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these are still WP:PRIMARYNEWS sources. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect NOTNEWS applies, all of the sources are just news updates. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and insignificant coverage. There have been hundreds, if not thousands, of such attacks on the New York City Subway. Even though they receive local coverage almost immediately, most of them do not end up as articles on Wikipedia. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 11:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - per sigcov. Clearly this has received plenty of media coverage. BabbaQ (talk) 15:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redir to list of US mass shootings in 2024 per Elli JoshuaAuble (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete could not find any sustained coverage of this shooting. Esolo5002 (talk) 23:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTNEWS. it would not really make sense, especially as this is relatively not rare. Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Urdu Globally

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

Lacks independent coverage to pass WP:GNG. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2024 (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!} 22:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abul Hasnat Zulqarnain

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

~~Media hasn't covered Abul Hasnat Zulqarnain directly and in-depth, so this fails WP:GNG. Also, he is a judge of a local court so fails WP:NJUDGE. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)~~ Blocked sock[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The judge has received significant coverage as he was judge in a major case against former prime minister of Pakistan, Imran Khan sentencing him to ten years in prison. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please share at least two in-depth references about him here. I couldn't find such references. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 17:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sentencing a head of state is often a significant event covered by reliable sources. Therefore, judges involved in such cases can meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. His action of sentencing Imran Khan attracted significant attention and coverage in reliable sources. This judgement of his is of historical and legal significance. That is good enough reason in my opinion of him warranting an article.

One such example could be of Judge Richard Goldstone, who served as a judge in South Africa and later chaired the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict in 2008-2009. His role in this high-profile investigation made him notable on Wikipedia.

If that is not an appropriate example, then another example of a judge who became notable because of presiding a case is Thokozile Masipa who was presiding judge in Oscar Pistorius trial.

As for more recent example, the civil judge Arthur Engoron who is hearing case against Donald Trump, already have an article since November 2023. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:NJUDGE as he is a district court judge. WP:SIGCOV has not been shown, only passing mentions in the press. Broc (talk) 14:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a great fan of basing an article on news sources myself, but I seem to be in a small minority at Wikipedia. A click on the word "news" in the nomination reveals plenty of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, certainly more than passing mentions and many articles focussing on the judge himself. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin AFD emerged from the actions of a blocked editor who misused multiple accounts and was not committed to enhancing the encyclopedia but rather had a distinct political motive. This editor engaged in numerous conflicts with me, leading them to target my contributions in any manner possible. This AFD was a result of their battleground behavior. I believe this AFD should be closed without any action due to it being created by a blocked editor. If we left their actions in good standing, it will incentivize the pattern of creating new accounts at will and causing disruption on Wikipedia, only to face a minor consequence of a straightforward account block. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I totally agree with the above arguments presented by Sheriff | ☎ 911 and Phil Bridger. I am also tired of seeing all these fairly good articles getting deleted on this forum. Articles that already have some good sources, like this one, should be tagged and improved rather than outright deleted...Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haider Mehdi

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

Lacks in-depth coverage directly about him. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2024 (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. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asim Iftikhar Ahmad

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

Lacks in-depth coverage that is directly about him. Fails WP:GNG. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 16:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fixed the formatting on all 4 existing references at this article, which it definitely needed ... 2 references are from The Express Tribune and The News International newspapers (both reliable sources). Also, the existing reference from the Embassy of Pakistan in France has his in-depth Profile and career details in it. In my view, considering his two decades long career, he meets WP:DIPLOMAT...Ngrewal1 (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that WP:DIPLOMAT is an essay and is no longer an acceptable guideline to cite. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 13:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ambassadors are not inherently notable. 2 of the 4 provided sources are primary. Coverage is routine and not indepth to meet WP:BIO. 00:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LibStar (talk • contribs)
Delete per LibStar Aaron Liu (talk) 03:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No SIGCOV. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination is withdrawn and no support for Delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20Q

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

WP:NOT. The article currently only contains unreliable and/or non-independent references. When researching this topic I could not find any sufficiently reliable or independent references to improve the article with. I would recommend redirecting to 20Q (game show), but that article may very well have the same problem (I have not looked into it). Mokadoshi (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2024 (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/2024 February 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nice, I remember this toy. I'll take a look at what sourcing is out there before chiming in on the deletion discussion, but agree a merge is sound if the article lacks notability. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20Q was originally a web site (still up at 20q.net) , which gathered answer weights / data then spawned a toy and was arguably the first commercial application of neural networks for consumer toys. I'd say it's rather notable. The patent is now abandoned: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20060230008 and the design is interesting as LLMs and generative pre-trained transformers have gained popularity. Nutate (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reliable, independent sources we could add to the article to establish notability? The 20Q website is not independent. Mokadoshi (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mokadoshi:Here's one from Boing Boing and here's one from the NYTimes! Edit: Oooohhhh, Chicago Tribune!!! Americanfreedom (talk) 14:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Americanfreedom: Thanks for finding those. I don't know about Boing Boing, but the NY Times and Chicago Tribune references you found are definitely reliable. It's a shame that each only have a couple sentences of useful information for the article because it means we'll likely never expand this article past a stub. But is that a problem? Mokadoshi (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright lil' miss "I'm gonna complain until someone performs the WP:BEFORE I should've done", there's also the Washington Post (paywall), it's like you don't know about the search engine or something. It's a great jumping off point for people who actually follow WP:BEFORE! Americanfreedom (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate some WP:AGF. I'm not complaining, and I did research before making the AfD. From that research, and still after this discussion, I'm not convinced it meets WP:GNG. For example, is NY Times article you linked "in depth"? Is the WaPo article you linked "reliable"? (It mostly centers on how the device learns from its mistake, which directly contradicts how the device works according to the NYT article.) Thanks for the link you gave to your custom Google search, I don't know where you found it but it gives better results than a normal Google search so I'll add that to the list of things I checked before making this AfD. I do believe the Chicago Tribune reference you found is good (thanks again for finding that!), but I'm not sure if one reliable source satisfies GNG. I'll stop debating here and let someone else weigh in on GNG. Mokadoshi (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The toy is notable. There is announcement and release information about the toy ([13][14]) and some significant coverage ([15][16][17][18]). The website suggests there are some inaccessible sources ([19]) and awards ([20]) - see WP:NEXIST. Given that the Toys WikiProject is a bit dead, and there's no formal notability guidance, I think the fact there's a specific product that recieved coverage and recognition in reliable sources for its novelty and received industry awards is enough for me. The game is a combination of an artificial intelligence prototype, website, then toy; the article could theoretically merge these and further cement notability if the notability of the toy alone was in doubt. The LLM/AI angle is interesting and there seems to be a source or two on Google Scholar about this. On the WP:BEFORE debate above - look, it's inconvenient when key sources are missed, but it happens. It's no big deal, especially when the sources are ultimately found. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 04:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion of the sources presented could be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The 20Q website, toy and quiz show are all just implementions of twenty questions, the real question is merge with twenty questions or kept split as overall the twenty questions concept is notable as a whole and there have been other quiz shows with the same formula. 77.103.193.166 (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If an article subject is notable under the WP:GNG it plainly merits an article. See WP:NOTMERGE. I think these are discrete subjects even if they are closely related. A similar concept would be video games based on a board game, which plainly merit their own articles. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 03:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: still waiting on discussion of sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Vrxces and Americanfreedom have supplied a slew of GNG-worthy sources in this discussion. Left guide (talk) 05:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The toy is clearly notable per above sources. The article needs work, but deletion is uncalled for. (I'm not sure what more discussion those relisting this are looking for? The above discussion is fairly robust, and located useful sources.) –Erakura^(talk) 22:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn: I am not sure why multiple people have linked to the toy's official website or the inventor's written patents as examples of reliable sources, but everyone has found other sources that I don't disagree with. So, I'm fine withdrawing this proposal. And I'll probably stay away from AfD for a while since this is my 2nd proposal that I've had to withdraw, and I don't want to waste other people's times. But at least I've learned something, like WP:Permastub - even if all the sources for this article only give the same couple basic facts, it can still be notable enough to deserve an article. Mokadoshi (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mokadoshi: good call, but don't be too discouraged, your efforts are in good faith. I also agree that the toy company website and patents are useless for establishing notability. It might be helpful to remember WP:NEXIST for future nominations. Left guide (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Masoom (2017 TV series)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, does not appear to have ever made it to release, and the only available coverage are unreliable database entries and PR of its production circa 2017. Searching for coverage online, I only found reviews of an unrelated show by the same name. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 23:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. 105.103.152.170 (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2024 (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 Gagauz people. Owen× ☎ 22:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gagauz people in Moldova

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

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

Unnecessary pages. Most Gagauz people live in Moldova, except for five Gagauz-majority villages in Ukraine. Gagauz people in Moldova is basically a duplicate of Gagauz people with basically the same scope while Gagauz people in Ukraine is an article dealing with five villages with a very narrow scope and which can be perfectly integrated into its parent article. Therefore I propose that both articles be deleted and their information merged into Gagauz people. Super Ψ Dro 16:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Moldova, and Ukraine. Super Ψ Dro 16:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Gagauz people in Moldova, keep Gagauz people in Ukraine. As you have stated, Gagauz people in Moldova is just the same with with Gagauz people as almost all Gagauz people live in Moldova. It is like creating an article like Moldovans in Moldova, ridiculous. Though, I think Gagauz people in Ukraine can be kept even though the amount of content is low. Youprayteas (talk to me? | contribs) 19:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are no ethnographic or linguistic features separating the Gagauz in Moldova from the Gagauz in Ukraine. All Gagauz people in Ukraine can ever deal with are census statistics and local politics of the Gagauz which actually do not exist as they do not have any party of their own, or the five villages' history which can be dealt with in their own articles, or the history of how the Gagauz got divided which can easily be explained in the parent article, or notable personalities which are currently a total of four in Ukrainian Wikipedia. I simply don't see a need for a separate article, everything it covers or can cover can be integrated into another article. Super Ψ Dro 21:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it’s a small article, but why delete it? There is no need.

Youprayteas (t • c) 17:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a need for the article? Is there any information we cannot cover anywhere else? I've just argued for the opposite view. Super Ψ Dro 18:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per nom. AryKun (talk) 13:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I think a redirect/merger would be good too. The resulting redirects would be inoffensive. Super Ψ Dro 19:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both. While the majority of Gagauz in the present live in Moldova, they historically lived further east, in Bessarabia. A Gagauz people article rightly summarizes a totality of secondary-source-covered aspects of the topic, including their history before becoming an ethnic group in Moldova, whereas Gagauz people in Moldova and Gagauz people in Ukraine are discrete subtopics of the main topic that can bear more detail about Gagauz specifically in Moldova (irrespective of wherever else they are or have been) or specifically in Ukraine. I think the comparison to like creating an article like Moldovans in Moldova, ridiculous doesn't quite hold. As an alternative comparison, New York City is the location of the densest population of Jews in the United States, but that doesn't mean Jews in New York City should be merged with American Jews. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 03:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By percentage, not by population. I don't know exactly, but I can confidently say that below 50% of Jews live in New York, while most likely, overwhelmingly, Gagauzians live in Moldova (I would guess for about 80%). Youprayteas ^talk^/^contribs 17:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The comments made during this discussion raise general red flags for me as to the proposal to delete the ethnic group article as being redundant to the national group. If this passes GNG, merge targets can be discussed at the article talk page since no clear merge target has been proposed in this discussion. Ben Azura (talk) 02:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read the nomination and review the vote. The suggestion was not to delete the ethnic group. Instead, the nominator suggested merging the national divisions into the ethnic group. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 09:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support for merging Gagauz people in Moldova to Gagauz people: it is difficult distinguish between the two topics (i.e. content of the two articles would be largely redundant). There is also the article Gagauzia which is more focused on the political issues within Moldova, and which also reduces the usefulness of a separate article for Moldovan Gagauz. Weak support for merging Gagauz people in Ukraine to Gagauz people. It seems possible that the Gagauz in Ukraine would have their own political issues. But for now, all the content in the article can easily be included as a section in Gagauz people. If the section expands, it can be WP:split off again. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 09:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge one into the other, because right now, we have a fork. Bearian (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Still divided between Delete, Keep and Merge to Gagauz people.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Gagauz people. Highly overlapping. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Gagauz people: Merge both to Gagauz people since both are overlapping and it's redundant and unnecessary to keep both the specific articles separate. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - given the content of the respective pages, this feels the best ATD given that I don't think these need exist on their own, given the reasoning above. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 18:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Halit Armay High School

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

This article fails to the criteria layout in WP:GNG and also in WP:NSCHOOL has tagged as unreferenced since 2011 and after a quick search I believe it would fail WP:SIGCOV as well. 1keyhole (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. 1keyhole (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Cannot find any RS that are independent from the subject and don't merely involve a passing mention. Aintabli (talk) 17:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find any substantial coverage under the Turkish name Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of tractors built by other companies

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

Non notable sub-list. Emerging consensus to delete on talk page RM. ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 16:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 16:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Engineering, and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a rather random collection of information. Rebadging and outsourcing of tractor manufacturing should appear in the model article, when available. Not combined in a list. gidonb (talk) 04:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced and not particularly useful. 162 etc. (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lack of sources and context makes the article very hard to understand. And even with the explanation on the talk page which clarifies the scope I still can't really understand what each entry is trying to convey. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TNT. lack of sourcing makes this near-impossible to maintain, especially as this would be great for promotion. Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:02, 20 February 2024 (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 00:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of current MPBL North Division team rosters

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NLIST as this is not discussed as a group within secondary sources. Readers are much better off finding automatically updated team rosters on the league/team websites.

I'm also nominating the following pages per WP:BUNDLE under similar circumstances:

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

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

Let'srun (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Sports, Basketball, and Philippines. Let'srun (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the team rosters can be displayed on the team's individual pages e.g. Bataan Risers, but don't need to be collated together in these articles by division. Lists like this of almost all non-notable people clearly fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per above Traumnovelle (talk) 23:54, 20 February 2024 (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. On a pure nose count this might be a "no consensus", but as always, this is not a vote. The majority of "keep" arguments do not argue for a reason to keep based in policy, and I think there is some well-founded doubt about how they arrived as well. On balance, the majority of argument seems to indicate that the source material, including that suggested for addition during the discussion, does not pass the notability threshold. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Heckler

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

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

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

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:NPOL. He's worked for some notable politicians, though I can't find reliable, secondary sources in a WP:BEFORE search to confirm many of the unsourced claims made here. All I can find is passing mentions of him in articles about Florida politics. He may well have worked for some US presidents and senators, but on Wikipedia, notability is not inherited. Wikishovel (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and Florida. Wikishovel (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't find much coverage about him, he's mentioned in a few sources given already in the article, but these aren't enough for notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Source 3 seems to be about him, but that's all there is that's sigcov. Oaktree b (talk) 16:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WP:SIGCOV. Is a lawyer, a party hack, and a fundraiser - none of these are actually notable, though. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His notability does not derive from being a lawyer, but from his influence and political activism, of which fundraising is a part. Uppagus (talk) 11:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the claims made here by Wikishovel and others. The subject has an entire Wall Street Journal profile about him and is mentioned on the White House website when he was appointed to serve last year on the US Holocaust Memorial Council. Not to mention he has been deputy national finance chair for the Democratic National Committee and Biden Victory Fund for many years. Also look at the awards section. It is clear these items sufficiently demonstrate notability. Andrewjacobson6 (talk) 06:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being named to a planning council for a government project doesn't get you notability. Rest is routine political work. Deputy finance guy for a national campaign is office work. Oaktree b (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sigcov is demonstrated by source 3 and 11. I also see that he was cited as a top fundraiser for President Biden and was part of a team that hosted him in Miami recently. Andrewjacobson6 (talk) 06:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC) — Andrewjacobson6 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I wrote this on my talk page, but maybe it should be here.

I thought the article was coming along well - also thanks to your help - and I am really surprised that you suddenly decided it should be wiped out altogether. I started the article because his name comes up often in certain circles and I didn't see any write-up about him on Wikipedia. I came up with quite a bit of material about him, and the sources looked reliable to me, so it is hard for me to believe you say he is not notable.

If he was profiled in the Wall Street Journal, his appointments have been noted by the White House, and his work has been covered in all the Florida newspapers, it is hard for me to understand the arguments cited above about not being worthy of a Wikipedia article. Strange. Also the fact that the person who wants this article deleted worked pretty hard to make it better. There is always room for improvement and as I have learned since starting to edit here, Wikipedia articles are a work in progress. When more information and sources become available, they can be added. But I can't see a reason why this article should be deleted altogether.--Hazooyi (talk) 08:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly because there aren't many extensive stories just about him. Doing those things shows he COULD be notable here, but we need sourcing. We don't have enough for sourcing to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - His fundraising and activism has made him influential both in state and national politics, all this besides his official and presidential appointments, mentioned in the article and reiterated by the editors above.

Uppagus (talk) 11:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" - Notable and definitely of interest to readers following American politics today.Developer19801 (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pass notability for coverage.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yigal1746 (talk • contribs)
Keep Per Developer19801, and Since the us elections are getting closer, the role of Alex Heckler in the Democratic campaign is not insignificant.HaOfa (talk) 07:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After reviewing the sources, he clearly fails WP:GNG. Almost all of the coverage is self-promotional, the rest is mere mentions. Inclusion in a "Top 100" list does not count, unfortunately for the person claiming source 3 is good, and the WSJ profile was from 2007 and while I can only access the top part, seems like an interview/man on the street type of article. Even if it's not, it would stand alone. SportingFlyer T·C 10:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Heckler is a Known attorney, political fundraiser and philanthtopist. He was an intern at the White House under president Bill Clinton and Chair the Governor's Cabinet of the Democratic Governors Association (DGA).Mhagay (talk) 10:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's all in the article. Being a "known attorney" or fundraiser or philanthropist doesn't make someone notable, though? Being an intern to Bill Clinton might make you notable if there was WP:SIGCOV of what you got up to while in the White House, but usually doesn't... Are there any policy-based reasons for keeping this article? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: It should be noted that of the seven 'Keep' !votes, most don't present policy reasons for retention, all have under 1,000 edits, one has less than 200 edits, four have less than 100 edits, one has less than 10 edits. It's a little odd that all would find their way to a random enough AfD of a little known party activist? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point is, he is not a little known party activist. Being from Ireland does not necessarily indicate an expertise in American politics. If editors have responded here, it's probably because his role in American politics is not a secret. Hazooyi (talk) 09:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no reason why to delete this article. From what I could see, Heckler's activities extend far beyond just being a simple lawyer. He is the Managing Partner & Founder of LSN Partners LLC, a bipartisan consulting firm, including government affairs, regulatory matters, economic development, and emergency management. His roles include serving on the Biden-Harris 2020 National Finance Committee, the Democratic National Committee, and the United States Conference of Mayors (https://www.usmayors.org/). He was appointed to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council (https://www.ushmm.org/information/about-the-museum/council), where he continues to fight against antisemitism. In the context of public universities dealing with contentious speakers on campus, Heckler has advocated for viewpoint-neutral policies. (User:Shulelevin) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shulalevin (talk • contribs)

@Shulalevin: I'm curious: what prompted you to post here today, after three months of inactivity? Wikishovel (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wikishovel, well, I was I am curious why would you ask that and whether you ask other editors such questions. Shulalevin (talk) 15:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I would ask the same question of User:Andrewjacobson6, whose post above was their first edit, five minutes after account creation. My guess is that there's an online discussion forum or social media thread someplace, where this AFD was mentioned. There's nothing wrong with your having posted here on that basis, but if someone involved with editing the article was WP:Canvassing for support there, then that would be a problem. Wikishovel (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We ask because we care about wikipedia's reliability and standards, this isn't a "game" to be won. We treat every article fairly and in a neutral fashion. Oaktree b (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the point of this page is to cite relevant policy justifying that the article in question be retained, or deleted. All of what you've written above is contained in the article body. We already know what it says. There's no point in just copying it over here, too. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Getting it back on the log, comment TK
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This individual has been significantly covered by multiple independent reliable sources in the context of multiple events (i.e. this individual easily passes WP:GNG/WP:NBASIC). Such sources include a ~2,250-word profile in The Wall Street Journal from 2008 and coverage in The South Florida Sun-Sentinel from 2004 and also from 2008. There is also some less substantial coverage of him in The Miami Herald (regarding his non-political work), NBC News (2003, 2013; each regarding his role as a fundraiser), The Tampa Bay Times (regarding his appointment to Chair of the Governor's Cabinet of the Democratic Governors' Association), The New York Times (with coverage of his 2007 wedding, as well as more passing mention in 2011 regarding fundraising). Appeals to WP:NPOL are a bit spurious; his notability does not come from holding or running for public office, and he himself is not a politician in a plain sense. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I agree the coverage is as significant as you make it out to be beyond the WSJ article, though there are a couple articles that are paywalled for me. It's not enough for me to change my vote, though. SportingFlyer T·C 16:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also not sure of the significance of those references. Most are from at least 15 years ago, and passing mention of being appointed to an administrative position of a body for which he does not qualify for membership (the DGA) also does not signify notability. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin note on relist I had closed this as delete, but per Red-tailed hawk's note at User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alex_Heckler re: the edit conflict, I have relisted it for further discussion. Thanks! Star Mississippi 03:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per c. Being a "party hack" doesn't have bearing on notability/notoriety. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable activist/operative. No significant news coverage. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 04:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources identified by Red-tailed hawk, particularly features in the Wall Street Journal and South Florida Sun-Sentinel, show that the subject passes the GNG. Coverage is sustained over much of the early 2000s due to the subject's activities as a lobbyist and fundraiser. Jfire (talk) 05:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. The subject clearly passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG given the coverage outlined most granularly by Red-tailed hawk above, including citations that are not yet listed in the article itself, such as coverage by the New York Times of his wedding, suggesting he is a notable figure. These items make clear he is not just a lawyer or fundraiser but a figure recognized by both the political and media establishment. Andrewjacobson6 (talk) 08:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second "keep" by User:Andrewjacobson6 struck. We all get to post a recommendation once at an WP:AFD, and then comment on the recommendations made.

A reply would also be helpful from you, and from article creator @Hazooyi:: was there a discussion about this AFD elsewhere, online or offline, that prompted you to create an account and immediately post here? @Shulalevin: has also not yet answered a similar question above. Wikishovel (talk) 08:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can assume that the article creator, who was active a day before this was nominated for deletion, and who also was given a notification about the deletion on their talk page, was not inappropriately canvassed to this. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm asking the article creator if they know anything about offline canvassing for this AFD, from which it appears that User:Andrewjacobson6 and User:Shulalevin responded. Wikishovel (talk) 16:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean me, I am sorry that I didn't answer sooner. I am still not familiar with all the terminology you are using. I have been reading up on Wikipedia policies in order to edit properly, but I'm not sure what you mean about "canvassing." I started editing Wikipedia a few months ago and until now felt like it was fun and a great learning experience. But now all of a sudden I am being attacked from all sides and my work is being disparaged and treated like garbage. I have worked hard to create an article on a person whose name kept coming up and had none. Why all this "assumption of bad faith" to use some Wikipedia lingo I have seen being used? I don't even know any other Wikipedia editors. Now it's not so much fun anymore. It feels like a threatening and unfriendly place. I do wish I could say nice to meet you...--Hazooyi (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is saying your work is garbage, and I'm not assuming bad faith, I'm trying to work out why there are some odd responses in this discussion. Did you mention this deletion discussion elsewhere online? That's what I'm asking you.

I'm also asking User:Andrewjacobson6 and User:Shulalevin to reply to my questions to them above. Wikishovel (talk) 17:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of discussion do you mean? Where would I mention it? I have never had any contact with anyone on Wikipedia except for someone who wrote to me on my page about something they thought should be changed in an article I edited, and I said they were welcome to make that change. The only others who have contacted me are you and Bastun, to leave me messages that I can only understand as a wish for me and my work to disappear from the stage and leave Wikipedia to those are apparently smarter and better at editing than me. Not encouraging to say the least. And the continuing hostility towards anyone who thinks the article has some value is making me rethink if I want to contribute here...And by the way, after hearing all the criticism against this article, I went to look at others that were targeted for deletion. Amazingly, articles of two sentences and one reference at most were considered fine and the motion was to keep them. So really, it seems as if this article is being singled out in a strange way. If you are asking how people got to the page about this individual, I wonder how you got there? Is there some kind of red button that goes off when someone creates an article related to American politics?--Hazooyi (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is what it says at the top of this page: You are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others. If you ask me, you have no right to interrogate anyone.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazooyi (talk • contribs)

I'm not interrogating you. I'm asking you if you mentioned this AFD elsewhere online: on social media, maybe? Because that would explain User:Andrewjacobson6 and User:Shulalevin showing up and posting as they did. If you did that, because you didn't know it was against Wikipedia's rules, then that's OK. I just want to know. Wikishovel (talk) 18:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the rogue "keep" comments coming out of the woodwork appear to be the most notable thing this guy has done recently. It reads very much like a resume, and not an encyclopedic article. Not everyone that knows or works with a sitting president meets notability guidelines. WP:RESUME

Lindsey40186 (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The other delete votes provide the same explanation that I would for deleting, so see above. Slightly offtopic: The "Keep" votes, on the other hand, are laughably transparent new-account sockpuppets from a UPE farm, and if this guy Heckler didn't pay someone online to create this article and make an effort to see it not deleted, I'll eat my hat. Fred Zepelin (talk) 23:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please strike your over-generalization about keep !voters. I'll AGF that you overlooked the fact that Red-tailed hawk is an administrator and I am an editor in good standing, and we've both provided policy-based keep !votes. Jfire (talk) 01:05, 29 February 2024 (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. ✗plicit 04:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Álvarez

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

BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Source in article is IMDB and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found name mentions, listings, nothing meeting SIGCOV. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 12:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added a few sources. Might meet WP:NACTOR. Coverage about her private life and how much she has changed since she played a nerdy teenager in a 2003-2004 telenovela also exists. So Redirect to Alegrijes y Rebujos#Main. Not opposed to keep. Rather opposed to deletion.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Based on the article subject's location, it seems unlikely that she would receive English-language coverage unless she attains international fame, which is not a threshold for notability. WP:NONENG sources are perfectly valid. I ran the sources recently added to the article through a browser translator, and they appear to discuss her directly and in-depth, and I see no reason to doubt their reliability or independence. Left guide (talk) 10:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The El Heraldo source is the only notability-establishing source I could find. There are other sources mentioning her, but they either lack significant coverage or are primary sources (as is the case with all the "look at where the actors of this kids show are now" articles). I don't think a possible NACTOR case justifies keeping an article that can't be expanded beyond a stub, and redirecting to one show seems arbitrary. Mach61 (talk) 14:40, 21 February 2024 (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. Ordinarily, I'd relist or close this as a Soft Delete but neither of those options are available at this point. Since there is support for a Merge/Redirect, I'm closing this as No Consensus. Editors are encouraged to take whatever editing action they think is appropriate as individual editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church, Thenkaraikottai

AfDs for this article:

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

Seems to be same problems identified in previous Afd. Fails WP:GNG. scope_creep^Talk 11:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Tangrakottai, after retitling that article to the village name of Thenkaraikottai. This church is in the adjoining settlement of Fathima Nagar. The census village is Thenkaraikottai (spelled without the 'h' in the 2011 Tamil Nadu census handbook)[21] Tangrakottai article covers both the fort and the Kalyana Ramaswamy temple, both accessed from Thenkaraikottai. The current redirect from Thenkaraikottai to Tangrakottai looks to be the wrong way round — Tangrakottai has few Google hits, most of which appear to be Wikipedia mirrors, so that article may be wrongly titled. Rupples (talk) 01:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There are a few sources in the stub. It fails my own standards at User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_historic_churches. Plus: the building is more than 100 years old (pre-1921). Minus: everything else. It's not on any register of Historic Places. It as neither designed by a notable architect, nor is notable for its architecture. It has not been notorious nor notable in any way. I would not oppose a redirect one way or the other. Bearian (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2024 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JENESYS U-17 Women's Football Memorial Cup

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, I'm unable to find any significant coverage in independent sources. The cited writeup from the Japan Ministry of Foreign Affairs further seems to suggest that this tournament only comprises friendly matches, raising questions about whether it would be WP:DUE to merge to Japan Football Association's list of tournaments. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Japan. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Zero relevance. Just a friendly U17 competition without established notability. Svartner (talk) 23:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsurprisingly, an under-17s friendly tournament doesn't garner enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – very clearly irrelevant. Idiosincrático (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One of many competitions of this type with a lack of sourcing to show this meets the WP:GNG or any other notability guideline. Let'srun (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: trivial independent sourcing. there are a few blogs, though they aren't reliable and sports organizations have a bar. Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:01, 20 February 2024 (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) IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nessie (film)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, coverage is limited to brief interviews with the production team in local publications. My WP:BEFORE attempt only turned up sources about other Loch Ness-related media released in 2023. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Scotland. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If present coverage (and other articles existing online) is deemed insufficient, given the Marbella nominations and Monaco award received, a ~~redirect~~ to Loch Ness Monster in popular culture#Literature and film (an article that could benefit from additional material and sources) -with transfer of a few sources and notes- could, imv, be considered.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirecting it without a mention at the target is not appropriate, and adding a mention at the target without proper sourcing on the overarching topic (Loch Ness Monster in popular culture) that mentions the film is fundamentally a non-starter. TompaDompa (talk) 20:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In other words: I had added the mention of the film to the target page, and with a source, but you removed it because you didn't want it mentioned there. So that the film is now indeed not mentioned at the target but it would be if you hadn't reverted my addition twice. Am I allowed to sigh? I have no further comments, I'm afraid. Other users will decide what they think is best.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am confident you understand that this is not a source on the overarching topic of Loch Ness Monster in popular culture. You had indeed added "a source", but not an adequate one for the purpose. TompaDompa (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Merritt, Mike (2023-07-16). "Loch Miss Monster - Inverness Cinema Won't Screen New Film Director Baffled as the Home of Nessie Refuses to Show Movie". Daily Record. Archived from the original on 2024-02-16. Retrieved 2024-02-16.
  The article notes: "A new film about the Loch Ness Monster has been snapped up by every cinema it has been offered to - except in Inverness, the home city of Nessie. Movie bosses say they are "baffled" over why Eden Court Theatre turned down the film - while the other eight cinemas in the first tranche have taken it. Paul MacDonald-Taylor, head of film and visual arts for Eden Court, said ... "My issue with Nessie is it seems to be made for a foreign market who look at Scotland in a very particular and more touristy way and this kind of film wouldn't work as well with our audience. Especially with the postsummer holiday release that they are planning when there would be fewer tourists in the area. If it was a film similar to their previous release that had Scotland as the backdrop for an interesting story and not as the product, then we would have looked at showing it." ... It seems to be made for a foreign market who look at Scotland in a very particular and more touristy way."
2. Neil, Sandy (2022-07-08). "Nessie comes to Loch Awe". The Oban Times. Archived from the original on 2024-01-12. Retrieved 2024-02-16.
  The article notes: "A comedy about the fabled Loch Ness monster was shot by Loch Awe last month, as Argyll’s spectacular locations continue to attract film crews. The movie about ‘Nessie’, which weaves plotlines from the Scottish classics Local Hero and Whisky Galore, is made by the same team behind Dracula on Holiday and The Right Bus, which were showcased in the Highlands last year. ... The film also stars Scottish actor John Michie, seen on screen as DI Robbie Ross in Taggart and Karl Munro in Coronation Street. Michie plays Jimmy, a hardy soul who helps to mastermind a way to prevent the village from losing its fortune. ... Nessie is directed by Robbie Moffat and produced by Mairi Sutherland, under the British film company Palm Tree. The team, alongside production manager Rachael Sutherland, have been based at Loch Aweside’s Ardbrecknish House. Robbie, the director, was delighted to have such a cast and such a ‘beautiful’ setting as Loch Awe. While some filming was done at Loch Ness itself, the ‘stunning’ Argyll locations include Portsonachan Hotel, the Portsonachan Village Hall, lochside houses and the beach. Further afield, the crew filmed at Oban’s Glencruitten Golf course, Blarcreen House at Ardchattan and Oban Airport. The shoot ran from June 6 until July 5."
3. Crow, Allan (2023-09-25). "Fife link revealed as new Nessie movie comes to the region". Fife Today. Archived from the original on 2024-02-16. Retrieved 2024-02-16.
  The article notes: "The movie starring John Michie from Taggart, Tanya Fear from Dr Who, and Dynsast legend, Stephanie Beacham is showing at Glenrothes Kino from Friday (September 29), to the delight of Mairi Sutherland, executive producer, whose family hailed from Leven. ... Nessie. It had its premiere at the Grovenor Cinema in Glasgow in August and since then it has shown in 11 cinemas across Scotland in the central belt and as far away as Oban, Annan and Edinburgh."
4. Merritt, Mike (2023-06-25). "Blockbuster Loch Ness monster movie was filmed miles away in Argyll". Daily Record. Archived from the original on 2024-02-16. Retrieved 2024-02-16.
  The article notes: "A new movie about Nessie has its own secret – it wasn’t filmed on Loch Ness. Director Robbie Moffat decided not to shoot scenes for Nessie at Loch Ness, instead choosing Loch Awe, in Argyll, as it was much more accessible for crews. But the film – which cost £500,000 to make – still includes stunning Highland scenery. ... In Nessie she plays Heather, the lawyer love interest for Geordie, who runs boat tours on Loch Ness. He is played by Jason Harvey."
5. Bunn, George (2023-10-11). "Scriptwriting barrister has a monster hit on her hands!: Family film Nessie is now in cinemas". The Sentinel. ProQuest 2873006221. Retrieved 2024-02-16 – via PressReader.
  The article notes: "Catherine O'Reilly and actor husband Tim Churchill have been writing scripts from their Stone home for the last 10 years. ... Now Catherine and co-writer Tim have had their latest work - Nessie - given the big screen treatment. The family film follows a Scottish village on the banks of Loch Ness who are awarded $50 million in the will of an eccentric monster-loving U.S. billionaire. ... The film had its premiere in Cannes. It's currently in cinemas in Scotland."
6. Liptrott, Sharon (2023-09-08). "Virtual feast of films at cinema this week. What's on by Sharon Liptrott". Dumfries & Galloway Standard. ProQuest 2861922212. Archived from the original on 2024-02-16. Retrieved 2024-02-16 – via The Free Library.
  The article notes: "The Scottish-made Nessie (PG) film comes to Annan this week after running in more than 10 indie cinemas in the Central Belt, Glasgow and Edinburgh. Mairi Sutherland of Sunset Entertainment helped to make the film as executive producer, location manager and now distributor. ... The film is about a village which attempts to validate the existence of The Loch Ness Monster. Jimmy the village committee chairman is informed by letter that the village has been left $50 million by a rich American industrialist in order to improve the life of the villagers. Incensed by the size of the legacy, the American industrialist's son Brad hires an Edinburgh law firm to contest his father's wishes and a young female solicitor, Heather, is dispatched to the Highland village to await further instructions."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Nessie to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 12:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Record is a national newspaper that covered Nessie twice (Merritt 2023a and Merritt 2023b). Reliable sources have covered Nessie's production (Neil 2022), controversy over why Inverness, the home city of Nessie, did not screen the film (Merritt 2023a), and its theatrical releases (Liptrott 2023). There is enough coverage for Nessie to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 12:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm skeptical of the quality of the Daily Record coverage, considering that they call it a "blockbuster" despite having only been screened in indie cinemas and not having drawn any critics' reviews. The article reads like an interview with the film's creators. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merritt 2023b has the headline "Blockbuster Loch Ness monster movie was filmed miles away in Argyll". The word "blockbuster" is mentioned in the headline only and not in the body of the article. Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Headlines says:
News headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable source. If the information is supported by the body of the source, then cite it from the body. Headlines are written to grab readers' attention quickly and briefly; they may be overstated or lack context, and sometimes contain exaggerations or sensationalized claims with the intention of attracting readers to an otherwise reliable article. They are often written by copy editors instead of the researchers and journalists who wrote the articles.
I consider the headline to be unreliable but the body of the article to be reliable. Merritt 2023a and Merritt 2023b contain several quotes from people affiliated with the film. The articles contain sufficient non-interview content to amount to significant coverage. Cunard (talk) 09:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep in light of the sources found and presented by Cunard. Coverage seems fairly sufficient to warrant an article on the film. Thanks a lot.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources cited by Cunard. There is enough coverage of this project to warrant an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2024 (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 Blade Runner (franchise)#Books. (non-admin closure) IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blade Runner 4: Eye and Talon

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

Article cites no sources, and no strong sources came up in my search. I tried the Wikipedia Library, OpenBooks, Google News, and Newspapers.com. No review or in-depth coverage. The best source I could find was this piece in ScreenRant, which covers a few snippets of the plot. I don't think the article could be built on such a source, and doing so would not get us into compliance with WP:NBOOKS#Articles that are plot summaries and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Blade Runner (franchise)#Books - I am only finding very brief mentions of the book, such as the ScreenRant fluff piece linked to in the nomination. For example, this article, which goes in depth on the first of Jeter's Blade Runner books, briefly mentions this sequel at the end, but it does nothing more than state that it exists. Likewise, this article, which is an overview of the various spinoff media of the franchise, mentions it, but has no actual coverage or discussion about it beyond that. From what I can see, only the first of Jeter's Blade Runner books, Blade Runner 2: The Edge of Human, actually got any significant coverage. That said, the Blade Runner franchise article has a section for these books already, with a quick plot summary, so redirecting there would be preferable over deletion. Rorshacma (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great suggestion. Please consider me a redirect !vote also. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge. I tried Booklist, Kirkus, and Publishers Weekly for reviews, with no luck. I suggest "merge" because it would be nice for the plot synopsis at Blade Runner (franchise)#Books to spell out the ending (more spoilers and less "hook"), so drawing on the very long plot summary in this article could be useful to add two more sentences to the franchise page. In general redirect is the right alternative to deletion. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Blade_Runner_(franchise)#Books per above editors' findings --Lenticel ^(talk) 23:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Blade Runner (franchise)#Books: reviews online are merely in context of the franchise. Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:58, 20 February 2024 (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 14:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled A. L. Vijay film

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

Reviewed during NPP. Film does not yet exist and does not have a title. Right now coverage is more just about the "event" of announcing in November 2023 that they plan to make a film. North8000 (talk) 14:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would have said Dratify but as the case has been where many such drafts get added back to the mainspace, its better off to delete it. Way too early for an unnamed movie to have a page of its own. There is not enough significant coverage and there is no title given to the film. RangersRus (talk) 20:39, 13 February 2024 (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 14:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mindanao Gazette

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

Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Although there are passing mentions in those sources, it's not an indication of the subject's notability. Israel's Son 11:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, and Philippines. Israel's Son 11:08, 6 February 2024 (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 13:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:27, 20 February 2024 (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 14:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin Sculpture-Network

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

Grant-funded projects like this come and go and rarely turn out to have any enduring notability. This article has been tagged as unreferenced for 10 years and, while dewiki lists some publications and press releases from the project itself, I haven't been able to find the independent coverage needed to meet our threshold for inclusion here on enwiki. – Joe (talk) 06:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Germany. – Joe (talk) 06:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or alternatively selective Merge to Berlin State Museums. At least the article is much shorter than the Berliner Skulpturennetzwerk article on German Wikipedia, so it isn't a WP:BLOWITUP candidate! I can see suggestions that this is an important project, for example journal articles [22] [23], though the majority of online info appears to be on museum or university websites. Sionk (talk) 14:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:29, 13 February 2024 (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 14:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of archaeology and history books

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

There must be thousands of archaeology and history books, so by definition this list is a subset of all possible books determined by interested editors. WP:NOTEVERYTHING and not needed - for navigation purposes there are relevant categories JMWt (talk) 11:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Archaeology. JMWt (talk) 11:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to bibliography of archaeology or merge to Bibliography of anthropology#Archaeology per WP:ATD. Personally I agree that bibliographic lists tend to devolve into indiscriminate collections of information, but like it or not they are a thing. This a decent start on a bibliography for archaeology and absent a consensus against bibliographies as a whole, I don't think we can start selectively deleting them. I suggest renaming for consistency with other bibliographies and because the it only lists archaeology titles. – Joe (talk) 11:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge Overly broad topic, no need to merely name unrelated books on an expansive field like this. Respective subtopics could include biblographies, no need for one on archaeology and history as a whole. Reywas92^Talk 14:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:SALAT as an overly broad list that can be either woefully incomplete or extensive to the point of uselessness. Owen× ☎ 23:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Youprayteas (talk to me? | contribs) 15:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Meltzer

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

Lots of assertions that he is significant as an academic and planner, but no evidence he meets threshold. Boleyn (talk) 11:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Social science, Illinois, Michigan, Texas, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Does seem to have been a notable academic and planner. Full length obituary in the Chicago Tribune: [24]. The University of Texas at Dallas issues their own obituary: [25]. (It's not independent, but WP:NACADEMIC does not require independent sources.) Often mentioned or discussed in scholarship about urban planning in Chicago, e.g. [26], [27], [28], [29]. His book Metropolis to Metroplex received several scholarly reviews: [30], [31], [32]. He and his firm are discussed extensively in this doctoral dissertation: [33]. Jfire (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He appears to be a person of significance and finding references from 1950s-1960s is probably not easy given that those were pre-digital media times. BulgarianCat (talk) 07:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Subject is clearly notable per sources already in the article in addition to Explicit's argument. The real problem is that great swaths of the article are copyvio from the cited Hyde Park Journal obit. Central and Adams (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2024 (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. Meets GNG and MUSICBIO satisfied. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clementine Douglas

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

Page was created on 17 January. Not many sources/references... Regards – 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 L1amw90 (🗣️ talk to me • ✍️ contribs) 12:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - what's the basis for deletion? Top 10 UK single and national award: satisfies WP:MUSICBIO. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, satisfies WP:MUSICBIO #5, could do with expanding but not in need of deletion. Shaws username . talk . 13:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is only one paragraph, the only source of any substance is one created by the artist herself or her fan base, and in the songs mentioned she was only a collaborating artist. My research has only found one independent song by her. I think a WP article about her at this point is premature. Uppagus (talk) 12:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clear cut WP:MUSICBIO #5. She is within Wikipedias guidelines for inclusion. WP:GNG does also apply.BabbaQ (talk) 14:53, 16 February 2024 (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 00:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Code of non-infringement

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

It does not seem to be a real thing, I could not find any mention of this code. I would opt for a redirect to Intellectual rights to magic methods, but if this is a hoax, it should be deleted. Broc (talk) 12:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Law. Broc (talk) 12:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only sources that I can find on this are principally related to the Clown Egg Register, and describe this rule as "unwritten". We really cannot have an article about a rule that isn't formally recorded in an encyclopaedia whose content is supposed to be verifiable. There are plenty of sources about the Clown Egg Register, in contrast. Uncle G (talk) 13:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm keen to see other opinions, but this was a fun one to check. There's a mention about the code in the context of McDonald's in a book "by Wikipedians" and it's been discussed "according to Wikipedia" by a law firm. Another law firm also talks about it, but the article postdates our entry. A possible WP:ATD is a merge with Intellectual rights to magic methods, incorporating also the Clown Egg Register (relevant article). The article creator is still semi-active on Wikipedia, so I do hope Pedant can jump in. I'm not raising my hopes that this is, by some distance, the longest hoax (though if it is, the content would be fitting). IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I found something interesting in this scholarly article [34], where the code is defined as the Antiappropriation norm (page 1333) and in this glossary: [35] where it's referred to as "Code of the Clowns". So I wouldn't get my hopes up for the longest hoax. However, the fact it does not have a unique denomination and is only loosely defined makes me wonder if such "code" deserves its Wikipedia page (and if the current title is correct). Broc (talk) 08:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm getting a few gsearch results for "anti-appropriation norm", but only ever applied to stand-up comedy rather than clowns. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 00:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is one problem with unwritten rules: we don't even have names for them. Uncle G (talk) 04:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find anything about this code. The clown egg registry was interesting however... Oaktree b (talk) 00:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find RSes tusing the phrase "code of non-infringement" with regard to clowns. The Clown International Egg Registry ([36]) appears to be notable and might be something I decide to work on. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others and my prior comment. If this exists at all, we don't have sufficient sources to support it. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2024 (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. RL0919 (talk) 11:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haya Fatima Sehgal

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

Non-notable writer and poet. Fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Jamiebuba (talk) 11:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamiebuba: Please can you tell me with how this can be made notable?

~~~~ Aysha Ayshaipath (talk) 12:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, I can't find significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, apart from routine coverage of her book launch. Wikishovel (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NWRITER article creator has said that "I work for a company as a social media content writer, and where the company has a direct link with the content I write and submit here." but they have NOT disclosed this correctly anywhere. Theroadislong (talk) 14:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this has been rectified Ayshaipath (talk) 09:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional, poorly referenced, and offering no evidence of notability, with likely COI to boot. I suppose draftifying would also be an option, if the author disclosed their COI and agreed to put this through AfC, although if these are the best sources that can be found that AfC path would only ever lead to rejection. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what is afc? Ayshaipath (talk) 09:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same creating editor also created Draft:Resilient Pakistan, which is a self-published book written by Sehgal. David notMD (talk) 14:32, 16 February 2024 (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 00:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Venture Bros.: The Music of JG Thirlwell

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

Unable to verify this meets WP:NALBUM. I could only find one review and it seems to only be noteworthy in the context of being the soundtrack to a popular show. Sources listed are primary or just a listing. I think a redirect to The_Venture_Bros.#Soundtrack_CD would be appropriate. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 02:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 02:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:44, 6 February 2024 (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 10:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Plenty of significant coverage of this release:
"JG Thirlwell Explains How He Brings Villains and Comedy to Life in the Music of 'The Venture Bros'"

"Meet JG Thirlwell, the Musical Genius Behind ‘Venture Bros.’"

"Sounds Heard: The Venture Bros.—The Music of JG Thirlwell"

"The Venture Brothers: The Music of JG Thirlwell (2009)"

Two interviews about the music and two reviews of the set is enough to pass WP:GNG. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 02:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 11:58, 20 February 2024 (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!} 02:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gaami

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

Previously speedy-deleted as G11 (advertisement) by User:Jimfbleak. This was overturned at DRV with a decision to send to AFD. I am completing this nomination and am neutral. Stifle (talk) 08:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Stifle (talk) 08:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination. Ratnahastin (talk) 13:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination is a neutral, administrative one based on the result of DRV, not on the article or its sourcing. If you believe the article should be deleted, I'm afraid you'll have to do better than a "per nom" this time. Owen× ☎ 14:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFILM. CSMention269 (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So, did a bit more digging, looks like the film now has a release date (8 March 2024), and this release date announcement has been covered in a couple of independent publications, along with the announcements of when the film finished principal photography and when the edit lock happened - but then again, WP:RSNOI. If it's ultimately deemed non-notable now, chances are that the situation might change with its release next month, so maybe WP:DRAFTIFY if the current state of it is deemed non-notable, maybe 'just let it fester for a few weeks and take a look at it post-release' if it is deemed potentially-notable enough right now, idk what the correct course of action in these situations actually is. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 22:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or Draftify. Sourcing remains less than stellar but I see enough to plausibly claim to meet WP:NFILM with an immanent release date. Alternately send to draft until release to wait for a couple of reviews. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 01:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per Eluchil404. This film is releasing soon but just needs to be expanded. DareshMohan (talk) 07:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Upcoming movie in March. Notable coverage [37][38][39] Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Eluchil404 & DareshMohan, as the trailer came out yesterday, sources & references are improved now. Will expand on article. bɑʁɑqoxodaraP (talk) 04:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the article, references and citations that are required to meet WP:NFILM as Significant coverage. and in terms of "presumed notability" the article already has IMDb link listed in the article.bɑʁɑqoxodaraP (talk) 06:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was ‎Speedy Keep (nomination withdrawn). Eluchil404 (talk) 23:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Neutral atom quantum computer

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

This article describes 2023 results. While the topic might become suitable for a page, it is too soon. As yet there is no evidence of extensive citing or other secondary results (beyond science blogs). Ldm1954 (talk) 10:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page is still valid without the 2023 results. Neutral atom quantum computers were proposed in the late 90s. Vtomole (talk) 15:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the term is well established in academic literature, including the prestigious Nature journal. Current sourcing can be improved, but existing SIGCOV already establishes notability. Owen× ☎ 15:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep it is clearly one of the main competing quantum computing architectures availables. See people like QuEra Computing Inc. who have been working on that for a while. The article is not the best but it can be improved. Edit: This implementation can also be found in many textbooks.--ReyHahn (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Review paper has almost 3000 citation; the 2023 Nature article has 40 citations. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am withdrawing my nomination as others feel it is notable. Keep Ldm1954 (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2024 (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 10:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Youssof Altoukhi

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

Subject described as a "youth activist" with no reference justifying that. Doesn't satisfy GNG - no claim to notability. Despite claim in article, the subject delivered a TEDx talk, not a TED talk; pretty much anyone can organise and speak at the former. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - was very commercial-looking crypto-flavoured spam before I cleaned that out, leaving very little else - David Gerard (talk) 13:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly not notable and of promotional nature. Aintabli (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2024 (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 10:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Johnson (filmmaker)

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV on a WP:BLP. Refs are cast lists and passing mentions. scope_creep^Talk 08:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, in addition to falling short of GNG, it's worth noting that the claims of having won awards (or even of being a filmmaker) appear to be a bit of an exaggeration, as Johnson's role in Lady Gaga's work was that of a producer (i.e. a finance role, not a creative one, unless otherwise indicated), and he is not listed as a prize recipient for the music video in the cited writeup of the award in question [40]. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:23, 13 February 2024 (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 Parishes and dependencies of Antigua and Barbuda. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of capitals in Antigua and Barbuda

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

No reason to have a separate list from Parishes and dependencies of Antigua and Barbuda, where these seven are listed as well. These "capitals", apart from the real capital Saint John, are very small villages and don't seem to get special attention as a group apart from their role in the parishes, which is treated at the other article. I redirected it but was reverted. The minimal extra information here can easily be merged into the other article if necessary and sourced, and if the sources then work (many of the ethnicity pdfs don't load in either the original or the archived form, and I don't see where e.g. the "foreign born" percentages come from, the census document only gives these figures per parish) Fram (talk) 08:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Antigua and Barbuda. Fram (talk) 08:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Parishes and dependencies of Antigua and Barbuda with the history intact so that sourced information can be merged if desired. There is no need to cover these details in two articles rather than one. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how this situation is different from any other list of capitals of country subdivisions. CROIX^talk 13:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have spoken to the Statistics Division to fix the demographics links. All the other sources appear to be intact and prove that these are in fact parish capitals. CROIX^talk 13:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect - seems to pass NLIST, but my preference would be to keep. The foreign born issue can be solved through editing. SportingFlyer T·C 23:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- What does it add that can't be (or isn't already) covered in the proposed target article? Duplicating information just because NLIST doesn't specifically disallow it (and NLIST doesn't disallow anything it seems) seems like a bad idea. Fram (talk) 08:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Then there should have been a merge discussion. There's no information in this article that needs to be deleted apart from maybe the foreign born percentages. But I don't think it's as duplicative as you're arguing. SportingFlyer T·C 23:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge The main article already lists all the capitals, and the population could be added there. Reywas92^Talk 14:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2024 (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!} 02:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charmaine Yee

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

Non-notable (as notability is defined hereabouts). Until a few hours ago this article had many sources that were obvious junk; those that remain are also more or less junk. None has substantial content. Googling either "charmaine yee" or "余嘉甄" site:sg brings nothing substantial. Hoary (talk) 08:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 08:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 08:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding because it's not immediately obvious: The Straits Times is owned by the same company as the radio station she works for, so those aren't independent sources. The rest of the sources in the article are at the moment all primary and/or also non-independent. (Also, between this, SPH Media's {{Undisclosed paid}} tag (Update: yep--User:Sphcorp, though they at least added the disclosure on their userpage), and John Klass, who works for the identical radio station and also has an extremely-promotional article edited by none other than User:Johnklass, I'm thinking this web of promotional edits expands a bit beyond Yee alone.) 2603:8001:4542:28FB:D1A0:7BBB:E6CF:5C27 (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC) (Send talk messages here)[reply]

IP, please review Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion. However unfortunately, policy fails to say that either "Material only sparsely provided with references to reliable sources" or "Advertising or other spam" is to be deleted. "Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content" is to be deleted; and of course it's easy for a starstruck fan, some well-meaning but otherwise deluded person, or of course a PR company, to leaven the promotional junk with some "relevant or encyclopedic content" (not least because what the content should be "relevant" to goes unspecified). Thank you for drawing our attention to the wretched article John Klass, but this discussion is limited to the encyclopediaworthiness of Charmaine Yee. -- Hoary (talk) 00:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then.
Specialized notability criteria
- Don't think she meets wp:ANYBIO. (She received Trinity College's 2023 FS Alum of the Year), but the university has multiple Alum of the Year awards and I'm not sure an award from a single university counts as a "well-known and significant award or honor"--when I hear that I think of akin to the Nobel Prize, but maybe I'm wrong, and wouldn't that need secondary sources supporting it also regardless?)
- Does not meet wp:ENTERTAINER from what I can see (she's been part of a whopping two radio stations).
Sources in the article
- Trinity College: An interview, so a primary source from what I understand.
- The Straits Times: Owned by the same company (SPH Media) as the radio station she worked for, so not independent.
- Kiss92: doesn't even support the claim that's made, but even if it did, it's her own radio station so not independent.
- YouTube: a primary source.
- Hotfrog: A business directory whose Products & Services describes how one can "book Charmaine for your next Dinner Dance, Wedding Event, Birthday Party...", so I suspect non-independent.
Other sources
- There's an AsiaOne article written from the first person (not independent), an Apple podcast episode interviewing her (again primary from what I understand), and several other Straits Times articles (also not independent). Best article I could find was https://pride.kindness.sg/kiss92-dj-charmaine-yee-growing-up-with-brother/, which I'm not seeing any immediate problems I know of with, but one source alone wouldn't count as "multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject", so unless I've misunderstood things or other better sources come up delete. 2603:8001:4542:28FB:39F5:C84:F994:ED49 (talk) 09:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC) (Send talk messages here)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:56, 21 February 2024 (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. Closing as no consensus after multiple relists. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Zaabal Engineering Industries

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

Doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability. Additional sources I found like Reuters are not reliable enough to change the situation. BoraVoro (talk) 07:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any issues with the article. 18Carlox32 (talk) 14:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Arabic sources cited in the article look pretty good to me. The best English language sources I could find seem to be | an FAS fact sheet, | Global Security fact sheet, and | a Carnegie Middle East Center report on Egypt's military industrial complex which has paragraphs about this factory on pages 55 and 212. There are also plenty of mentions in routine and not fully independent coverage which don't help much for notability but can be used to source facts in the article. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
those English sources are not good - as I mentioned, passing mentions. BoraVoro (talk) 07:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I concur with the above Keep vote. The Arabic sources when used with Google Translate display articles that have a lot of info about the subject.Maxcreator (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The sources mentioned above do not meet the criteria as already been pointed out. Eluchil404 pretty much admits the sources are "fully independent" and "don't help much for notability". The arabic sources in the article are no better; one is a page displaying the logos of 23 companies with no in-depth information, another relies entirely on info provided by the company and the chairman, another is PR relating to a visit by a government minister, another reports on a meeting where the company attended for continued/increased government support. None of those sources meet the criteria and I am unable to locate any that does. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. My position is that the FAS, GS, and Carnegie Middle East Center sources I listed above are independent and substantial. The FAS and GS sources are basically copies of each other, but they are clearly independent of the company/the Egyptian government. They are fairly short. The CMEC source is again fully independent and has at least two paragraphs of coverage which I would condider substantial in this context, but others might not. My comments about sources lacking independence or significant coverage referred to other sources I found but did not list. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response The fact that the GAS and GS website pages are *identical* proves that at least one is not independent content. Can't be independent if its a copy. The FAS info is from 1999 and predates GS by 12 years so my guess is GS is the copy. The GS info is a total of 5 sentences. Inadequate to meet WP:NCORP criteria. The last reference only appears to mention the topic company once, in passing, also not NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:08, 5 March 2024 (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 10:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PLADES

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

Non-notable. WP:BEFORE leads to no results (even in Spanish) except own website, a few reports authored by the organization, database entries. Broc (talk) 07:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Peru. Broc (talk) 07:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced and fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 03:23, 16 February 2024 (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 Air source heat pump. selectively, as noted. Language is an issue for the sourcing and discussion thereof. Consensus isn't going to emerge here to delete, and the only person arguing for retention is the article's creator. Star Mississippi 16:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EcoCute

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

This might have been an exceptional product when the article was created but now I suspect it is just one among many. So I think it should be merged to air source heat pump Chidgk1 (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Japan. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is a weird one, it's largely sourced to technical documentation, some primary, some not. It's well-sourced, but I'm not sure the sources are enough of a reason to delete it. Oaktree b (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
have now bolded that i propose merge not delete Chidgk1 (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: EcoCute is trade name, but widely used by Japanese manufacture and marketing.

As referred in external link, millions of unit installed in Japan and may be marketed to other area. EcoCute is a type of heat pump, and some Japanese mfg. apply EcoCute technologies to Air to Water (A2W) pump for Europe market. I agree EcoCute to be marge into heat pump as type of one tech. method. Namazu-tron (talk) 10:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Namazu-tron: Thanks - as far as I understand it EcoCute is only air source not ground source or water source. If I understood right then it might be better to merge into air source heat pump rather than heat pump I suppose. Chidgk1 (talk) 10:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is air source heat pump. Pls pay attention in marge process, not to neglect advantage of EcoCute description and feature.@ Namazu-tron (talk) 12:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EcoCute is already installed millions of units in Japan, and probably marketed in other area based on technical advantage.

It is state in article EcoCute (Japanese: エコキュート, Hepburn: ekokyūto) is an energy-efficient electric heat pump in head description.

Article “Heat Pump” does not refer EcoCute in its text, and Ecocute article simply refer in See also section.

It means Article EcoCute is well satisfy to “not delete” and eligible to be exist as an article alone, and user may understand two article EcoCute and Hear pump each other.@ Namazu-tron (talk) 11:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Largely technical and legal documentation, none of which provides notability. I can't find sources for this industrial equipment. Oaktree b (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question: @Namazu-tron: @Oaktree b: As one of you wants to keep and the other delete could you both compromise and let me merge this as I originally proposed? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I added external link Heat-pump-increased-production-of-japanese-version-ecocute in Europe market recently 2023. Ecocute is tradename but widely used Japanese manufacture might be trade name right holder for deployment not only in Japan and aiming in Europe as well. So far, only 3 users participating this marge/delete discussion. My first edit as new article was 23:58, 7月 10, 2008. I see your write up histories for many other articles. Let’s wait for other uses comment and no need to be rushed.@ Namazu-tron (talk) 09:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Briefly merge, fine, this isn't notable enough to have an entire section in that article. Oaktree b (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is no delete, nor Wikipedia:Merging and nor Wikipedia:Redirect.

Once an article A deleted and marge to another article B, even A redirected to B, anyone can edit article B include word A in context of article B, but long term in future, it is possible/happen the word A may disappear from B due to number of editing by many editor/user. No one able to guarantee such sad thing if article A is worthful. This is my understanding.

Now, The fact today is that millions of EcoCute unit used in houses and industries in Japan, and globally most people facing the Periodization of Climate variability and change and Climate change. Energy and cost cut/effective hot water making is demanded in global scale for CO₂ reduction worldwide market in Europe/north & south America, South Asia, Oceania. EcoCute is trademark of Kansai Electric Power Company (KEPC) does not produce EcoCute.

Every power companies include KEPC, house maker/big and small house contractor recommend EcoCute to user on fair market competition. KEPC hold trademark, and my guess is, trademark EcoCute is to permit naming as Ecocute to use every 20-30 manufactures, may be coming year into Europe and/or America martket opening when minimum requirement satisfied, and KEPC will allow variety of EcoCute Specification (technical standard) depend on market and producer. With trademark registered, nobody can make and sell cute/charming toy with naming of EcoCute, for example, it prevent EcoCute be confused and disturbed in market where CO₂ emission decrease under people’s wish.

I believe that, KEPC is willing to diffusion (business) of EcoCute not only in Japan, globally worldwide in hope of cut CO₂ emission reduction. Naming of EcoCute is only applicable for hot water making and supply system Air source heat pump with Refrigerant by CO₂ as commercialize first country under corporation with Norwegian/German physicist, as described in Etymology and other section, and not applicable no supplying hot water machine such as air conditioner nor refrigeration system.

I hope users, herein discussion, to improve context of article EcoCute with big hope as contributing editor rather than delete/marge.

I mean to keep/improve article EcoCute is really contribution not only Wikipedia but also global problem. EcoCute placed in Japanese market by Corona Corporation (コロナ) in May 2001 and more than 20 years passed. Technologies for EcoCute seems already well matured/completed, it seems, and not enough sources even in Japanese, as far as I look for web site, most available sources are for marketing purpose. I will improve article EcoCute as well as I can, my an excuse is not pay attention even on Talk page after first edit in/around in 2008, my contribution on other article both English and Japanese edition, but not so frequent. Thank you.@ Namazu-tron (talk) 12:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional comments and analysis on the available source material would be quite helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:26, 13 February 2024 (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Sigma (Mega Man X)

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

This is a procedural nomination on behalf of User:Kung Fu Man, as he has made it clear he believes the article is non-notable. His stated rationale is: "Character's whole article is held up by short mentions or lists, doesn't really meet notability". As one of the article's authors, I disagree with its soft deletion, therefore I am nominating it to go through a full discussion to see if it's really non-notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm confused why you led with pushing it to AfD, or chose to open a AfD on my behalf instead of a talk page discussion. I would have preferred that as AfD is not for cleanup. That said, ref [26] is the strongest one here. But then there's stuff like Ref [24] which is just bizarre (comparing Sigma from Overwatch to this Sigma) to use because it's not really commentary and closer to a bad Valnet article? Not to mention [22] which is also...really not saying anything.

In any event, I would've been down for a discussion if you felt I overlooked some sources instead of "you can't BLAR you must AfD!"--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being a "bizarre" source is not a disqualifier except apparently in your opinion. It's a legitimate comparison, that may indicate some inspiration, and an example of significant coverage. And I was forced to create a procedural AfD, as you went beyond the BRD cycle by reverting twice. The alternative would have been attempting to edit war. I would have preferred to discuss after a single revert, but I had no choice in the matter. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean I have a talk page, and as I stated on your talk page, I misunderstood the situation. It has been a trend of editors forcing BLAR's to go through AfDs instead lately. I honestly just request this be Withdrawn.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose withdrawing, as I feel like it can just lead to another BLAR down the line. Its notability has been questioned, in no uncertain terms, ensuring it is notable is important to maintain the article's stability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The reception section has commentary on varied aspects of the character by various secondary sources, thus fulfilling WP:WHYN/notability requirements. We have a not-so-short article with lots of non-plot information. So I see no reason for deletion, nor an advantage in a merge to a character list. Daranios (talk) 16:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not voting at this stage, but I wanted to share the assessment I made of the sources listed to gather other editors' views / challenge my assessment first:

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
1 - 2: Sigma Voices (Mega Man) (Behind The Voice Actor)				✘ No
3: X Characters (Mega Man Homepage)	~ Authorized by Capcom	~ Self-published website, unclear if author is a subject-matter expert	71 words	✘ No
4: Mega Man X (Mega Man Homepage)	~ Authorized by Capcom	~ Self-published website, unclear if author is a subject-matter expert		✘ No
5: Mega Man X (Capcom)				✘ No
6: E3 2017: Marvel vs. Capcom Infinite Has Infinite Potential (Hardcore Gamer)			No analysis of Sigma	✘ No
7: Marvel vs. Capcom: Infinite Trailer Unleashes DLC Fighters Black Panther and Sigma (WCCF Tech)			Excluding the press release excerpt	✘ No
8 - 9 - 10 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15: Mega Man X Official Complete Works (UDON Entertainment Corp)	Capcom identified as author			✘ No
11: Inafune Denies Cataclysm Theory+Answers Your Questions! (Rockman Corner)	~ Primary source (Q&A)	~ Self-published website / blogger	70 words	✘ No
16: This Mega Man X Sigma figure is absolutely amazing (Destructoid)				✘ No
17: The Brutal Lessons Gaming Taught Me About Revolutions, Robots, And War (Kotaku)			Incidental mentions	✘ No
18: 30th anniversary Capcom character encyclopedia (DK Games)	Despite being licensed/authorized by Capcom, author is separate from Capcom		One page (150-200 words), same as 200+ other Capcom characters	✔ Yes
19: Bless the Never Ending Bug Robots That Help Me Beat Sigma in Mega-Man X (Destructoid)				✘ No
20: Best SNES Bosses Fights Ever All Time (Den of Geek)			~ More a discussion of Mega Man X's game design	~ Partial
21: How Mega Man X rewrote the player/character relationship (Eurogamer.net)				✘ No
22: Why The Mega Man X and Minecraft Crossover Is Cool But Ultimately Upseting (IGN)			No analysis of Sigma	✘ No
23: Playing God: The ever-changing morals of Mega Man's sci-fi allegory (The A.V. Club)			76 words (being generous)	✘ No
24: Sigma vs. Sigma: The Comparison We Had To Make (Kotaku)		~ A case of editorial discrection - From the tone of the article, this is clearly intended as humour, not a reliable analysis - Does this prove notability? Weakly unless there are other articles mentioning the similarities between Sigma (Mega Man X) and Sigma (Overwatch)		~ Partial
25: Bonus Stage Magazine. No. 19 (Bonus Stage Magazine)			~ Limited outside of plot recap	~ Partial
26: O pós-humano, cyborgs e a (re)evolução do corpo em Mega Man Maverick Hunter X [The post-human, cyborgs and the (re)evolution of the body in Mega Man Maverick Hunter X] (Literatura e Autoritarismo)				✔ Yes
27: 《洛克人 X》系列人設水野佳祐專訪以小短褲側馬尾等元素描繪原創人物「RiCO 莉可」 (GNN Gamer)	~ Q&A with a Capcom staff member		~ One answer, unclear how this corresponds to 100 words in English	? Unknown
28: Marvel vs. Capcom: Infinite's Story Demo Feels Like Awkward Fanfiction (Kotaku)			Incidental outside of the plot recap	✘ No
29: Destructoid: Review Marvel vs Capcom Infinite (Destructoid)				✘ No
30: Marvel vs. Capcom: Infinite Review (Den of Geek)			Incidental outside of the plot recap	✘ No
31: Best Fighting Game Final Bosses Street Fighter Mortal Kombat Tekken (Den of Geek)				✔ Yes
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}}.

I'd also note that in my opinion several of these should be considered primary sources, in particular 20, 25 and 31, which cover Sigma as part of the critic's emotional response to the subject, not as part of a broader discussion or commentary on the themes the character expresses. Shazback (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of those sources as 'primary'? I have never seen anyone define a primary source in that way. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's my understanding based on the following policies, emphasis mine:

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#News_organizations:

Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact. Reviews for books, movies, art, etc. can be opinion, summary, or scholarly pieces.

The last sentence references Virginia Tech, which notes that:

Opinion reviews give the article's author's opinion about the book. The review will typically include a brief summary of the book, and could include discussion on writing style, audience level and the book author's area of expertise. Opinion reviews are published in newspapers, popular magazines and specialty publications like the New York Times Book Review.

Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources:

Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent sources.

This is expanded upon in a footnote Wikipedia:No original research#cite_note-8:

Further examples of primary sources include: [...] editorials, op-eds, columns, blogs, and other opinion pieces, including (depending on context) reviews and interviews (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources § News organizations); tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires [...].

There are essays discussing the articulation of these concepts, however as non-policy they can be disputed freely:

Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources#Fields_other_than_history:

In the fine arts, a work of art is always a primary source. [...] Statements made by or works written by the artists about their artwork might be primary or secondary. Critiques and reviews by art critics are usually considered secondary sources, although exceptions exist. For example, an account of the specific circumstances under which the critic viewed the artwork is primary material, as is the critics' description of their personal emotional reaction to the piece. As a result, some critiques and reviews are a mix of primary and secondary material.

Wikipedia:Frequently_misinterpreted_sourcing_policy#Editorials,_columns,_and_blogs_are_categorically_primary_sources:

Reviews (in the book, film, etc. sense; this doesn't mean academic literature reviews) are by nature subjective; a work cannot be said by WP to be "derivative", "thrilling", etc., based on them. Reviewer speculation about inspirations for, influences on, and meaning of a work are wholly subjective and unreliable, absent statements from the creators of the work, or numerous notable reviewers all concurring. For opinions on the tone, style, and characteristics of a work, we can quote/paraphrase reviewers with attribution in a due and balanced manner.

If there are specific other policies, guidelines or consensus elements I should be aware of, more than happy to take them into account. Shazback (talk) 02:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shazback: I think it's important to point out that reviews, with all their subjective elements, are an important and expected basis of articles on topics of fiction and should not be discounted (emphasis mine):

WP:ALLPLOT: articles about fiction [...] should also include the real world context of the work (such as its development, legacy, critical reception, and any sourced literary analysis
WP:INDISCRIMINATE: Wikipedia treats creative works (including, for example, works of art or fiction, video games, documentaries, research books or papers, and religious texts) in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works
Wikipedia:Notability (fiction): Information that may help provide the real-world discussion necessary for an encyclopedia article about a fictional topic includes reception, analysis, significance, development, legacy and influence, and relationships with or comparisons to other media.
Wikipedia:Notability (books): The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists,[4] and reviews.
Wikipedia:Notability (video games): A video game is appropriate for an article if it has been the subject of significant commentary or analysis in published sources that are independent of the game developer. Published sources include any reliable sources, such as newspapers, magazines, books, documentaries, websites, and consumer reports. Daranios (talk) 11:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm in agreement with Darianos. I see several good sources already used in the article. This doesn't warrant a merge. MoonJet (talk) 10:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the circumstances of this AFD are strange to me, a procedural nomination on behalf of someone who does not want the article deleted, an editor who AFDed to avoid "another BLAR down the line", and an unclear discussion on WP:PRIMARY. This probably should have just been a merge discussion in the first place. As for my keep vote, the source analysis above proved there is a decisive WP:THREE here with other reliable sources as well (I do think they were a bit harsh on source judging). (Oinkers42) (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: far from a delete, merge (ehh) im in agreement with the source table above. Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:56, 20 February 2024 (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)‎ Geschichte (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan Campbell (settler)

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

lacks notability —Kaliforniyka^Hi! 05:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, South Africa, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has an entry in the Dictionary of South African Biography, so meets WP:ANYBIO #3. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to Necrothesp's two sources I have found a third. There are furthermore a couple of shorter biographies in other works to be had. Uncle G (talk) 07:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. National DNB entry is definitive evidence of notability per WP:ANYBIO #3. Jfire (talk) 05:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DNB entry and others. Lightburst (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2024 (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 Ladonia (micronation). Should editors wish to exercise editorial discretion and merge content from this article, the page history remains available. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carolyn Shelby

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

Very little indication that subject is notable. PepperBeast (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. PepperBeast (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Royalty and nobility, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only independent reliable secondary source is the BBC, and that's only a passing mention, which doesn't meet the notability criteria. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fascinating tidbit, but not enough coverage of this individual. Even what's used is one BBC story and the rest are primary or non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to offer an opinion on whether to delete or not, but I think the Dagens Nyheter article should qualify as a reliable source (I've been told it is "The NY Times of Sweden", but that could be not entirely accurate). The article is a decent-length interview about how Ladonia will continue to function after the death of Lars Vilks.

I was surprised the original article was never nominated for deletion before, so I added (what I thought) was a better written article in tone/style and added some additional references. There are quite a few more interviews and articles where she is named only as the "Queen of Ladonia" or "Queen Carolyn", like podcast appearances, radio interviews, an interview on Al Jazeera (with Prince Michael of Sealand also on the panel), and a 15 minute segment on a German TV program called Galileo. There is also a chapter on Ladonia in a Swedish book called "Mikronationer" (and she is interviewed as well as on the cover of the book), and Lars Vilks' last book before his death (Nimis) talks about her role running Ladonia. I can dig up the links to the references, though I'd rather save the effort if the article is destined for deletion anyway. Kulib (talk) 00:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dagens Nyheter is a strong candidate to be seen as the newspaper of record in Sweden. It qualifies. /Julle (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I found a Mapping micronations (Al Jazeera, 2014) interview source. There is also a 2023 WGN Radio 720 interview ("Her Majesty is the host and coordinator of the 2023 MicroCon."). The 2022 BBC source seems to be more than a passing mention because it includes biographical information with context. A redirect to Ladonia (micronation) where she is mentioned and pictured seems supported. Beccaynr (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think with much of this article and available sources focused on Ladonia and/or the role of the monarch generally, instead of sourced information about Shelby, WP:PAGEDECIDE seems relevant to consider and further supports a redirect at this time. The Ladonia article 1) provides needed context to help understand Shelby, and Shelby is likely covered better there given the limited independent/secondary sourced information that appears to be available about her 2) the relationship between Shelby and Ladonia seems better appreciated in the context of the Ladonia article, 3) most sourcing does not appear to be independent or secondary, e.g. a book by Lars Vilks, interviews of Shelby. I am not able to access the Dagens Nyheter source but I did check the Wikipedia Library and only found a Spanish-language reprint of the BBC source. Beccaynr (talk) 02:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Drottningen av Ladonien: ’Vår plikt att röra oss framåt’" in Dagens Nyheter, which has been added since this was taken to AfD (and after the first couple of comments) ha longer coverage of Carolyn Shelby herself. "Utopidiplomati i ett låtsas-FN" in Ping (former magazine for sv:DIK, 20 November 2015, has slightly more than merely mentioning her in passing, but not at all the same level of information as the Dagens Nyheter article. I think the additions to the article since this discussion stared makes it keepable. /Julle (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further comments about the new sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the editors mentioning Dagens Nyheter. Also, given the reativey large amount of people involved in creating Ladonia (most micronations are things like a farmer in a dispute with the authorities), I would argue being their nominal leader would likely make her presumptively notable. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 02:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, per Beccaynr's analysis. Based on what I can access, the Dagens Nyheter article seems like it's largely based on an interview? Even if it isn't, we still have NOPAGE for these cases when a topic is better covered in another page. An article on Shelby will end up being somewhat of a coatrack for Ladonia governance, so covering her at Ladonia would be preferable.

JoelleJay (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There seems to be almost nothing to say about this person, who "[serves] as the Queen and head of state of the Royal Republic of" something that's succeeded in being trademarked. Non-notable. -- Hoary (talk) 09:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per improvements made since nom. The Dagens Nyheter source is helpful. Within WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is some coverage in Swedish newspapers, but it is by no means extensive or in-depth. This suggests that the proper course of action is to mention Shelby at Ladonia (micronation) and delete this standalone bio. Draken Bowser (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect is ok by me. Draken Bowser (talk) 13:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per additions since nom, I think it would be a detriment to the Ladonia article to merge this article into it. AlexandraAVX (talk) 07:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ladonia (micronation) with history intact to enable the merger of sourced information. The sources are marginal for a BLP, but there's no need for actual deletion when her coverage is as part of a more clearly notable topic. In particular I would rather see the article kept rather than deleted if those are the only two options, but view a redirect with a partial merger as the best ultimate solution. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ladonia (micronation). This is a living subject and the article has very little in the way of reliable sources or direct detailing. I would prefer the page is deleted for BLP reasons, but can live with redirect as an alternative. BusterD (talk) 13:55, 20 February 2024 (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. RL0919 (talk) 12:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ultrakill

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

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

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

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

After months of looking for sourcing for this article and monitoring it, I've come to the unfortunate conclusion that this early-access game falls just short of the general notability guidelines. While it has received some coverage from reliable sources, none have offered any critical commentary outside of a listicle. To my knowledge, the only site that has done that so far is Kotaku. Not even RPS gave any critical commentary.

Maybe when the game is out of early access it'll get proper reviews and worthy of a standalone page, but for now I think WP:TOOSOON applies. λ NegativeMP1 23:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. λ NegativeMP1 23:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

as i said in the talk page, there were the 3 minimum sources... but one of them was about the sex update, which got removed twice for being about the sex update (funniest shit i've ever seen). if it can be reinstated and stay there, i think it can just barely stay cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 23:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The game is already very popular and well known in the retro shooter community, there are tons of Youtube videos about it that could be used as sources, the game already has sold over a million copies according to several tracker sites and it's to be expected that it will remain this popular throughout its early access period and its eventual release. Games nowadays can often remain in Early Access for a long time while actually already being well known and received. I'm not sure how exactly the sources are counted for notability, but I don't think they have to be reviewing the game just to prove that it's notable? It might not be enough to prove certain things about the game, but isnt the mere existence of several articles about it enough to prove that it's notable?Tajoshu (talk) 03:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

per wp:rspyt, user-generated content, like youtube reviews where some guy talks about how ultrakill is like getting your blood replaced with adrenaline via the urethra or something, are considered unreliable. if it's a video from a source already considered reliable (like ign or something), it inherits its reliability. as is, though, not enough of those exist yet

that aside, my comment still stands that it at best only barely meets the minimum requirements if the statement on the sex update gets to rematerialize into the article cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 10:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The game already passes GNG even in its Early Access state, with previews in three reliable sources. I also found an additional piece of SIGCOV from a different PC Gamer author. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i added the sources :) idk i hope it's enough -twixbat (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i don't know if they're reliable enough but i added some more sources and reviews in the reception section! how many more does it need? (i added 2 more) -twixbat (talk) 00:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also i found some more im gonna add later but i have to go to school now so :( it will have to wait twix ✦ talk to me! 11:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
incidentally, should something be done about sources 4-22 all being ingame text? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

support, in addition to the dearth of reliable sources the article is written more like a fan guide than an objective overview Ivannilych (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify what your "support" means, you are in favor of deleting or keeping the article? Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 17:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like they are in favor of deletion. But I should remind the user that deletion is not a substitute for cleanup (WP:NOTCLEANUP), nor is a lack of sources in the article grounds for deletion when sources exist that are unused in the article. (WP:NEXIST). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep - Although the current article version is incredibly bloated by overly detailed gameplay, plot, a dozens of citations to game text (WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP), the subject does seem to meet Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion (WP:GNG) based on sigcov in RS'es. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 17:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that third part was dealt with while you were typing this (probably), taking the other two back to the talk page, because it turns out i completely forgot to send a message ages ago cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 17:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's weak, but it seems to meet notability thresholds per other users' observations. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ultrakill is one of the most well known "boomer shooters" if not the most, and deleting this page is definitively a double-edged sword. On one hand this page is a useful reference for a quick overview of the game. But other the other hand, it contains numerous claims that are wrong or aren't fit for the game's Wikipedia page (that despite repeated edits to correct these issues, are bringed back for some reason). But I believe it would be best for it to be deleted or deactivated for the time being. There are already wikis dedicated specifically for the game and are actively maintained and updated with detailed information that better represent the current game. The lack of sources is obvious and there currently isn't really any solution, I've thought of possibly backing up information with the help of citations from the developer commentary streams (one of which that has released just last week, offering up-to-date information about many things). But the main issue is obviously more about the lack of any review on the game, and the few that exist date back to when the game's team was first merged with New Blood and that the game entered early access. These aren't as relevant anymore with how much the game has changed and expanded. Once the game reaches its full release and that a multitude of reviews start popping up again with information and critics that better reflect the game as it has become, then I believe it would be relevant again to have a new page for Ultrakill appearing here. I do want to point out that I'm not a common user of Wikipedia at all, this is just my conclusion as someone who often plays this game and is active in its community, I tried my best to inform myself on the deletion procedures but I might not have grasped some things correctly. I still stand by my opinion that this page doesn't currently need to exist considering its content. -FrizouWasThere (talk) 03:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not cleanup. Its "content" is irrelevant and articles are a work in progress. What matters is whether there are sources to prove its notability, and there are numerous previews of the game. As long as the page is not a complete loss - and it's not - it can be fixed. It obviously still needs cleanup, but again, that's not relevant to a deletion discussion at all. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite Out of an abundance of caution, I should disclose that I am the an administrator of the ULTRAKILL Miraheze Wiki, which is a potential conflict of interest.

I agree with zxcvbnm's judgement that ULTRAKILL passes the GNG guidelines and is fairly iconic nowadays even in its early access state, with a significant cultural influence in many spaces. In addition, it has likely sold upwards of a million copies and is very highly rated, which I believe makes it more noteworthy as well.

However, the article requires a rewrite at the very least. As I've previously mentioned concerning this article, Wikipedia is not a game guide and none of the information is essential for anyone interested in a general overview of what ULTRAKILL is — and, quite frankly, the article does not do a very good job of representing ULTRAKILL as a game either despite its gratuitous detail, largely missing its heavy stylish action influences and claiming that its movement mechanics resemble Quake and Doom, which they simply don't.

The Wikipedia article should only be concerned with a general overview of the game, instead of listing every weapon included in the game, going into detail about bonus content, hard damage, or including a whole paragraph about a mod that one of the developers made for the game. I think ULTRAKILL is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article, but the article's current iteration is of rather low quality. Corviraptor (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite I concur with the above that the game has reach fair notability among reputable sources, and it is likely to grow further as the game approaches its full release. I have taken it upon myself to rewrite sections of the article to better fit Wikipedia's style and scope. Feedback and edits are appreciated. PencilVoid (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article now cites five independent sources (there were only two when I tagged it last month), four positive reviews and one report. The latter is the only one that makes an independent claim of popularity ("has been met by a new wave of positive user reviews for the already popular shooter"). Are positive reviews enough to establish notability? NebY (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether a review's positive or negative doesn't actually matter? There have been games with completely negative reviews that are notable, see Ride to Hell: Retribution. All that matters is that reliable sources saw fit to mention the game in a significant way. So far, Kotaku, TheGamer, PC Gamer have all done so, in the case of PC Gamer, several times. This means it just scooches past notability criteria. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further input is clearly necessary...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It does just seem to edge over the line for notability, PC Gamer is reliable, the articles from Kotaku is from when it was reliable and TheGamer just before. Shaws username . talk . 11:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The rewrite seems to have fixed most of the issues with the article's quality, and ULTRAKILL appears to pass GNG anyway. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 14:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has enough sources to pass GNG StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite I agree with Corviraptor vghfr, harbinger of chaos 05:35, 19 February 2024 (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 23:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Szervác

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

PROD removed. Namecruft that fails WP:NNAME, WP:NOTDICT and WP:GNG. No reliable sources outside of databases, and even then not many are reliable. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NNAME and the targeted links don't even have en-wikipedia articles (two Commons pages and a Hungarian wikipedia link with no actual article). So no evidence of notability or need for this page. LizardJr8 (talk) 05:30, 14 February 2024 (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 10:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet WP:NNAME. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of mayors of Lynwood, California. ✗plicit 10:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leticia Vasquez

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

Unnotable mayor holding unnotable positions in a small city. No sources found to indicate that the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:NPOL, coverage is all WP:ROTM. Previously nominated in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas, closed as procedural keep due to the bundle's size. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, Women, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing notable found. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ The secondary sources are all fairly WP:ROTM for any local politician and not enough to establish WP:NOTABILITY or significant coverage per WP:POLITICIAN. Shaws username . talk . 22:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of mayors of Lynwood, California Shaws username . talk . 18:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to very obvious ATD >>>> List of mayors of Lynwood, California.Djflem (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of mayors of Lynwood, California per Djflem. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of mayors of Lynwood, California. ✗plicit 10:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Pedroza

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

Unnotable mayor holding unnotable positions in a small city. No sources found to indicate that the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Some media coverage, though it is all WP:ROTM city going-ons. Previously nominated in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas, closed as procedural keep due to the bundle's size. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, most of the secondary sources are WP:ROTM for any local politician, and the misuse of city funds trial [41] [42] doesn't meet the WP:CRIME standards. Overall not enough to establish WP:NOTABILITY or significant coverage per WP:POLITICIAN. Shaws username . talk . 12:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of mayors of Lynwood, California Shaws username . talk . 18:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to very good ATD >>>> List of mayors of Lynwood, California Djflem (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of mayors of Lynwood, California per Djflem. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:21, 19 February 2024 (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!} 01:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radoslav Holúbek

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

Fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sources I found are limited to passing mentions (1 and 2). Google searches also come up with silly namesakes. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 13:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Slovakia. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 13:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, thank you for nominating the article because it allows us to improve it. The original article only mentioned the subject's participation in the Olympic relay. But Holúbek actually does meet WP:NSPORT, specifically WP:NATH, because he is a four-time individual national champion per the sources I added in the article. Furthermore, he is covered in this book providing SIGCOV for WP:GNG: Grexa, Ján (1996). Olympijské hnutie na Slovensku: od Atén po Atlantu. Q111. ISBN 978-80-85401-56-1.

Note that he is named in reverse order as "Holúbek Radoslav" in the book and in other sources I have found, I am not sure what Slovak naming conventions are or if a page move is appropriate. Thank you, --Habst (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Habst: All countries in Europe use Western order except Hungary. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are currently zero non-database sources in the article. For that reason, the closing admin probably won't let it pass muster. The article is also severely subpar (as can be expected from a Lugnuts creation) in that it doesn't mention his two most significant competitions as an individual hurdler, the 2000 Olympic Games and the 1998 European Championships. Now, the book is interesting, but how is he covered there? 3 lines or several pages? Geschichte (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Geschichte, thanks, I tried to update the article since its nomination to add some more of his achievements. The book is 211 pages long, and there were only 71 Slovak athletes at the Olympics prior to and including 1996 when the book was published. It's interesting that Holúbek is included because our records show he didn't compete at the Olympics until 4 years later, but he was certainly a top Slovak athlete and national champion before 1996, so he is probably discussed in that context. Based on WP:NEXISTS, I think an administrator would most likely close this as keep if that was the consensus, even if we can't actually access the book as NEXISTS allows for. --Habst (talk) 14:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then the so-called "discussion" might be a sentence that "athlete X beat Radoslav Holúbek at Y track meet" or "athlete X trains with Radoslav Holúbek". Not exactly significant coverage. We don't know, but can he be excpeted to have a full profile when the book is about Olympians and he was not an Olympian at the time? Being a random national champion is not that special, there are 50 of them every year across all athletic events. Geschichte (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Was Holubek a non-starter at an Olympics or was his only selection after the book was written? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good question, it's very possible. I noticed that up until late last year, He Pan (runner) was listed as a member of the 2008 Chinese Olympic team on an archived website, known to people at the time, but she ended up not starting nor appearing on the Olympic start lists. It's plausible that Holúbek was named to the team at the time of the book-writing, but may have withdrawn due to injury. @Geschichte isn't wrong that I am guessing – but to be fair, I think they would have to admit that they are guessing just as much as me about their speculated sentence of coverage. The simple fact is that until someone checks the book out from a library, all we know is that the subject's name is definitely in Google's internal scanned copy. --Habst (talk) 00:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've submitted a request for the source. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lean keep as Habst says he found SIGCOV in the book, which I am not able to access. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Habst is just guessing Geschichte (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The presumption of WP:SIGCOV does not mean that there is any. For now, the only sources are from databases or are very brief recaps. While the book source may have coverage, we can't say that for certain. If better coverage is found, please ping me. Let'srun (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Let'srun: May I ask, how did you find both this and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ľubomír Pištek, your only two votes in the past two days, in rapid succession, considering they both happen to be discussions in which I am involved and seem to be part of an ongoing trend at AFD of you either voting against me or making sure to critique my comments when you do ultimately agree with me? Additionally, tell me, what is the purpose of having a presumption of WP:SIGCOV if it has no weight and can be simply disregarded without even searching for any relevant sources, which is essentially what your vote is implying? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Let'srun, thanks for your comment. I think the "presumption" of SIGCOV actually does mean that SIGCOV exists, that is what I think the definition of the word presumption means. Per WP:NEXISTS, if coverage is known to exist e.g. in a book, then I think that is valid grounds for keeping the article. Now, if the book text is retrieved but there is only a mention, then I think we would have to look for other sources, but that hasn't happened. --Habst (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait I am tempted to say keep based on the presumed notability of winning at European tournaments twice, but let's shelf this until that source request mentioned above comes through, for a better picture of the landscape of coverage. Kingsif (talk) 12:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are referring to the European Cup Second League, which was a nations tournament below the Super League and First League. The Second League was a container for the lesser track nations in Europe Geschichte (talk) 13:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I don't see a consensus, are there ATD possible?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATD: Close as no consensus. --Habst (talk) 11:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. No consensus to delete after multiple relistings and discussions. Slightly lean towards keep due to the changes made, but no clear consensus is established. Closing as no consensus. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zau de Câmpie gas field

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

I searched for any news, books or other info to establish the notability of this gas field. Finding none, I proposed it for deletion. This was objected to and claims of adding important info were made. I redirected it to a relevant table, and it was undone. Again with claims of adding important information. I then tagged it for lacking significant coverage, that tag was removed no reason given. The information in the article now is derived from 6 sources. Here's a summary of those: In the first reference it is mentioned once in passing and is not the subject of the paragraph in which it is mentioned. In the second reference, it's mentioned twice in passing and is not the subject of the article. In the third reference it is mentioned once in passing, not as the subject. I can't translate the fourth reference but it is clearly from 1922 and is presented in the article as a reliable source for data in 2009 and 2010. The fifth reference is just a data sheet from a financial report or something. The sixth reference mentions it in passing, but it is not the subject of the source. None of these sources nor any of the info in the WP article say anything at all about this field being important in any way. So they don't establish significance, Wikipedia:Credible_claim_of_significance, and gas fields are not covered very well by any policy. WP:GEO wants clear evidence of importance. I assert that it is a non notable run of the mill gas field with outdated info and should be deleted not redirected. Thus I submit it to AFD. James.folsom (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Romania. James.folsom (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article pertains to one of the oldest gas fields in Europe (discovered in 1914, continuously exploited since 1920), with a well-documented history, both in the academic press (e.g., Annals of the University of Oradea, Romanian Review of Regional Studies), news organizations articles (e.g., RFE/RL, MSNews), and various government and industry press releases, for a total of 10 references so far. This is not a "run of the mill" gas field; rather, it is one of the very few oil fields in Europe more than 100 years old (that's why it has references going back to 1922) and still in operation, at the center of an area that produces some 3/4 of Romania's natural gas output (itself 3rd in Europe after Holland and UK). The importance of the field to the economy of Romania is highlighted in a (restricted) CIA report from 1948 (made public in 2011), which mentions it specifically, devoting a whole paragraph to the Zau de Câmpie gas field. Furthermore, it is not at all the case that the information contained in the article is "outdated": there are several references from 2018–2022, some of them referring to current output, means of gas extraction or compression (62 drilling rigs in operation, new compressor), and fairly current (2017) estimates of reserves and prospects for further production extended up to 2029. Turgidson (talk) 16:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies I realized I misspoke, by omitting details around my outdated comment. So I will explain. The article contains information about who operates it and what it's annual output are, and things like what compressor it uses, how many wells it currently has. These sorts of details wouldn't be found in article about a notable subject because there would be better things to talk about in the article, and these things change from one year to the next so they would be out of date unless someone is constantly updating that. There are literally hundred of other articles about gas fields, and even more about oil fields, that are just like this. Who is going to keep all these trivial numbers updated annually? Furthermore the people who would want this info is not going to come to Wikipedia for. It's out place, but the problem is if you get rid of it there is no article.

- Comment It's true there are now ~~ten~~ 11 references, and some of them actually mention this place. None of them state this is an important gas field. At least one of the sources points out that being and old gas field is a bad thing. None of the provided references are significant coverage. I've thoroughly looked and I know there isn't any. Here's a breakdown of the claimed important coverage:
  - The 11th reference is just a trade journal reporting on agreements being renewed and only mentions this field in passing.
  - The 10th is just basic statistics probably from a financial report.
  - The ninth reference is dated 1922, and is used as a source for info from 2009-2010. I can't translate it.
  - The eighth reference mentions this gas field in passing as part of a larger important area. But doesn't state it is of any special value.
  - The seventh, is the cia report, It's the only source in this batch that even uses the word 'Important'. But it's not referring to this gas field, but a well in the field. The report is merely summarizing the gas resources in Romania and doesn't single this one out as particularly important.
  - The fifth just talks about drilling somewhere, it was a routine church announcement.
  - The Sixth, doesn't mention this gas field, and is an article that states that gas resources in Romania are now headed toward depletion due to the long period of exploitation.
  - The fourth, lists it as a gas field but has nothing else to say.
  - The third article doesn't mention it.
  - The second article just states what gas compressor it uses.
  - The first reference mentions it in passing once, in a discussion about the first gas pipline.
- There's nothing here to establish this as a stand alone article.

Comment It's probably worth considering that the Romanian language Wikipedia has this article https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zau_de_C%C3%A2mpie,_Mure%C8%99, but it's about the village in the area the gas field is named for. It also has this article about the larger region containing the gas field https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comuna_Zau_de_C%C3%A2mpie,_Mure%C8%99. Neither of these mention the gas field. There is also this article https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazele_naturale_%C3%AEn_Rom%C3%A2nia on natural gas in Romania. That article mentions several important gas fields in Romania. This one is not on that list. Furthermore, despite the stated importance of those gas fields there are no articles about them to be found on the Romanian Wikipedia. So you can rely on the fact that even Romanians don't care about this one. And, they clearly don't want articles about gas fields. If this is such great gas field, how come nobody on the Romanian Wikipedia thought to write about it? Maybe I should change my vote to "move it to the Romanian Wikipedia"? Since they need an article on this very important gas field. Then we'll see how fast they delete it.James.folsom (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
disagree with nomination as the article has a clear claim of importance. Probably any gas field is important, but this one more so since it has been going over 100 years. I will not have comment on notability. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the provided sources, passes WP:GNG, and i'd say "one of the oldest gas fields in Europe" is a credible claim of significance. Wheather sources are from last week or 200 years old dosen't really matter. Sources don't explicitly have to highlight the subject as being especially "important" to establish notability.
"article contains information about who operates it and what it's annual output are, what compressor it uses, how many wells it currently has. These sorts of details wouldn't be found in article about a notable subject because there would be better things to talk about in the article." Those would be first things to talk about in an article about oil/gas fields?
Wheather articles about the topic exist or dosen't exist in other projects dosen't matter for notability in the English WP. --TheImaCow (talk)
The first red flag was that the article spent more words on a general history of gas production in Romania as a whole and didn't even get to the specific subject until over halfway through the body. The second red flag comes from checking out the sources. It turns out that sources that talk about the "CENTRU region" or the Transylvanian Basin gas production as a whole, and that include this subject as one item in a list at one point in the source, have had all of the other locations stripped out. For examples:
- The Tofan source, supporting the introduction, actually says "Transilvaniei Plain" and this subject is in a list "Zau de Câmpie, Șincai and Delenii" and not specifically singled out.
- The Crețu source, supporting where the article body actually gets around to this subject, talks about the "CENTRU region" and on the page supporting the content this subject is merely one in a list "Nades, Zaul de Campie, Bogata, Saros, Singiorgiu de Campie, Seleus, ZăuŞăulia, Mădăraş, Sărmăşel, Cetatea de Balta, Tauni, Porumbenii Mari, Avramesti, Mugeni, etc." Yes, etc. even!
- The MS News source doesn't even narrow down to this subject in its list. "Păingeni, Saușa, Zau de Câmpie – Saulia și, Săbed" it says. So it's not Zau de Câmpie but Zau de Câmpie–Saulia.
- It turns out that the Romanian government's Annex A (of what document, the source citation doesn't say) says Zau de Câmpie–Saulia too. It's even in the title in the citation. So this article has even narrowed the few sources that seem on-point to a narrower subject. And it's not apparent, since this is Annex A in its own PDF file in the uploads section of a Wordpress site, who the author of Annex A is.
It's not that this is run-of-the-mill. Everything is run-of-the-mill and dull to somebody. It's that the world's knowledge of the entire Transylvanian Basin's gas production has been lopsidedly presented under the subject of just one of the things that most of the sources (in the article, and the ones that I could find after some looking around for geological reports and the like) just include in laundry lists of places where gas wells are, and don't directly discuss in depth as a specific standalone topic. Uncle G (talk) 05:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concede the run of the mill, thing, thanks for providing another take on why this needs to go away. Much better than my explanation. James.folsom (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article now mentions a PhD thesis from 1929 (by geologist Augustin Vancea [ro], a future corresponding member of the Romanian Academy), which specifically mentions in the title "with a special description of the natural gas dome from Zaul de Câmpie (Moinești)", Moinești being an alternate name for the village, briefly adopted after 1926, but then abandoned. The work is quoted in a 2010 PhD thesis from Babeș-Bolyai University by Liana Spulber, where additional context can be found. Finally, as briefly mentioned in a previous comment of mine, the Zau de Câmpie gas field is specifically mentioned as being important to the Romanian economy, in a full, standalone paragraph from a 1948 CIA report, itself based on an August 15, 1948 article in the official PCR publication, Scînteia (I tried to dig out the original Scînteia piece, but it's behind a paywall). Turgidson (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you need to actually read the policies on significant coverage, because you don't seem to understand that these sources are not significant coverage. James.folsom (talk) 14:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Improvments were made to the article since AFD started. I've reviewed them and have new analysis. The article is no longer about the gas field. In order to expand the article without having significant coverage, the editor has incorporated a bunch material about Romanian gas production and gas production around the world. Only ~half of the sources, and text in this article is actually about the gas field. This makes the article longer, but not better. In checking all the sources, none of them are written about this gas field, many mention it in lists, tables and in passing. But, they are all written about another subject. None of those passing mentions single out this gas field as special. WP:Sigcov/Wikipedia:Credible_claim_of_significance is one of the plainest policies that WP has, and according to that, even this article is no longer significant coverage of the topic. Most every mention of the name of this gas field in this wiki article are passing mentions. I will leave you with examples. Here is an example of a notable gas field, Darvaza_gas_crater. Those who want to see what significant coverage of a gas field looks like may try this: https://www.offshore-mag.com/field-development/article/16766862/perla-gas-field-offshore-venezuela-enters-production. Note that the name of the field is in the title of the source. Now as an exercise try finding the name of this field in the title of anything.James.folsom (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you say that no source mentions the subject of the article in the title, do you mean that in a literal sense (as in the mathematical concept of Empty set), or in some kind of figurative sense, or perhaps statistical sense? As clearly mentioned in the article (and reiterated in previous comments on this page), there was a whole thesis written by a geologist (later academician), whose title contains the words "with a special description of the natural gas dome from Zaul de Câmpie" (see also GoogleScholar and click on Cite). Turgidson (talk) 14:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment I realized I would be amenable to moving this to a title more befitting this article, now that it is rewritten about another topic. Maybe "history of Transylvania natural gas" or some such.James.folsom (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails GNG. Agree with James.folsom eval. Existence does not mean notability. // Timothy :: talk 19:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since the article has shifted its topic since the nomination, it would be useful to get more feedback about moving it to a more fitting title, such as "Natural gas in Transylvania".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The information that was added here should have been added to other articles instead of here. The proper thing now might be to merge it to places it belongs, for example Transylvanian_Plateau.James.folsom (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the only goal of the keep voters is just to never delete anything, they have no intention of improving the article. I reassert my deletion stance. And, since someone recently got it through my head what primary and secondary sources are, I add that this subject has no secondary sourcing required by WP:GNG.James.folsom (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's simply not true - Turgidson did not only !vote keep, but made large improvements to the article. Article before the first PROD and now.

I reassert my "Keep". Also, I don't see how this article has "shifted its topic". Does adding 2 paragraphs about why this field is important really change the topic? It is clearly still about that particular field. --TheImaCow (talk) 07:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "content is king" for me. I don't want to lose reliably sourced content. I'm agnostic as to whether that material is in a standalone article (that meets notability requirements), a list or part of some other article. If anything, Wikipedia needs fewer, longer standalone articles to maintain -- as long as we keep the same content.

Note that reliable sources include primary sources, subject to the 6 requirements laid out in WP:PRIMARY, part of our foundational No Original Research policy. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist for consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2024 (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 2024 Miami-Dade County mayoral election#Candidates as a viable ATD. Should he win, history remains for this to be spun back out Star Mississippi 03:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manny Cid

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

Non-notable mayor of a small city in Florida (population 30,000). Manny Cid doesn't seem to have gotten in-depth news coverage from any outlets outside the Miami area, there's just some routine coverage of his administration and campaigns from local outlets. I don't see any reason to justify him having a Wikipedia page. It's also worth pointing out that this page was created shortly after Cid announced his candidacy for Miami-Dade County mayor, and that the creator has only ever edited this page, the page for the city where Cid serves as mayor, and the page for the election he's currently running in. Also, a different editor had to come in and remove "peacock terms and unsourced, OR, self-sourced text." BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 04:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per nom and WP:TOOSOON. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2024 Miami-Dade County mayoral election or delete and redirect, I don't particularly care which one. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, the secondary sources are WP:ROTM for any local politician, Overall not enough to establish WP:NOTABILITY or significant coverage per WP:POLITICIAN, which notes that candidacy doesn't confer any notability either. Shaws username . talk . 12:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2024 Miami-Dade County mayoral election. Shaws username . talk . 21:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable found. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Mayor Manny Cid was the first mayor in the United States to allow for remote public comments for residents. Here are several national outlets that wrote on this. https://www.governing.com/archive/gov-miami-lakes-town-council-video-conferencing.html https://commonedge.org/conducting-city-government-on-zoom-mayor-manny-cid/. MEAUSA (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a lot of articles on newspapers.com. Why not just merge the article into Miami Lakes, Florida? he has been mayor for eight years so I am pretty sure that there are articles out there on him.Patapsco913 (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Local newspaper coverage does not count towards notability, and he is already mentioned in the infobox and government section of Miami Lakes, Florida. I do not believe that a further merge would be suitable for that article. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any guideline that local coverage cannot be used to establish notability. I am paraphrasing a fella named Bearcat who pertinently wrote on another AFD: "Notability of a mayor does not rest on the population of the city or local news coverage rather it rests on the ability to write and source a substantive article about the mayor's political impact. If that can be done, then a mayor can keep an article even if the place they were mayor of was a no-horse village and if it can't be done then a mayor gets deleted." There seems to be enough to write a substantive article here given 15 pages of news articles as well as multiple entries in newspapers.com.Patapsco913 (talk) 02:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From my understanding, it's not that local coverage can't establish any notability, just that it's harder. A local paper is expected to write about the local mayor, their plans for the area, what their future political plans are, and so on. Whereas national media (or local from an entirely different area) isn't expected to cover them, as well as their reputability (or not) being fairly well known, and so can be used to quickly establish notability. That said, a lot of the coverage about mayors and electoral candidates is fairly run of the mill and having articles about every single one would become excessive. WP:NPOL gives "multiple news feature articles" as the bar for local figures to meet, so from my understanding the question is if there are multiple feature articles about him from reliable independant sources, excluding those he would have gained from simply being a mayor or candidate. All my results are the generic mayor/candiate stories but that might just be my search so I'm happy to be corrected on that. Shaws username . talk . 03:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake assuming that local coverage couldn't be used to establish notability, but I do agree more with Shaws here. Any mayor or local politician is bound to have plenty of local coverage, so we must be able to find a sufficient amount of sources that aren't WP:ROTM. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Local coverage isn't necessarily inadmissible, but it also isn't necessarily enough if it's all that a person has. The thing is that every mayor of everywhere will always have some evidence of coverage in the local media of the town or city where he's mayor, because covering local politics is literally local media's primary reason for being — so if all you needed to do to make a mayor notable enough for a Wikipedia article was show a few hits of local coverage, then every mayor of everywhere would always be notable enough and there would be no grounds to distinguish a notable mayor from a non-notable mayor at all anymore. So the actual rule is that to be notable enough for Wikipedia, a local politician (mayor, city councillor, etc.) has to demonstrate a credible reason why he or she should be treated as a special case of significantly greater notability than the norm — such as their coverage geographically expanding far beyond the purely local, and/or substantive evidence that their leadership had an important and enduring impact on the city — and the article cannot just be "he got elected and then got re-elected again, the end". Bearcat (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cid was the first mayor in the United States to allow for remote public comments for residents. Here are several national outlets that wrote on this. https://www.governing.com/archive/gov-miami-lakes-town-council-video-conferencing.html https://commonedge.org/conducting-city-government-on-zoom-mayor-manny-cid/. He has also been mentioned on several national outlets including here: https://www.politico.com/newsletters/florida-playbook/2023/09/06/miami-dade-contest-heats-up-00114184. Many cities followed his lead and implemented remote participation. His impact extends far beyond where he is mayor. MEAUSA (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And what's significant about being the first mayor in the United States to allow for "remote public comments for residents"? Why is that important? Why is that a thing that people will still be looking for information about in the 2030s? In 2024, of all times, you're trying to claim that using Zoom makes somebody special in and of itself? Bearcat (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better. As always, mayors aren't all "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to show evidence that they can be considered a special case of significantly greater notability than the norm for the role — but this is just "personal background and election record", which isn't enough in and of itself. The key to writing a good, keepable article about a mayor is to focus on his actual record in office: specific things he did as mayor, specific projects he spearheaded as mayor, specific effects that his mayoralty had on the development of the city, and other evidence of his political impact, not just his personal life and election record. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Mayor Manny Cid was the first mayor in the United States to allow for remote public comments for residents. Here are several national outlets that wrote on this. https://www.governing.com/archive/gov-miami-lakes-town-council-video-conferencing.html https://commonedge.org/conducting-city-government-on-zoom-mayor-manny-cid/. He has also been mentioned on several national outlets including here: https://www.politico.com/newsletters/florida-playbook/2023/09/06/miami-dade-contest-heats-up-00114184. Aditionally, Cid is one of the major candidates for Mayor of Miami-Dade County, which is the seventh largest county in the United States. Miami-Dade County has a population of 2.7 million, and being one of the major candiates for this office makes him very notable. MEAUSA (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC) — MEAUSA (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

People do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they haven't already won, either. Candidates get Wikipedia articles only if they already cleared the notability bar for other reasons anyway. (For example, Hillary Clinton may not have won the presidency, but she previously held other notable offices besides the presidency, and was notable on those grounds regardless of her success or failure in the presidential election.) Bearcat (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Getting "mentioned" in a major outlet does not establish notability. That mention in the Politico article is a perfect example of WP:ROTM campaign coverage. Also, those "national outlets" don't exactly seem prominent enough to establish notability. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, due to the timing, this seems to be political in nature. The day after this article comes out (https://www.politicalcortadito.com/2024/02/12/levine-cava-camp-responds-manny-cid-video/) this Wikipedia page come under attack? Might be a coincidence but the timing just brings up questions. MEAUSA (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not political in nature. Trust me, I have nothing against Manny Cid and I didn't even know who he was before this, and I would bet that all other editors in this discussion would say the same. You can bring up the timing but don't baselessly accuse us of making political attacks. See WP:ASPERSIONS. Funny you bring up politics anyway, as I have several questions I could ask you. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lmfao this is killing me. You really cracked the code here! What is even supposed to be the theory? Oh man, I happened to start this discussion right after Levine Cava criticized her rival! It's totally not like opponents in an election criticize each other very frequently! Could it be that a minor blog happened to publish an article about Levine Cava right before I started this discussion? No, it can't be a coincidence! BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect >>2024 Miami-Dade County mayoral election. Djflem (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Xxanthippe: Assuming people have this page in their watchlists, what do we think of this as a possible WP:ATD? AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like it, it's a good option for people searching for him, I've struck my delete above for it. Shaws username . talk . 21:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'd support a redirect. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This BLP exists only for the purpose of promotion and contains negligible content. It should be deleted. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

@Xxanthippe: What if we deleted it and then turned it into a redirect? AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 03:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment above. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

@Xxanthippe: I might be a little stupid but would you mind delineating a bit further? Do you fear that the redirect will be turned back into a promotional BLP? I would think that a redirect would be beneficial to the reader. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEON. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

What's your problem? They were just asking. And for the record, they're right, your comment did not explain why a redirect would not be useful. Having a redirect is not promotional, it's just convenient for anyone searching. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 03:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if my pinging came off as a bit annoying, but bludgeoning? Yeah I'm gonna have to agree with ChocolateMilk here. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, not notable under NPOL. SportingFlyer T·C 10:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎ to allow time for improvement. Star Mississippi 03:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dad Beat Dad

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

Most of the sources are WP:PRIMARY and/or WP:UNRELIABLE. Most of those that remain either greatly predate the episode and/or have very little coverage in general. The only good source is [43]. Nothing else found via WP:BEFORE. (Oinkers42) (talk) 04:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there was an attempt to move this article to draft space mid-AFD. While I am not exactly opposed to this being in draft space, this was obviously an improper way of doing it. (Oinkers42) (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes for a draft space move for those WP:PRIMARY reasons. Or Adam one (talk) 01:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not very well-sourced at all. Blubewwy (talk) 12:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MarqueesCalaway: Can we just draftify this page for now? I can get the sources within the week: there are new reviews every day with just how much Hazbin Hotel has been blowing up. 77.92.145.214 (talk) 13:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yessir, I will get on that soon. MarqueesCalaway (talk) 14:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MarqueesCalaway: Please do not move articles to draft space during an ongoing AfD. If you want this draftified then vote for that and state your rationale. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Comics and animation. (Oinkers42) (talk) 04:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:54, 21 February 2024 (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!} 00:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KTOU-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Oklahoma. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The refs should have been added then, but there's a reason this one never made it to the K04QR AfD: I found a few from the 1997–2000 period. Unfortunately that's it. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 15:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

Keep: Sources 3, 4, and 5 in the article are all secondary sources providing WP:SIGCOV about the station. Let'srun (talk) 01:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NCORP. Sources in article and found in BEFORE are not WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.

Sources in the article are all mill news about operations, the type any station would receive. Sources mentioned above: #3 is mill news about the changing in the station name; #4 mill news announcement about the start of operations ; #5 mill news about the sale of the station. Nothing meets WP:N.

// Timothy :: talk 23:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:48, 21 February 2024 (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 Radamiz. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2409 West Slauson

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC, contested WP:BLAR.(NPP action) Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and United States of America. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ Delete per nom Mach61 (talk) 04:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mach61 redirect to where? There are two artists behind this project, Radamiz and Thelonious Martin. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drat, you're right. Changed. Mach61 (talk) 04:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Radamiz. Per this source he is the primary performer and Thelonious Martin is primarily the producer of the EP. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Radamiz: per Eluchil404. only mentions in current sourcing Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:53, 20 February 2024 (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 Non-binary gender#Xenogender. RL0919 (talk) 12:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Xenogenders

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

This topic does not appear to be notable. A Google News search finds a handful (8 at last count) of non-RS sources and the one LBGTQ Nation source. There does not appear to be any mainstream coverage of the term or topic. Google Books shows only self-published works that reference fandom.com and wikis. The only work on Google Scholar that looks halfway legit is in what appears to be a non-peer-reviewed journal that describes itself as "Journal SA daring and controversial leader in the field of cultural studies, the journal consistently focuses attention on questions of gender, sexuality, race, and the environment, publishing key works by the most influential social and cultural theorists." EvergreenFir (talk) 03:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Given Evergreen's search, it won't surprise anyone that there's nothing in ngrams as they have already covered Book search. And as Evergreen already did a regular search at Scholar, I decided to look at Scholar in a different way, restricting the search to articles in which xenogender appears in the title as a kind of proxy for WP:SIGCOV, as one would expect that articles that had it in the title would be the most likely ones to have significant coverage of it in the article (you'd still have to test that theory and prove SIGCOV by reading the articles; test search query as a control: cisgender). However, the search results there tend toward the same result we are finding elsewhere, i.e., nothing serious has been written about it yet; hence delete by failure to meet WP:GNG. I see nothing WP:DUE in the article now that deserves merging. If the search results looked more promising, Normally I might consider draftifying, but at this point, I don't see where solid sources are going to come from. Maybe try again with a Draft in a year? Mathglot (talk) 05:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mathglot

SchoolChromebookUser (talk) 13:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I have found a decent source mentioning xenogenders and have cited it in the article (Beattie, Michael; Lenihan, Penny (2018-03-21). Counselling Skills for Working with Gender Diversity and Identity. Jessica Kingsley Publishers. p. 102. ISBN 978-1-78450-481-6). However, considering GNG and such, this topic is probably best covered as a sentence or two within non-binary gender (which it presently is). 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 19:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT - REDIRECT to Non-binary gender#Xenogender - basically give it the same treatment as Xenogender article (see discussion on Talk:Xenogender) 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 11:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. The current form of the xenogenders article lacks real substance and notability. Xenogenders to my knowledge are a particularly niche subset of non-binary and transgender identities which are already mentioned in the aforementioned articles. After a brief review, the low number of reliable sources and the general lack of notability brings me to the conclusion that this topic currently does not warrant a dedicated article per WP:GNG. The low number of reliable sources contributes to the potential difficulty of building a reliable well-sourced article on the topic at the moment. I believe the optimal course of action as of right now is to merge relevant information into the preexisting section on the non-binary genders article and then either delete xenogenders after draftifying it or turn it into a redirect to non-binary. Perhaps in the future, it could be revisited but as of right now, it is my opinion that it does not meet Wikipedia standards. Thanks. ZombiUwU ^{(💬 ~♥~ 📝)} 18:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the same target of xenogender (Non-binary gender § Xenogender). WP:TOOSOON. --MikutoH ^talk! 01:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect as above and per EvergreenFir and Mathglot. It doesn't seem to meet GNG (which, I emphasize, requires significant coverage from quality sources). I'm not sure the sentence on this at non-binary gender is reliably sourced, so I'd be okay with deleting it outright, otherwise just redirect it. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge/redirect, as wide swaths of xenogenders don't fall under the nonbinary umbrella whatsoever. Simply delete. Tdmurlock (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2024 (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 Sam Hui#EC Music. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EC Music

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

Delete No SIGCOV that i could find, reeks of self-promotion. Tooncool64 (talk) 03:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sam Hui#EC Music (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I added an anchor to Sam Hui#EC Music and added a source that verifies Sam Hui released the album Life Is Good under the music label EC Music:
- Seto, Kit Yan (2008-01-24). "Life is good for Samuel Hui". The Star. Archived from the original on 2008-01-27. Retrieved 2024-02-13.
  The article notes: "Last September, Hui released his first album in 17 years, under the EC Music label. “My new album is titled Yan Sang Doh Moh Hou (Life Is Good). I’ll be singing songs from it. We’ve also got a juke-box section where members of the audience will be able to request for songs that they want us to perform.”
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future.
Cunard (talk) 11:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sam Hui#EC Music: per Cunard. it doesn't read that self-promotional but isn't notable enough to be a full article Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:42, 20 February 2024 (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. Editors who believe this article should be Merged or Redirected to Dialogue (group) can propose this on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yuna Ogata

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

I'm really hesitant to nominate articles for deletion, but after a discussion I just can't see how this person is notable. They don't meet WP:NACTOR since they only seem to have one possibly significant role. They don't meet WP:GNG either; of the cited sources, 1 and 7 are primary sources; 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 are insignificant in their coverage and lack any commentary (just reprinting press releases or social media posts at best), and 6 is a tweet, which doesn't count for notability. This person is a member of the notable group Dialogue, but notability is not inherited from being a member of that group. I tried a WP:BEFORE search in English and Japanese but couldn't find anything better than what's already in the article. Redirecting to the aforementioned group is a possible WP:ATD, but I just don't think this person is notable yet. Link20XX (talk) 03:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, Anime and manga, and Japan. Link20XX (talk) 03:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as creator), she meets WP:NMUSIC#6; she is part of Dialogue and Airblue, and while the latter doesn't have an article, it and the former both have releases charting in the Oricon charts ([44]; [45]) and in at least one case had at least one in the Top 10, so they should count as independently notable ensembles under the criterion. ミラP@Miraclepine 04:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a good argument, but I'm still a bit skeptical to call Airblue notable since from my understanding the precedent among Japanese music groups is that those formed around one anime to perform its theme songs usually aren't independently notable like with 3-nen E-gumi Utatan, which was merged by discussion despite having songs chart. Link20XX (talk) 04:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  That is also my understanding. Except in very rare cases where a group originally created for an anime ends up having a life of its own outside of its original anime (for example, Sweet Arms, which was originally formed to sing songs for Upotte but is perhaps best known for its involvement with Date A Live), we usually don't create separate articles for this one-time units. Having releases chart on Oricon add notability to Dialogue+, but I don't think it by itself extends to Ogata (or indeed any of the other Dialogue+ members in general). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @Link20XX and Narutolovehinata5: When I meant "independently notable ensembles" while factoring in NMUSIC#6, I interpreted it as saying that the ensembles had to be considered independently notable of the members, not to the point of warranting a page. Additionally, chart positions for said ensembles, while they don't directly give automatic notability to all members, should still contribute to their notability with respect to NMUSIC#6 if they have been in another ensemble that meets NMUSIC, regardless of whether or not any of the groups have pages. ミラP@Miraclepine 22:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Airblue isn't a notable ensemble though as consensus in cases like this (like my aforementioned example) have shown. WP:NMUSIC 10 also implies that groups around just one IP aren't notable, but I admit that I'm not too familiar with the music notability guidelines to make any definitive judgment. Whatever the case, this person does not meet WP:GNG, so I have a hard time justifying keeping the article on possibly barely meeting an SNG. Link20XX (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete this article for Yuna Ogata consensus is keep this article okay Lovemuhcko (talk) 10:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lovemuhcko: Please see WP:EVERYONEELSE; we !vote on our own independent volition, not purely on others. Also, I'm pretty sure it's too soon to say there's a consensus since this XFD is barely a day old and there's only one !vote so far: a keep from me (the creator). ミラP@Miraclepine 22:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have nominated the article for DYK at Template:Did you know nominations/Yuna Ogata, however per DYK rules that nomination is hold pending the result of this discussion. I don't really have a strong opinion either way on Ogata's notability but per my above comments and Link's arguments I'm leaning towards either a delete or a redirect to Dialogue+'s article, whatever the outcome of the discussion is. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NMUSIC as part of a notable ensemble with multiple hits and a separate production. Also, while I have not evaluated these since I believe that she has already met the notability threshold per NMUSIC, there are 43 citations provided in the Japanese-language article. DCsansei (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- NMUSIC says that Members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability, thus she can't be notable for being part of a single notable band, regardless of how well that band performs. While the Japanese article has a lot of sources, none of them actually count towards notability. Of the sources it cites, five from YouTube (38, 39, 40, 41, 43), eight are from Twitter (9, 18, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 31), three are from blogs, wikis, and other social media platforms (19, 30, 34), three are from databases (1, 2, 3), 13 are from official websites or press releases (4, 5, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 24, 27, 28, 35, 36, 42), and the remaining are insignificant coverage that only briefly mentions the subject (6, 7, 8, 12, 15, 20, 29, 32, 33). Source 17 is not available online, but seems to be just a simple casting announcement which is also not significant coverage. Link20XX (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Notability is not inherited. - Altenmann >talk 23:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NMUSIC#6 says being a member of two notable ensembles makes one notable. ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above, Dialogue+ is notable, but Airblue probably isn't. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see, do you suggest a merge to Dialogue+ ? That would lose any information about Airblue, which appears to redirect. ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Airblue (group) redirects to Cue! (video game), which already mentions and explains a bit on the topic. I don't think any information about Airblue would be "lost". I would be okay with merging/redirecting to Dialogue (group) as this appears to be the only notable thing she has done. Link20XX (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please do not delete the article was be submitted to did you know article for Yuna Ogata was a consensus for keep the article has she part of Dialogue+. User:Lovemuhcko
- This AfD has no consensus yet and just because someone nominated the article for DYK doesn't make the subject notable when they weren't before. WP:NBANDMEMBER clearly states a person isn't notable just for being part of one band; the rest of your comment is pretty much begging for mercy, which is not a good argument as to why the subject is notable. Link20XX (talk) 02:14, 3 March 2024 (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!} 06:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now. We can mark the page as having history, and if Airblue or Ogata develop further notability, we can resurrect the existing page. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
redirect not enough notability ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zuck Bucks

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

IP user 2601:642:4600:be10:70cc:2d06:bf9e:b264 tried to nominate this for deletion, reason not given. IP users cannot add to the AfD discussion page, so I am finishing it for them. I'd presume the reasoning is not meeting notability due to not actually existing. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 03:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IP’s nomination statement, copied from article talk page:

Fails WP:CRYSTAL, with no follow-up since a burst of rumors in April 2022. Uses of the same phrase for other subjects (a "mock" cryptocurrency or Mark Zuckerberg's political donations) do not address the original subject's defects. Delete. 2601:642:4600:BE10:70CC:2D06:BF9E:B264 (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

--Finngall ^talk 04:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all above. This is not a thing - David Gerard (talk) 13:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's WP:SPECULATION. If/when they release it might warrant an article, but now is too soon. Shaws username . talk . 13:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. popodameron ⁠talk 17:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Meme garbage which outside of one firewalled FT link, is sourced by 'reportedly', which certainly isn't enough to clinch notability at all. Nate • (chatter) 19:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sourcing is limited to a Financial Times report about an alleged internal and informal name for an idea that a company has, which is nowhere near enough to establish notability; the article fails WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. - Aoidh (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2024 (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. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Auto dialer

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

Contested WP:BLAR. Article has had lack of citation warnings on it since 2011 yet remains practically unsourced. Only section of article that is sourced relates to telemarketing regulations. Given that there exists a well-sourced article on telemarketing that makes reference to automatic dialing, seek to get agreement to redirect to that article. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Advertising. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Rambling Rambler: You removed a section which was referenced to "Popular Mechanics" which is massively popular and one of the industry standards for those types of mags. I rememeber reading it, in the 1980's and 1990's. It seems to be a valid secondary source. The subject seems to notable and I think with a bit of work it could be a good article. scope_creep^Talk 18:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they've removed it twice now, and it was one of the things that inspired my objection to the BLAR. Sergecross73 msg me 18:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: I removed it, as explained in the change notes, because the source was only used to support the following claim:

"A semi-automatic dialer is a human-controlled dialer. All actions, such as dialing, playing the audio messages, recording, are initiated by a human, normally by the press of a key. It is a productivity tool for telemarketing agents. The first semi-automatic dialer was offered on the commercial market in 1942. It was manually operated and came in two models; one that stored 12 numbers and a second which could store up to 52 numbers."
- However if you read the source itself it only actually supports the lines I've put in bold in the above quote. It doesn't support the claim it was the first offered on the market, nor does it support the definition of a "semi-automatic dialer". Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Rambling Rambler, that's not good practice. What you could have done is put a cn-tag after the unverified bit, for instance. However, that article is talking about an auto-dialer of the mechanical kind, which isn't what the article is about, allegedly. Drmies (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Drmies if it was an article that was otherwise citation heavy and showed signs of active improvement I'd probably have done so. Here however it's an article with warnings going back a decade regarding a lack of verifiability, so when a quick google only shows marketing companies wanting to sell you stuff and seem to have just taken their content straight from this article ("In those days, auto dialers were semi-automatic dialers, and they were limited to storing between 12 and 52 numbers. Employees had to press a key to initiate the features") I thought best to go on the side of caution by removing the section given it couldn't support the notable information of the subsection. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - Wait, Rambling Rambler--so you were trying to improve an underreferenced article by removing the one secondary source it had? Drmies (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        @Drmies, no, as previously said I was removing a source that was being used to back up claims the source doesn't corroborate. Nowhere does the source state that it's a "semi-automatic dialer" (a term and definition that is uncited itself) nor that, whatever the device in popular mechanics could be defined as, it's the first one on the market.
        
        In fact it's hard to consider the device in question an "automatic dialer" as described by the article lede; that being an electronic device or program that automatically dials a large amount of telephone numbers and either plays a pre-recorded message or connects to a human callhandler.
        
        Instead the device in the popular mechanics source is anything but that. In fact its implementation is really akin to an early version of the contact list on mobile phones, where the phone number is saved against another identifier (usually a name) and selecting that identifier is enough for the phone to dial the specific number associated. Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am the one who objected to the BLAR. I understand that the article is in terrible shape. But AFD is not cleanup and I'm not seeing any actual argument for deletion besides that. It simply struck me as a lazy solution to a concept that is almost certainly notable, and not particularly urgent or sensitive that we needed an instant fix. It's not a concept I particularly edit or care about, merely a random move I stumbled upon and didn't agree with. Sergecross73 msg me 18:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yip. I agree totally. scope_creep^Talk 18:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"It simply struck me as a lazy solution to a concept that is almost certainly notable"

It wasn't "lazy" at all. I read through the actually cited content in the autodialer article, noted the bottom contained a "see also" for the telemarketing article, and noticed that the article's content is effectively duplicated in that second article. Telemarketing details both the concept of automatic dialing and regulations on its use, both of the leftover thrusts of the auto dialer article after removing the unsourced content. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then replace "lazy" with "not the best approach to the situation". Sergecross73 msg me 18:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably not a perfect solution but so far no one else has offered up any others to the situation other than just leaving it with zero applicable citations beyond duplicating content on the article I redirected it too.

And frankly I find it most irritating when you've stated it's "not a concept I particularly edit or care about" and only seem to want to almost insultingly criticise what I did without offering any solutions yourself. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The intention of that comment was simply to show I have no biases for or against auto dialers. I primarily work in music and video games, areas where there are constantly "fanboys/fangirls" trying to protect what they like or erase what they don't. "Swifties", "K-pop Stans", people all caught up in the "console wars", etc etc. I was merely saying I have no bias of that sort. Sergecross73 msg me 19:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Robocall: and do the same with the the alternate spelling, Autodialer. The Telemarketing article is well written and sourced, but it covers much more than just the topic of the equipment used to generate the telephone calls, a subject that is clearly notable enough for a standalone article such as we have with Robocall and with Dialer. Even redirecting to Dialer would be preferable to redirecting to Telemarketing. Owen× ☎ 19:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- As an alternative redirection I would also be fine with either. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article appears to have been greatly improved since nom. ~ A412 ^talk! 18:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Many thanks to Jonathan de Boyne Pollard for vastly improving the article (WP:HEY). It now clearly meets our inclusion criteria. Jfire (talk)
Keep -- nice rewrite. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to Jonathan de Boyne Pollard's rewrite. didn't know that user template existed until now DrowssapSMM 22:29, 13 February 2024 (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 Lawrence of Arabia (film). Proposed alternative redirect target does not exist; this could be retargeted if that is created. RL0919 (talk) 12:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Bentley

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jackson Bentley

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

Fails WP:N. I could barely find any outside, reliable sources about the character. The article itself cites no sources JooneBug37 (talk) 02:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. JooneBug37 (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. JooneBug37 (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's widely considered one of the greatest films of all time. I wouldn't be surprised if every character in it has enough scholarly analysis to have a standalone article. Just from a quick search: [46] (search for Bentley), [47], [48]. There's also sourced content in Lawrence of Arabia (film) about the other two actors associated with the role that could be included. Jfire (talk) 05:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/rename to Fictional characters in Lawrence of Arabia per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Harry_Brighton. The sources here are borderline for WP:SIGCOV. But there is enough reliable coverage to write something about how the filmmakers adapted real life people into composite characters. It's a rare niche where there is no real life person to merge these characters to, but there are multiple real life people who inspired these characters, and that is reliable information we should WP:PRESERVE. A list of characters is normal for fiction like this. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article does not need work but as Jfire said above there are several sources indicating notability. Otherwise, I would support renaming the page to Fictional characters in Lawrence of Arabia as above. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 13:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion on the extent of sourcing about this character, such as listing sources that one purports to provide significant coverage of him, would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. This has potential but right now it is just a poorly refenced plot summary. Out of three sources presented above, the first one is just plot summary, second one gives me no access, third one gives me snippets with some suggesting analysis, but WP:SIGCOV is hard ot judge with snippets. So this has potential to be rescued, but unless this is done, I am afraid a soft deletion (redirect) with no prejudice to anyone restoring it and improving it with sources is the best outcome. PS. I'd also be fine with merge to a list as suggested above, particularly if we could rescue something from the deleted article mentioned. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist for consensus which is currently split between keep and merge/redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the film article. Reviewing the sources given (I have full access to one of the book sources), they are really mostly covering Bentley in the context of recapping the plot of the film, not giving deep analysis of the character. Similar story for other sources I found in my search. Mach61 (talk) 00:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is anyone actually stepping forward to make the 'Fictional characters in' article? Wizmut (talk) 02:25, 19 February 2024 (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 author's responses here do not inspire confidence in their willingness or ability to address the weakness in sourcing, making draftification a poor choice at this point. Owen× ☎ 23:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chaudhry Aurangzeb Khan

AfDs for this article:

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

seems to fail WP:NOTABILITY and is WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC User4edits (talk) 12:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. User4edits (talk) 12:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Functionary doing very much what I'd expect, nothing for notability. I don't find mentions of this person either. Oaktree b (talk) 13:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Oaktree, are you confused about there references? Let me know what is causing you to nominate this article for deletion and I will do my best to clear any confusion? Haniya01 (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that when searching for this person on Google, nothing comes up - I had to go to history archive centers (for example, British Library, etc.) in the UK and pay some money to view the old newspapers and books from 1850s to 1930s. Is there a rule on wikipedia that states that sources (like archive newspapers and books) that a person must pay to see, cannot be referenced and that this fails notability? Haniya01 (talk) 11:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User4edits,

What parts of the article caused you to think that the article failed the Notability and that the article is Unencyclopedic? Haniya01 (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Haniya01The subject (individual) is not notable as explained above by Oaktree, and the entire article is pretty much unencyclopedic, and looks like created by someone having a close connection with the subject. User4edits (talk) 09:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining, I was the one who wrote it btw, I agree that when searching for this person on Google, nothing comes up - I had to go to history archive centers (for example, British Library, etc.) in the UK and pay some money to view the old newspapers and books from 1850s to 1930s. Is there a rule on wikipedia that states that sources (like archive newspapers and books) that a person must pay to see, cannot be referenced and that this fails notability?

In regards to the second point, perhaps the writing style of the paper needs to be changed to make encyclopedic? Haniya01 (talk) 11:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to read Wikipedia:NOTNEWSPAPER and if you are eligible, try Wikipedia:WikiLibrary. You can begin familiarising yourself with the rules of Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Five pillars. Thanks, User4edits (talk) 12:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing all this, I am still in the process of uncovering more evidence like specific names of books, official government letters, etc. on all this. This process can take months, especially since the British Library recently experienced a big cyber attack and their whole system is down.

Do you think I should just delete all my information for now and get this Aurangzeb page back to its 2019 format (you can probably see how it was gonna be deleted back then but the decision was to keep it)? Haniya01 (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am no authority here. Wikipedia is Consensus based. However, you seem to deviating the subject, what is being asked is the following

Can you explain why this person is notable as per WP:NBIO?

Thanks, User4edits (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for highlighting the question, here is my response:

According to academic journals - during the 1860s-1900s - it was very hard for Indian origin people to enter Indian Civil Service (aka British Indian Government), particularly higher rank positions like Extra Assistant Commissioner. In fact, there are articles, books and journals from many places on how there was a tension between British rule and the Indian people. Take this statistic, for example, between 1871 and 1878, only 5 out of 46 Indian candidates successfully passed the entrance exam for Indian Civil Service.

Based on these challenging circumstances, Aurangzeb Khan (a person of Indian origin) was able to get that higher rank position, Extra Assistant Commissioner - his rank is mentioned in this book (Gazetteer of The Jhelum District 1904. Punjab Government. pp. 103–107. ISBN 969-35-1558-7)

Also, he got that Khan Bahadur title award (https://books.google.com.sa/books?id=zykYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA17&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false)

From the articles I found there was a major project to colonize 2 million acres of land (which would be left barren) - which Aurangzeb was a part of (I am in the research process of finding more books, government letters, etc. for evidence)

I know you shared the link that newspapers are not usually valid for sources, but this newspaper called the Civil & Military Gazette was only for Government and Military news. Note that the Civil and Military Gazette are the ones who originally published the book I shared above titled Gazetteer of The Jhelum District. 1904. Haniya01 (talk) 18:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Getting into civil service is not notable, unless he was the first Indian to get into Indian Civil Service.

2. An additional/ancillary subordinate to the Commissioner (which heads a small district) is not notable. Gazette of a district looks like a WP:PSTS, nonetheless, I looked into the gazetteer you mentioned, and

the subject is no way mentioned from p103-107, but I only found an obscure running mention among other names at pg. 107.

3. I never said newspaper is not a valid source, rather it is a good one provided if it's WP:SIGCOV, what I said, and will repeat extensively

please see What Wikipedia is not, among others, it is not a family or clan archive.

4. As for Khan Bahadur title, it was a low-level local title granted to many, not a national award such as those coming within Order of the British Empire.

Finally, These do not answer the question of WP:NBIO. User4edits (talk) 04:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please look again at the gazetteer I mentioned (https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.105610/page/n127/mode/2up) On page 107, it says "the principal Mair headmen are Khan Bahadar Chaudri Aurangzeb Khan, retired Extra Assistant Commissioner, of Chakwal, and his brother Abbas Khan.." After that there are 10 other names mentioned.
Also, listen we are both on the same page in the sense of enjoying to ensure things are done in accordance to guidelines. As I mentioned earlier, I am in the middle of the process of collecting evidence (book names, Government letters, etc.) and that the British Library experienced a major cyber attack and this has slowed down my process for months. Even though Aurangzeb Khan was just a Assistant Extra Commissioner, his impactful work caused the British Government to treat him like first/second class Military Grantee and award him accordingly. Again, I am in a middle of a process of collecting more evidence so here is a resolution. You can delete the page for now and later (in the future), I will re-write this page on Wiki and I will even invite you to come and check my page and all that evidence.

Haniya01 (talk) 12:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not for advertisement. I am unable to find subject's mentions anywhere. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Macbeejack ☎ 09:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that when searching for this person on Google, nothing comes up - I had to go to history archive centers (for example, British Library, etc.) in the UK and pay some money to view the old newspapers and books from 1850s to 1930s. Is there a rule on wikipedia that states that sources (like archive newspapers and books) that a person must pay to see, cannot be referenced and that this fails notability? Haniya01 (talk) 11:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: On three observations I made, kindly don't disappoint because I don't go for delete all the time.
1. Comparing with 2019 revision and this current version, and per @User4edits: mentioned before, the user added most of the information with citations which are failing WP:N. But still, I think we must keep it.
2.The main thing we can do is cleanup the mess, yet keeping some valuable information, if passed per WP:N.
3. The user seems to be much defending that normal users does on defending. So if they are connected to the person, kindly follow the WP:COI and do the necessary measures. And if you want to expand it, kindly follow WP:GNG, WP:N and the content along with citation, which will be verified by an experienced user.
User4edits, correct me if I'm wrong. CSMention269 (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Major problem here is not just notability but the sources itself that incline more towards unreliability. See WP:RS. Even the verification is impossible. Links provided do not have any mention on the subject. Even a simple Google search does not give any detail about this subject's background or enough for this subject notable enough to have a page of his own. RangersRus (talk) 16:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My question here is as their are multiple pages at wiki but noone take responsibility of them or not even bothers to check via Turnitin them. Either you are a person from the author family who create several accounts and just keep putting obligations for a fun😊 or hired person?

Else author provided so many resources citations here. The author is not going to use this info to gain any position since it’s 100 years old history than 😇😄please be up front here👌😇🤔 Delta 2040 (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Delta 2040 Welcome to Wikipedia. This is your first edit. WP:SPA or WP:SOCK ?? User4edits (talk) 04:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi please reply with above concerns answers solution? Regards, 167.86.137.192 (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately, as a nice piece of personal original research. It's been pieced together from primary sources and deductions. It ought to be published somewhere; the world really needs a place for this sort of article, but it's not Wikipedia. We are an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source, and can only have an article on him after he's been discussed by historians in secondary sources. Elemimele (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Elemimele . Even though you are voting 'Delete', you did this in a polite and respectful manner. People like you restore my hope for Wikipedia.

I was shocked by the disrespect @User4edits showed to me earlier. This person said I was lying about Aurangzeb Khan's name being mentioned on page 107 in this book (https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.105610/page/n127/mode/2up) and calling it a 'obscure running mention among other names'.

Then, I called User4edits out by directly quoting the line where it mentions Aurangzeb Khan's name, "the principal Mair headmen are Khan Bahadar Chaudri Aurangzeb Khan, retired Extra Assistant Commissioner, of Chakwal, and his brother Abbas Khan.." User4edits did not even apologize for what he/she said. Haniya01 (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1 Secondary Source Found: Thanks to the explanations about what a secondary source is by @Elemimele and @DarmaniLink , I found one secondary source that mentions Aurangzeb Khan. This article was published in 2015. Is this source acceptable?

https://www.dawn.com/news/1165156

This secondary source is about Aurangzeb Khan's son and how he used his dad's land/house to establish a college in a rural city called Chakwal.

This article says "His father Raja Aurangzeb Khan served on top civil positions during the British rule. His father also served as first colonisation officer during the establishment of Lyalpur city...All his life, he patronised Islamia High School Chakwal which was founded by his father Raja Aurangzeb Khan...Currently the grand bungalow built by his father, Raja Auranzeb Khan, is the oldest preserved building in the city...The bungalow which has 52 rooms and a spacious lawn used to serve as the court of Raja Auranzeb Khan who was also appointed the honorary magistrate."

Earlier User4edits said that, 'Getting into civil service is not notable, unless he was the first Indian to get into Indian Civil Service.' Well, this secondary source article states that Aurangzeb Khan served as the first colonization officer alongside other key aspects like being a honorary Magistrate.

Lastly, here is a Wikipedia page about the list of Indian people in Indian Civil Service (List of Indian members of the Indian Civil Service). This list shows Wikipedia pages about people who were also magistrates such as Brajendranath De and Maharajadhiraj Sir Rameshwar Singh Bahadur . Haniya01 (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4 NEW Secondary Sources Found (if Dawn article included - see my comment above-, then it adds up to 5 secondary sources)

Book: Gazetteer of Chenab Colony 1904 (https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.531219/page/n49/mode/2up). On PDF page 50-51 (book page 34-35) it says, "...when Captain Popham Young was leaving the colony in 1899. The Raja referred to is Choudhri Aurangzeb Khan, Khan Bahadur, then Assistant Colonization Officer" - this ballad shows how these three established the city of Lyallpur (current day Faisalabad, the industrial city and 3rd largest city of Pakistan).
Pakistan Government Website for the 'Brief History of Faisalabad' (https://faisalabad.dc.lhc.gov.pk/PublicPages/HistoryOfDistrict.aspx). "The first colonisation officer Aurangzeb Khan made sure that no individual in this district owned more than 25 squares (625 acres (2.53 km²)) of land. The merit or method of allotting the land was to check each individual's hand who was applying for some land, and if the hands showed that individual had worked hard in the past, only then was land given to him, which has led to a district where there aren't any big land owners, as the land has been equally distributed amongst hard working men and it is their hard work that has led to Faisalabad becoming the third richest district in Pakistan." This paragraph shows how Aurangzeb Khan's land allocation system allowed Faisalabad to become 3rd richest district in Pakistan. Also, that he is the first colonization officer (this point is also mentioned in the Dawn article).
Pakistan Government Book called 'District Gazetteers Faisalabad 2021' (https://bor9.pitb.gov.pk/system/files/Faisalabad.pdf). It repeats the same paragraph as my bullet point 2 and on page 225, it mentions 2 of Aurangzeb Khan's sons - Raja Sher Muhammad Khan and Raja Akbar Khan.
Book: Animal Labor and Colonial Welfare by James L. Hevia published in 2018 (https://books.google.com.sa/books?id=hglkDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA303&lpg=PA303&dq=IOR/L/MIL/7/6687:+report+of+the+transport+committee+1897+Government+Central+Printing+Office,+1897&source=bl&ots=7rkuc33hqS&sig=ACfU3U25pwNFyyziPqztyb19ZBokffVwSQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi20PPZi8eEAxXEVqQEHcugCGMQ6AF6BAgNEAM#v=onepage&q=aurangzeb%20khan&f=false). In Chapter 6 titled 'Indian Army Reform and the Creation of a Permanent Transport Establishment' - Aurangzeb Khan's transport and animal breeding proposal is discussed in detail and how the Stanford Transport Committee ended up picking his proposal. This is done from pages 167-170 and on page 167, its starts as, "Choudri Aurangzeb Khan, the assistant colonization officer in the Chenab canal colony..."
Dawn article: https://www.dawn.com/news/1165156 - please see my comment above

Haniya01 (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3 MORE Sources Found (this is a total of 8 now - please see list above)

Book: Life in Transition by Prof. Jasbir S. Juggi published in 2022 (https://books.google.com.sa/books?hl=en&lr=&id=-BBlEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT6&dq=aurangzeb+khan+lyallpur&ots=MICsOnsCzM&sig=Z5GjYm8zw6N_JIz0yucBwMsQW7o&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=aurangzeb%20khan%20&f=false). On page 13 it says, “My grandfather was in the employ of Chaudhry Raja Aurangzeb Khan, one of the descendants of Chaudhry Subhan Kuli Khan, and later on his son Chaudhry Raja Sarfraz Khan as administrator of their estates in Lyallpur (now Faisalabad, Pakistan) area of British Punjab around 1900…The father of Chaudhry Raja Sarfraz Khan, Chaudhry Raja Aurangzeb Khan, built a colonial bungalow on the flatlands, facing the Kot, south of old Chakwal city in 1873. The house is still used as a family home of his descendants and remains the oldest building in the area and seat of the Chaudhry’s of Chakwal, sometimes referred to as Chaudhrials.”. Raja Sarfraz Khan, also known as Raja Muhammad Sarfraz Khan, is mentioned in the Dawn article I shared in my comments above. That Dawn article also mentions how the bungalow is the oldest building in Chakwal and that this was built in 1873.
Book: A Journey to Disillusionment by Sherbaz Khan Mazari published in 2000 by Oxford University Press (https://www.amazon.com/Journey-Disillusionment-Sherbaz-Khan-Mazari/dp/0195790766). I am referring to the 2nd edition - please see this link (https://sanipanhwar.com/A%20Journey%20to%20Disillusionment%20-%20Sherbaz%20Khan%20Mazari.pdf). On PDF page 20 (book page 17), it says, " During the minority of my brothers and I, Rahimyar Khan managed the tribal affairs in our stead. Our property was placed under the management of Khan Bahadur Aurangzeb Khan, a Punjab civil service officer, who reported directly to the District Deputy Commissioner, who was our official guardian.". In the Wikipedia Aurangzeb Khan article, look under Section Early Career and Education, Sub-Section Social Welfare. There I mention how Aurangzeb Khan looked after an estate with the Deputy Commissioner.
Journal/Newspaper: The The Khalsa Advocate (September 21, 1907) -Source: South Asia Open Archives (https://www.jstor.org/stable/saoa.crl.35194545?seq=1). On page 2, 2nd column (in the 2nd paragraph), it says, "...Raja Aurangzeb of Chakwal is a retired Government officer (probably an E. A. C) who wields enormous influence in the ilaqa. Three of his relatives are said to have been amoung the incendiaries. There is little wonder therefore that Sheikh Fazal Shah, the Inspector deputed to make inquires, postponed the statements of the aggrieved Sikhs, after they were half taken down until the arrival of Raja Aurangzeb who was away from Chakwal."

Haniya01 (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

URLs Found for Some Old Sources

The references I used when I published the article during Jan. 2024 did not have a URL because I accessed them from the British Library. Even though Wikipedia's Notability clearly states, "Sources do not have to be available online ", some editors did not understand this.

Today, I found a database for The Civil & Military Gazette where the URL shows that Aurangzeb Khan's name is mentioned.

This is what I found so far:

28 August, 1897 - Page 7 - Under 'The Punjab Gazette' section (https://primarysources.brillonline.com/search?q=*%3A*aurangzeb+khan&fq=collection%3A%22the-civil-and-military-gazette-online%22&fq=time%3A%221897%22&mode=PHRASE)
24 June, 1899 - Page 8 - Under 'The Punjab Gazette' section (https://primarysources.brillonline.com/search?q=*%3A*aurangzeb+khan&fq=collection%3A%22the-civil-and-military-gazette-online%22&fq=time%3A%221899%22&mode=PHRASE)
13 March 1900 - Page 3 - Under 'Out-Station Items' section (https://primarysources.brillonline.com/search?q=*%3A*aurangzeb+khan&fq=collection%3A%22the-civil-and-military-gazette-online%22&fq=time%3A%221900%22&mode=PHRASE)
8 June 1900 - Page 5 - Under 'Civil' Section (https://primarysources.brillonline.com/search?q=*%3A*aurangzeb+khan&fq=collection%3A%22the-civil-and-military-gazette-online%22&fq=time%3A%221900%22&mode=PHRASE)
21 July 1900 - Page 9 - Under 'The Punjab Gazette' section (https://primarysources.brillonline.com/search?q=*%3A*aurangzeb+khan&fq=collection%3A%22the-civil-and-military-gazette-online%22&fq=time%3A%221900%22&mode=PHRASE)
31 January 1912 - Page 2 - Under 'The Northern Indian Feeder Railways, LD' Section (https://primarysources.brillonline.com/search?q=*%3A*aurangzeb+khan&fq=collection%3A%22the-civil-and-military-gazette-online%22&fq=time%3A%221912%22&mode=PHRASE)
18 February 1912 - Page 2 - Under 'The Northern Indian Feeder Railways, LD' Section (https://primarysources.brillonline.com/search?q=*%3A*aurangzeb+khan&fq=collection%3A%22the-civil-and-military-gazette-online%22&fq=time%3A%221912%22&mode=PHRASE)
21 February 1912 - Page 2 - Under 'The Northern Indian Feeder Railways, LD' Section (https://primarysources.brillonline.com/search?q=*%3A*aurangzeb+khan&fq=collection%3A%22the-civil-and-military-gazette-online%22&fq=time%3A%221912%22&mode=PHRASE)
23 February 1912 - Page 2 - Under 'The Northern Indian Feeder Railways, LD' Section (https://primarysources.brillonline.com/search?q=*%3A*aurangzeb+khan&fq=collection%3A%22the-civil-and-military-gazette-online%22&fq=time%3A%221912%22&mode=PHRASE)

Haniya01 (talk) 19:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11 ADDITIONAL Sources Found (4 Books, 6 Gov. Reports and UK House of Commons doc.)

If you look at my comments above and add everything up, then this is a total of 19 new sources.

Book: 'The Pakistan Gazetteer Volume 4' published during Year 2000 by Cosmo Publications (https://books.google.com.sa/books?redir_esc=y&hl=ar&id=YwEwAQAAIAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=aurangzeb+khan) - Its the same information as the Gazetteer of Chenab Colony 1904.
Book: 'Who's who in India, Containing Lives and Portraits of Ruling Chiefs, Notables, Titled Personages, and Other Eminent Indians' published in 1911 by Newul Kishore Press (https://books.google.com.sa/books?redir_esc=y&hl=ar&id=YbssAQAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=chakwal) it says, "Aurangzeb Khan, Chaudri, Khan Bahadur, of Chakwal: Retired Extra Assistant Commissioner; title conferred on May 25th, 1894, in recognition of his public services. Address..." You need to search the word 'Chakwal' to find him.
Book: 'Gazetteer of the Persian Gulf, ʻOmān, and Central Arabia: Historical. 4 v' published in 1970 by author John Gordon Lorimor and publisher Gregg (https://books.google.com.sa/books?redir_esc=y&hl=ar&id=NL0sAQAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=chakwal) it says, "Aurangzeb Khan, Chaudri, Khan Bahadur, of Chakwal: Retired Extra Assistant Commissioner; title conferred on May 25th, 1894, in recognition of his public services. Address..." You also need to search the word 'Chakwal' to find him in this book.
Book: 'History of Services of Gazetted Officers Employed in the Punjab' published during 1897 by Civil & Military Gazette (https://www.google.com.sa/books/edition/History_of_Services_of_Gazetted_Officers/RDlFAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0) This is a open access book where on page 285 there is a table for Aurangzeb Khan. It says, "Aurangzeb Khan, Chaudhri, Khan Bahadur, Rajput. Home of family: Jhelum District - Joined the Service, 5th Jan. 1869. Born, 1849...." Then, the table gives exact dates of when he got what position. This is a big discovery and I will update the wiki page to match this timeline.
UK House of Commons Papers: 'Parliamentary Papers: 1850-1908 Volume 76 Part 2' published by Great Britain Parliament House of Commons during 1908. (https://www.google.com.sa/books/edition/Parliamentary_Papers/679DAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0) This is open access where on pages 2 and 75-79, Aurangzeb's Interview can be seen. This is the same interview that I already mention in the Wikipedia article about Aurangzeb Khan.
Gov. Report: 'Report of the Land Revenue Administration of the Punjab' by Punjab Department of Revenue and Administration on 1893. (https://www.google.com.sa/books/edition/Report_on_the_Land_Revenue_Adminstration/Ipg-AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=aurangzeb+khan&pg=RA2-PR27&printsec=frontcover) This is a open access document. On pages xxvii, there is mention how during year 1892-93 they were colonizing around 602, 659 acres of land for Chenab Colony. Aurangzeb's name is mentioned for survey, demarcation and colonization. On page xxix, it mentions how Munshi Aurangzeb Khan was appointed as 2nd class Magistrate on 1st July, 1892 and during that year, he gave decisions for 41 cases. He also toured 197 officers that year.
Gov. Report: 'Quarterly Civil List of the Punjab' published during 1898 (https://www.google.com.sa/books/edition/Quarterly_Civil_List_for_the_Punjab/CeUSAAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0). This is open access document. On PDF page 58 (report page 61), Aurangzeb Khan's name is in the Extra Assistant Commissioner, 7th Grade list where his year of birth, 1849, is mentioned and that he is a, "Magte., 2nd class, Asst. Colonization Officer, Chenab Canal"
Gov. Report: 'Report on the Working of Hospitals and Dispensaries' published in 1900 (https://www.google.com.sa/books/edition/Report_on_the_Working_of_Hospitals_and_D/OlE_AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1). On page 9, it shows, "Khan Bahadur Aurangzeb Khan, late Extra Assistant Commissioner, Chakwal" gave Rs. 160 for hospital funding
Gov. Report: 'Documents on Punjab: Political Movements (1907-1920)' published by Anmol Publication during 1994. (https://www.google.com.sa/books/edition/Documents_on_Punjab_Political_movements/E2huAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=aurangzeb%20khan%20chakwal) On page 154, under Jhelum for bullet point 4. When searching the document, type 'Aurangzeb' only.
Gov. Report: 'Report of the Land Revenue Administration of the Punjab' published by Punjab Department of Revenue and Agriculture during 1897. (https://www.google.com.sa/books/edition/Report_on_the_Land_Revenue_Adminstration/aJg-AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1). On page xix, it says, "...I have more to express my indebtedness to Chaudhri Aurangzeb Khan, Khan Bahadur, Assistant Colonization Officer, for a year's of excellent work"
Gov. Report: 'Report of the Land Revenue Administration of the Punjab' published by Punjab Department of Revenue and Agriculture during 1891. (https://www.google.com.sa/books/edition/Report_on_the_Land_Revenue_Adminstration/K5Q-AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1) On pages 38-39 it says, "Very considerable attention has been paid to irrigation during the past year, the greatest activity having been shown as usual in the Pasrur tehsil. The tahsildar, Aurangzeb Khan, has continued his efforts to restore old embankments and erect new ones where necessary. The great Satrah band has been strengthened and improved, and a number of new embankments have been made in the greater kalar plain to the south-west of the tehsil. The results of this energy are very apparent in the area and crop returns… The work done by Aurangzeb Khan is more especially deserving of praise."

Haniya01 (talk) 13:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update - Based on my previous comments, you see that 19 new sources have been recently discovered. Naturally, the Wikipedia page for Aurangzeb Khan needs a update/edit so these new sources are incorporated. I have started this process. Today I re-wrote the beginning of the article. I hope that in the next few days, I gradually update each section (for example, Background, Early Career and Education, etc.). I will respond to this comment when I am done with this process and/or if I have any question about this process. Haniya01 (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - Give the author a chance to make it notable, and for the article to be cleaned up. Deleting it won't free up space, so there's little reason not to. This article is extremely well written and frankly it just needs some secondary sources to establish notability. It should have to go through AfC however before returning to mainspace, with a special note that there must be secondary sources. DarmaniLink (talk) 22:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @DarmaniLink. I am the author of this page.

Even if this page becomes a draft, @User4edits will not allow it to be published.

I am saying this based on 2 things User4edits has done:

During Jan. 2024, I created another page about Jehan Khan (Aurangzeb Khan's father) and submitted it for publication; HOWEVER, User4edits came in and stopped it from being published and accused me for lying and saying that Jehan Khan is not a Raja - I said Jehan Khan was known as either Raja Jehan Khan or Choudri Jehan Khan.
Please look at my response to Elemimele's comment where I describe another example of when User4edits accused me for lying about Aurangzeb Khan's name being mentioned in a published book.

Haniya01 (talk) 23:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on these 2 points, I do not trust User4edits. If this page about Aurangzeb Khan becomes a draft, is it possible for me to ask either you @DarmaniLink and/or @Elemimele to check the draft and see if its good for publication? Haniya01 (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could be a bit more civil towards user4edits, but, yeah, sure, I'll check it. But just so you know, I'll actually check it. :) If it needs more secondary sources, or the sources aren't clear enough, I'll tell you. DarmaniLink (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Haniya01 (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could also go through AFC after and get a far better opinion as well as instructions than I could give. DarmaniLink (talk) 00:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no objection to draftification and would also recommend AfC; it's slow, but it's a good way to get help and an independent evaluation. Elemimele (talk) 13:27, 24 February 2024 (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. Rough consensus is that while this may be a notable topic - as per Uncle G's sources - it is already adequately covered in existing articles and retaining this article would increase redundancy (WP:CFORK). Editors are free to redirect the title to wherever it may be appropriate. Sandstein 07:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mass automobility

AfDs for this article:

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

Relisting the neologism 'mass automobility' for deletion (or merge, suggested to history of the automobile or a new article Draft:Personal mobility (transportation)) on the basis the article only had 55 edits ever, 64 views in 30 days, and it duplicates articles including;

car - covers automobility (7293 edits, 172155 views)
automotive city - the urban planning aspect (205 edits, 1,183 views)
car dependency - the social phenomenon (219 edits, 2373 views)
history of the automobile - the level at which it may be regarded as becoming mass uptake (4,132 edits, 42,555 views)
modal share - the share of a mode of transport (400 edits, 2735 views).

The article also introduces the concept of mass automobility as something distinct from automobility which may constitute original research. Darrelljon (talk) 14:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Transportation, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 15:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. Reads like a student essay (as created in an editor's only contribution), with disjointed content, jumping in one paragraph from fast-food restaurants to appliance mass-production. Agree with nom that this is too overlapping and not cohesive enough. Much of the content is actually about Suburbanization rather than automobility, but nothing is good enough quality to merge somewhere or keep. Even if the previous AFD found sources on the titular concept, that does not mean that we have to keep this as (poorly) written. Just because AFD is not cleanup doesn't mean this is a even good basis for a cleaned-up article. Reywas92^Talk 16:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a neologism, a claim that was debunked in the last AFD discussion, and it's not original research as professor James J. Flink at UCI, out of what seems like many people, has written on this specific topic for decades, including for starters xyr 1975 paper Mass automobility: an urban reform that backfired that gets the odd citation here and there.
They even seem to agree with what's in the article at hand. Talking of the 1970s and what happened then, contemporary to Flink's paper, Alan A. Altshuler's 1984 book for example says "The initial shift in expectations came with the dawning realization of what mass automobility on a world scale might mean for the earth's resource base and atmosphere." and proceeds to talk about pollution, safety, and fossil fuels consumption. And here we have an article with a "Negative Consequences" section talking about shifts that happened in the 1960s and 1970s such as anti-pollution and safety measures. Professors Gary S. Cross pf PSU and Rick Szostak of UA talked about how "Mass automobility led to the decline of public transportation and encouraged greater dispersion of workplaces and residential neighborhoods." in their 1995 book. And here we have an article that talks about the effects upon suburbanization.
Then there are things that Wikipedia doesn't cover yet about mass automobility, such as professor David Gartman of the University of South Alabama in his 1994 book linking it to democratization, and a perceived connection to social mobility as evidenced by movies of the time such as the 1911 The Girl and the Chauffer.
The problem here is not the article, but the fact that you are unwilling to find sources and work on it instead of nominating it for deletion multiple times with the debunked "neologism" rationale.
Keep. Uncle G (talk) 11:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We have an article Effects of cars (which has 178 edits and 646 views) which covers negative impact on the environment. 'Mass transit' is a redirect to public transport. Darrelljon (talk) 16:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Number of edits and views has no relationship with notability. Please stop making that argument. Star Mississippi 16:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also Mass Rail Transit, Mass Rapid Transit and Mass Rapid Transit System redirect or disambig to other articles. As does Mass consumption, Mass manipulation and Mass opinion. Darrelljon (talk) 06:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Did Flink, Altshuler, Cross, Szostak or Gartman distinguish mass automobility from any of the other concepts?--Darrelljon (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing here that is not better covered in existing articles. Just because something is referred to differently by a prof. doesn't mean it is a different concept, much less one with significant coverage. Also concerned about giving undue weight to the profs that prefer to use this term. ForksForks (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hubert Kretzschmar

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

Not seeing notability under WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Their best known work appears to be in collaboration with the Rolling Stones, but most listed sources do not even mention Kretzchmar, or have brief passing mentions. Others are unreliable. Not seeing in-depth coverage anywhere in reliable sources. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Visual arts. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Likewise, I was unable to find any in-depth coverage in WP:LIBRARY, newspapers.com, archive.org, or Google Books or web searches. The long list of external links in the article does not inspire confidence that there is something out there we're missing, because every one of them that I checked is non-RS, non-independent, or non-significant, except for maybe [49], which is just not enough on its own. Jfire (talk) 04:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, as here we have one of the major innovators and pioneers in their fields of art and illustration technology. Please read the article, line by line, an article created in early January (we should be thanking its creator instead of pushing an AfD on them). Many album covers, writings, exhibitions, collaborations and other forms of notable and yes, iconic, contributions have been accomplished by Kretzschmar. A couple more cites should be found or formed from the extensive External links, but that's just a matter for the already existing tags and not an AfDeletion attempt for this very notable personage. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that were accurate, wouldn't we be able to find more in-depth coverage of him somewhere? I've read the article line by line and while it certainly describes (often in non-netural terms) an active and working artist, I don't see any evidence of a notable one. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. If even half of what the article says is true then the non-neutral terms are earned and warranted. There are already a few notable sources or External links, so notability shouldn't be a problem as the article further develops (which is one of the biggest benefits of opening an AfD, which makes more editors aware of the topic). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This reads like a WP:SOURCESEXIST argment to me. In your view, what are the top three EL sources (or other sources not in the article) that establish notability? Jfire (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am looking for better sources. A lithograph of one of their Rolling Stones album covers is in the Museum of Modern Art[50] permanent collection. Elspea756 (talk) 16:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I haven't been able to find sources to show this meets WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST. The amount of ridiculous promotion in the article isn't helping. There are unsourced claims like that "Kretzschmar was associated with New York artists Kenny Scharf, Keith Haring, and Jean Michel Basquiat" with no indication what what being "associated with" is even supposed to mean, or who "associated" them, or how being "associated with" a much more successful artist is supposed to somehow rub off on this other artist. There are also for example claims like that they were in the exhibition "Programmed: Rules, Codes, and Choreographies in Art, 1965–2018" at the Whitney Museum of American Art, but the Whitney Museum's website[51] does not list them among the 41 artists in that show, and a google search for the name of the show and this artist's name turns up only this wikipedia article itself. I think this is unfortunately probably a case where graphic designers of even iconic album covers go unrecognized by the news media and book publishers we typically use as sources, and where the amount of over-the-top promotion in the article has possibly buried any useful information. Elspea756 (talk) 15:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One RS piece of information about this artist found on WP:BEFORE, the collaborative lithograph of the album cover for the Rolling Stones, Tattoo You. NO reliable sources for biographical information presented. It appears to be gleaned from artist's statements and interviews. I removed the exhaustive and unsourced list of exhibitions. Most of the claims for Collections were either unsourced, failed verification, or had primary sources. Perhaps some information could be merged inth the Peter Corriston led violation of copyright laws to create "Some Girls" cover, but even that should be integrated into Some Girls#Packaging and artwork. Kretzschmar fails WP:ARTIST. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2024 (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!} 23:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David L. Cook

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

Article does not meet guidelines for verifiability and no original research. Subject does not meet guidelines for notability. Bennychloroplast (talk) 02:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A review of existing sources for the article revealed nearly all of them do not support claims made in the article or are written by the subject of the article. A thorough search for new sources turned up no sources referencing the subject of the article, save this article. Bennychloroplast (talk) 02:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it's a self-promotional piece with bogus referencing. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 07:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above

David L. Cook discography also should be deleted. — Maile (talk) 14:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a whole group of articles: David L. Cook discography, List of awards and nominations received by David L. Cook, The Cook Family Singers, and Artists Music Guild that all warrant deletion on the same grounds. Bennychloroplast (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's a lot of self-referencing here, but I think that he probably passes WP:ANYBIO#1 on account of several awards. These include an induction into the Country Gospel Music Hall of Fame, a 2012 Artists Music Guild Comedian of the Year award, among others. He has a number of Emmy awards that he's won (though most appear to be regional Emmys), but the quality of the article is simply not up to standards at the moment. I'm weakly opposed to deletion—I don't think this is TNT-level—but I do have some concerns about draftification given how old the article is. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: looks like WP:ANYBIO is met here. should be tagged with proper tags instead. making it into a draft can also be explored. Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources 4,5,6 are the only non-primary ones (and are RS per source tool). 4 doesn't link to an article about him, 5 and 6 are a list of several nominations, serving only as a name drop. The rest are primary... All sourcing I can find is to download or listen to his music. Nothing at all about this individual. I doubt this is a hoax, but there is no substantial coverage we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 00:17, 21 February 2024 (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. Sandstein 18:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asker International School

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

Clearly no sign of notability. Fails WP: SCH Otuọcha (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Schools, and Norway. Otuọcha (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Schools should pass WP:GNG/WP:NSCHOOL. WP:SCH is a failed proposal. A WP:BEFORE search has a lot of hits for primary sources. Better sources may exist in Norwegian language. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'll add that this nomination for deletion was made 4 minutes after the page was created. Although it would be great if pages were created with enough sources to show notability, I think more time should be given and a discussion opened on the - as yet uncreated - talk page regarding notability per WP:DEMOLISH before rushing to AfD. AfD asks editors to spend a lot more than 4 minutes each in evaluating sources, and sometimes it can be avoided with an in page source discussion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sources about the various localities of the school, since it has grown so much during its first ten years Geschichte (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am currently writing and contributing to the article. I believe it would be beneficial to revisit the article after a few days for a thorough review. If it meets the notability criteria, it can be safeguarded from deletion. HimSur9 (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dont worry, it can be striked since it's based on consensus. Per research, the subject meets no notability. Otuọcha (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The current sources are too much of a mishmash, with too many primary sources. Geschichte (talk) 22:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see only primary sources. notability guidelines for organizations won't allow to qualify this page as notable. NiLok223 (talk) 09:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of sourcing. Cortador (talk) 06:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To the article creator - it seems that you unfortunately have placed too much emphasis on the internal workings of the school, where you should have focused more on the political discussions about the school, if Asker should have such a school and where it should be located. This would have shown political relevance and ramifications. Nobody cares if they have a playground. You have unfortunately found sources via a search engine, which differ wildly both in quality and whether they are even desirable as sources on Wikipedia at all. This article could have been saved, but I don't have the time. Geschichte (talk) 10:30, 15 February 2024 (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 applicability of BLP1E in this case is questionable, but the consensus is for deletion due to lack of coverage beyond a single event. RL0919 (talk) 12:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heena

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

Not notable, cites no sources Annwfwn (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Annwfwn (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support searching for 'heena dog' brings up more results for 'henna' and 'hina' and the first non-Wikipedia 'heena' result is a completely different dog. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/virat-darmi-and-heena-awarded-army-chief-commendation/article38283178.ece Traumnovelle (talk) 09:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs improvement, like you know, actual citing, but there is decent coverage from 2005, 2014 and 2018.[52][53][54][55]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trying again, these [56][57] are relevant to this article, doesn't reach GNG IMO. Also had a hit on ProQuest for Heena police dog Ghatkopar, but can only see abstract. Usable non-English sources may exist. The 2018-retired Heena may be notable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The is coverage as the editor above mentioned.The article needs to be improved.WeAreAllHere _talk 11:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@We are all here Whoops, my 2014 and 2018 sources are clearly not about the same dog. Sorry! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article now cites one (1!) source on it (wow!) and actually links the incident which Heena was involved in. However, regardless of how much of a good girl Heena may have been - Heena ultimately falls foul of WP:BLP1E, so, unfortunately, Heena's article may need to go to live in a server farm upstate. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 23:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sorry Heena! WP:BLP1E. Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:37, 20 February 2024 (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!} 23:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Impala Hotel Group

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

Non-notable hotel/property chain. all references provided are promotional, commercial, and/or branded content. No sign of independent sigcov. Jdcooper (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tanzania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "Top Arusha hotels may go under the hammer over huge bank debts". The Citizen. 2019-04-04. ProQuest 2202724275. Archived from the original on 2024-02-16. Retrieved 2024-02-16.
  The article notes: "Dar es Salaam. The curtain could be falling down on the once high-flying Impala Hotel Group of Arusha as two of its hotels are up for sale over huge debts owed to banks. ... Among the properties up for sale is the 300-room luxurious Ngurdoto Mountain Lodge outside Arusha and Impala Hotel, the group’s flagship outfit within the city. Officials of the hotel chain owned by the late Meleo Mrema, who died in August 2017, could not be reached to speak on the matter. The 160-room Impala, which opened its doors in the early 1990s, was once the leading hotel in Arusha, thanks to closure of the ‘old guard’s for major rehabilitation.This was to be followed ten years later (in early 2000) by the five star Ngurdoto Mountain Lodge, some 27 kilometres east of Arusha.The lodge was famous for hosting many high profile international and regional conferences, including at several East African Community (EAC) Heads of Summits."
2. Ubwani, Zephania (2021-09-12). "Impala, Naura Springs hotels assets for sale over Sh1.2 billion debt". The Citizen. ProQuest 2571570534. Archived from the original on 2021-09-22. Retrieved 2024-02-16.
  The article notes: "Finally, properties belonging to an Arusha hotel chain will be sold to settle accumulated debts running into billions of shillings. ... The two hotels, once among the leading outfits in the country’s safari capital, belonged to the Impala Hotels Group owned by the now late Meleo Mrema. ... The saga over accumulated debts by Impala Hotel Group such as accumulated salaries has dragged for years, roping in banks owned billions of shillings in unpaid loans. ... Properties belonging to the late Mrema once dominated the hotel industry in Arusha and were opened to cater for the increasing number of tourists and conference delegates years ago."
3. Nkwame, Marc (2014-07-21). "Tanzania: Arusha Is Not Burning, Hunt Down Rumour Monger". Daily News. ProQuest 1547175618. Archived from the original on 2024-02-16. Retrieved 2024-02-16 – via AllAfrica.
  The article notes: "However, everybody in town knows that the legendary Impala Hotel is owned by one Mrema. So popular is the property that it spawned the 'Impala Group of Hotels,' a company which has 'Ngurdoto Mountain Lodge,' and 'Naura Springs Hotel,' under its portfolio. Like their owner, the three properties, despite their fame, have succeeded in staying out of the media limelight, with the exception of the 2008 incident in which Ugandan pop star Jose Chameleon fell from the third floor room at Impala hotel and broke his limbs. Opened in 2003, the Ngurdoto Mountain Lodge, located within the former Ngurdoto Forest Coffee farm in Meru District, is arguably the biggest hotel in Tanzania with over 3,000 rooms, many being detached luxury 'huts' and while the property has been hosting many international symposiums and meetings, it hasn't made any headlines in over a decade of its existence. Then comes the 'Naura Springs Hotel' situated at the Sanawari junction along Moshi-Arusha road, which went into operation in 2007 thus becoming the newest property under Mr Mrema's property listing."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Impala Hotel Group to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the article above, the hotels have been closed (and are still closed) since 2019. A part has been turned over to student accommodation. An attempt has been made to sell the hotels to settle debts, seemingly unsuccessfully. All of the issues noted above seem WP:ROTM for a privately owned hotel chain. MNewnham (talk) 03:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria says, "A company ... is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." The guideline does not say "Run-of-the-mill" is a reason for deletion. And it is incorrect to call Impala Hotel Group "run-of-the-mill".
The Impala Hotel Group is based in the East African country of Tanzania. The company received sustained significant coverage over a period of five years (2014, 2019, and 2021). It received significant coverage in 2014 in the Daily News, a national newspaper in Tanzania. It later received significant coverage in 2019 and 2021 in The Citizen, a South African newspaper that is considered the country's newspaper of record. A South African national newspaper covering a Tanzanian company is international coverage of the company. A "run-of-the-mill" company does not get sustained and international coverage. Cunard (talk) 11:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is not temporary; businesses being closed should have no bearing on their notability. Reading the sources indicates that, far from being routine, independent sources consider these to be particularly important hotels in the country, "Tanzania’s hospitality paradise, the Ngurdoto Mountain Lodge, which used to draw many international visitors to the country’s northern tourist circuit", "The lodge was famous for hosting many high profile international and regional summits". Besides Cunard's sources, [58], [59], [60], and substantial references in travel guides to the country. ~ A412 ^talk! 20:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above sources. Seems significant enough. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There appears to be sufficient sources that meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:18, 3 March 2024 (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Petia (singer)

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

Purely promotional BLP. Not a single thing is properly verified. None of the things in it will make her automatically notable--a few TV appearances, a photo shoot or two--and I cannot find the coverage in Google News or Books that would prove notability by our standards. Note that the creator is blocked for a user name problem, and has an obvious conflict of interest. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unless she plays in a brass band [61], there is no coverage for this particular entertainer. Delete for a lack of sourcing, long way off to get to GNG. Prior AfD (see below) was kept, with a Billboard article, but it's a brief mention. Oaktree b (talk) 02:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note there appears to have been a prior AfD in 2013 for this person, but I have doubts if it's the same individual based on the comments made there... See the article's talk page for the link. It's been tagged since 2010; if nothing has popped up in the 14 years since then, likely we won't find much else. Happy to be proven wrong, as always. Oaktree b (talk) 02:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if she had a hit in her country with "Obscenely Delicious" and it got to no. 5 in the Top 100 then that leans towards notable. And according to the page, it nibbled the Greek Top 50. I think the Wikipedia article is mostly correct. However, it seems that she had a brief run of fame prior to 2010. That would make her notable. So the article should be improved with referencing. It needs work!!! What makes it difficult is getting chart stats from East European countries. Karl Twist (talk) 05:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment/keep Hi, landed here in search of a song details 2 days ago, since edited Wikipedia in the past I thought I can help. So, I edited the page and added sources from BG language. I also think that her work is past internet and its true that we can't find online for people who were notable at that time. She is on the covers and shows plus on top charts as said above by another user, the page also exists in multiple languages. Oh, and I removed all promotional sentences and words. Thanks FemaleStuff (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 05:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep Not an area of expertise of mine, but @FemaleStuff seems to be familiar with the topic and has convincing arguments. Just because someone is not so notable in the Anglosphere doesn't mean they may not be notable in another country/language. Vontheri (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it's the lack of coverage we're concerned about. I couldn't find any and they didn't post any further sources. Oaktree b (talk) 01:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Bulgarian version of the article lists five sources. Sources don't have to be in English, nor do they have to be from the internet. Difficulty in finding sources [in English and online] should not make us default to "they must not exist." The article isn't really causing any harm by being there until it can either be properly sourced or proven to not be notable, is it? Vontheri (talk) 12:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Her personal website, an IMDB profile, two profiles and a tv show, none of these are useful. Rest are social media links. Again, there are no stories in media that extensively cover this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 13:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's been added such as the dnes.bg articles are barely a few paragraphs each, I wouldn't consider them extensive. Oaktree b (talk) 13:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FemaleStuff, who seems familiar with the topic of the article, said that most of her work was pre-internet or at least early days of the internet, so looking on the modern English-language internet for information about her is a bit like looking for a tropical rainforest in Antarctica. You're looking in the wrong place.

What harm could possibly be caused by leaving the article to give someone with access to the relevant information time to find it and add it? Someone who speaks Bulgarian would probably be the best sort of person to help with this, perhaps first by writing more from Bulgarian language sources on the Bulgarian version of the article and then translating it to the English version of the article. Vontheri (talk) 13:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you would want to send it to draft then, that's really what should be done. Oaktree b (talk) 14:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, @Oaktree b, you mentioned earlier that you weren't sure that the original AFD was in regards to the same person as the current article is about. Is this AFD what you were referring to? It sounds like it's about the same person to me, but do you mind if I ask specifically what makes you think it may be someone else with the same or similar name? Vontheri (talk) 23:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Petia_Pavlova lists quite a few sources. Were these evaluated?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't looked in depth at the sources from the previous AFD. Thanks for pointing our attention to them, Liz. The sources listed by @Michig from the previous AFD strengthen my view that the article should NOT be deleted.

While I am only able to read it by machine translation, this source mentions that one of her songs was in the "top 50" of MAD TV (TV channel), which sounds like it meets the criteria "Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network" and probably also "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart" from WP:MN. I hope no offense to anyone, but some people seem so hasty to delete articles... I like saving articles. Vontheri (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2024 (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!} 05:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Circle

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

Tagged for lacking sources since 2010. Not clear the subject meets WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 01:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I wouldn't consider Al's Book Club as a quality review (Al Roker was OG cool though), but that's all the coverage I can find. Nothing on Common Sense Media, which seemed the most likely place to look first. Oaktree b (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
1. Hudak, Tina (April 2010). "The 39 Clues, Book 5: The Black Circle". School Library Journal. Vol. 56, no. 4. p. 60. Archived from the original on 2024-02-13. Retrieved 2024-02-13 – via Gale.
  The review notes: "David Pittu does an admirable job of narrating, giving each character a distinctive voice; listeners may find the chronic raspy quality of Dan's voice wearing by the end of the story. The exaggerated voicing of the bonus material at the end of the story is reminiscent of old time radio shows."
2. "The Black Circle". The Horn Book Magazine. Vol. 21, no. 1. Spring 2010. p. 64. Archived from the original on 2024-02-13. Retrieved 2024-02-13 – via Qatar National Library.
  The Book Review Index verifies the publication details of the review.
  The review notes: "The series still pushes credulity past the tipping point, but these installments introduce new developments (heretofore cartoonish competitors reveal hints of humanity; the sibs' stalwart nanny becomes suspicious; clues to their parents' death surface) that rejuvenate the foundering plots."
3. Schowengerdt, Sarah (April 2011). "The 39 Clues, Book 5: The Black Circle". From: Faces: People, Places, and Cultures. Vol. 27, no. 7. Cricket Media. p. 47. Archived from the original on 2024-02-13. Retrieved 2024-02-13 – via Gale.
  The review notes: "In this fast-paced volume, Amy and Dan are drawn to Russia when they receive a mysterious telegram with a challenge from someone called "N.R.R.""
4. "Staff pick of the week". The Darien Times. 2009-09-03. Archived from the original on 2024-02-13. Retrieved 2024-02-13.
  The review notes: "The temptation to find out what really happened the night their parents died may prove too strong to resist. Full of danger and intrigue - a great game of cat and mouse!"
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Black Circle to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 05:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per new Reception section added by Cunard. Toughpigs (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard. Geschichte (talk) 09:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can't withdraw as someone else has already voted delete, but I think Cunard has established that SIGCOV has been met and the article has greatly improved. As the nominator, changing my vote to Keep per WP:HEY.4meter4 (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ri Kum-chol (footballer, born unknown)

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, the unknown birthdate person has no coverage at all, surprise surprise. Delete for a lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails per WP:V. Svartner (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – no coverage. Idiosincrático (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:08, 15 February 2024 (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 Football at the 1976 Summer Olympics – Men's team squads#North Korea. ✗plicit 01:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Il-nam (footballer)

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and North Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – to Football at the 1976 Summer Olympics – Men's team squads#North Korea as WP:AtD. Svartner (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 76' squads article per above. Not enough individual coverage to warrant an article. Idiosincrático (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 19:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a valid WP:ATD, which is what we have also done for tonnes of non-notable Olympians. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:39, 16 February 2024 (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 00:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Choi Gwan-il

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not much sources found. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. CSMention269 (talk) 02:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. A single appearance for North Korea in 1988 and nothing about his club career Svartner (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Idiosincrático (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:08, 15 February 2024 (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 00:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ri Un-il

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – no coverage available. Idiosincrático (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:07, 15 February 2024 (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. ✗plicit 14:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Street Dance Girls Fighter 2

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 00:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance, Television, and South Korea. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:23, 13 February 2024 (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 00:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.''Flux55'' (talk) 00:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC) (sock strike Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Comment I found this, is this helpful? ‍ Relativity 01:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Looks like a legit article from the Korea Herald so yeah. Fence for me on the article overall, the words dance survival program in the article are a phrase that's new to me. --Ouro (blah blah) 05:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:00, 27 February 2024 (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!} 00:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as no consensus - There is not a strong argument for deletion. At least one reliable source has been identified. Can always be merged into Street_Woman_Fighter_2#Street_Dance_Girls_Fighter_2 outside of AfD process if someone feels the initiative. ~Kvng (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2024 (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 Ludwig Ahgren. ✗plicit 00:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Yard (podcast)

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

I couldn't find any sources that would meet GNG and the streamy nom probably isn't enough on it's own. It's been redirected to Ludwig Ahgren a few times so it's probably good to get consensus on what to do with it at this point. BuySomeApples (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The first Esports Insider is a RS per sourcetool, but it's not about this podcast. I don't find any other mentions of this. I don't think a redirect to the Ludwig person is warranted, the podcast seems to have a few other individuals involved with it. Oaktree b (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Entertainment, Internet, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I added most of the sourcing after the article had been created, and admittedly there aren't any great secondary sources one could point to. I think podcasts of its size should generally have an article, but the lack of references certainly makes it hard. Regarding what Oaktree b said, the three other hosts are his friends/former roommates and all work for Ludwigs production company and unlikely to ever get their own articles, so a redirect and section in his article should be fine in that regard (at least better than nothing at all). Coverage of influencers has improved over the years, but their side-projects are still lacking, even if they are the same size as something like Chapo. --jonas (talk) 11:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirct to Ludwig Ahgren. When looking for sources I'm not finding much more than social media. Whenever I see a list of guests like the one currently in the article I normally blank it and the show does not WP:INHERIT notability fron its guests. Also, YouTube is not a reliable source and that currently makes up the majority of the cited sources. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The YouTube sources are links to episodes where the guests have appeared. Arnar with rn (talk) 14:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ludwig Ahgren. per above. Idiosincrático (talk) 10:44, 15 February 2024 (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.