Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 12	April 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!} 23:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Ojala

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

There is fair coverage, but it does not have consensus to remain an article with no significant thing happening in years. Fails WP:BLP Villian Factman (talk) 06:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Villian Factman (talk) 06:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, New Zealand, and Barbados. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ambassadors are not inherently notable. This one fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 11:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; sources exists; I've added 4 of them from local or regional newspapers where his work is the primary focus or prominent; reaches WP:BIO. 12:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Klbrain (talk)
Delete I don't think any of the sources in the article, including the recently added ones, show WP:GNG, as they do not really specifically cover him directly apart from the fact he had a job. SportingFlyer T·C 00:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing SIGCOV of this individual. Yilloslime (talk) 19:15, 25 April 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 00:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rayyanza Malik Ahmad

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

Another case of WP:INVALIDBIO. Child's notability is solely attributed to their parent, and it's highly unlikely for a two-year-old to have achieved notable accomplishments. Ckfasdf (talk) 09:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 13 April 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) Toadette^Edit! 18:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dutch loanwords in Indonesian

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

Ehrmagerd, werds! As interesting as I find this, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. PepperBeast (talk) 12:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Lists. PepperBeast (talk) 12:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Indonesia and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki Poorly sourced too. It is a better idea to move this to Wiktionary. The Banner talk 15:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more opinions and to see if anyone knows how to "transwiki".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this list is not a dictionary entry or anything like it. The question of Dutch influence on Indonesian is plainly encyclopedic, and the list supports that by demonstrating its extent. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable topic. Legitimate SPINOFF from Indonesian language#Loan words of Dutch origin. Good that these lists are now submitted piecemeal. gidonb (talk) 00:48, 26 April 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. ✗plicit 00:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of loanwords in Assyrian Neo-Aramaic

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

Ehrmagerd, werds! As interesting as I find this, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. PepperBeast (talk) 12:35, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Lists. PepperBeast (talk) 12:35, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the introduction is clearly not a dictionary. the list defines some words but is mostly serving the functions of a list. should be fine enough as is to keep that too User:Sawerchessread (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this article is not a dictionary entry. I don't know what gave the nom the idea that articles about linguistics and etymology are somehow not encyclopedic, prompting them to launch their current "Ehrmagerd, werds!" deletion campaign. Owen× ☎ 14:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Does not read like a dictionary entry, it is a list – and a quality one at that. ~ Dictionary (talk) 15:00, 14 April 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) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Spanish words of Nahuatl origin

AfDs for this article:

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

Ehrmagerd, werds! Wikipedia is not a dictionary. PepperBeast (talk) 13:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Lists, and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I think this one could be merged into Nahuatlismo. At least some list would be OK to have there. //Replayful (talk | contribs) 18:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep intro is not a dictionary and lists is probably fine? User:Sawerchessread (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I’m not comfortable with so much material with no inline citations but I’m assuming most or all of the article content is potentially sourceable and the topic could be expanded. Doesn’t feel like TNT territory to me. Mccapra (talk) 09:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia has many lists like these and I don't see an issue with them, sure maybe it would be preferable that they be transformed into regular articles with more prose, but I don't think deletion is the solution here. The only real issue here is, as Mccapra pointed out, the lack of citations.★Trekker (talk) 02:15, 23 April 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. While no commenter supports deletion (which even the nominator does not explicitly ask for), views are split between keep and redirect. This has been relisted more than enough times already. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beetroot cake

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

Non-notable cake that does not pass WP:GNG, references consist of recipes and trivial mentions. WP:BEFORE check yielded no sources that show WP:SIGCOV. BaduFerreira (talk) 04:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. BaduFerreira (talk) 04:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to Beetroot, where several recipes are mentioned; agree with nom it's not really notable in itself. This one can be added at Beetroot as it's reliably cited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as there seems to be enough sources available, particularly if the scope is broadened slightly to include the use of beetroot as a supplement to other baked products (for reasons of extending the shelf-life, for example). Klbrain (talk) 13:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the relevant page. The article doesn't sit well alone, so redirecting is probably best. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 16:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I thought all of our "cake articles" (and "salad articles") had already passed through AFD but here is another.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I stumbled across two sources today that discuss this cake as a style of chocolate cake, and it made me remember there are multiple terms in English, depending on what variety of Englis -- beetroot vs. beet, for instance -- which complicates things when searching for information. And there may be some history around Red velvet cake. I'm waffling a bit, but right now I'm thinking rather than redirect to beetroot (or to chocolate cake), we can keep. Valereee (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 18:33, 27 April 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) 11:55, 4 May 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!} 06:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MontageJS

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

Currently unreferenced save for an arstechnica piece written by the creators of the framework. Searches on Google result in either Yellowpages-style listings or Githubs. Books return in trivial mentions in author biographies. The fact that the author was SPA on this topic does not help. For these reasons I believe it fails GNG. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 04:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Technology, Computing, and Software. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 04:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just looked at their website. Copyright 2017. Another framework that didn't get off the ground. — Sean Brunnock (talk) 14:41, 14 April 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 Kennedys Law. Daniel (talk) 10:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gates and Partners

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

Unclear that notability has been established. Beland (talk) 04:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Business. Beland (talk) 04:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, Singapore, United Arab Emirates, Belgium, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. All the available coverage falls well within WP:ORGTRIV. I was not able to find anything more substantial. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Juest wanted to note, I'm alright with redirect, though I'm not so sure the other company is notable either. Don't really think there's anything to merge. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect into Kennedys Law into which Gates was dissolved. Why wasn't this suggested upfront? gidonb (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 18:02, 27 April 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) 05:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Kennedys Law: Trivia PR coverage doesn't meet WP:NCORP, appropriate to merge to parent company even though sources in Kennedys Law aren't really independent Robertjamal12 ~🔔 09:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article there are many articles about it being purchased by Kennedys and its cases prior to the purchase [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. Also covered in multiple legal books including the European Legal 500 until its merger and Chambers UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfloving (talk • contribs) 12:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kennedys Law, also agree, don't think the sourcing for the redirect target meets NCORP either but that isn't the topic at AfD. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:50, 11 May 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 11:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K21JQ-D

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and Washington. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. If it is a rebroadcaster, merge to the parent station. Otherwise, merge to the owner. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing to merge to. The owner doesn't even have an article. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject lacks the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. I don't see any redirect or merge target. Let'srun (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:06, 20 April 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) 08:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While this is mentioned at list of television stations in Washington (state)#Translators, it is as as relay of K36EW-D, which does not have (and never has had) an article. I suppose the whole Blue Mountain Television operation is a run-of-the-mill religious station that does have some locally/regionally-produced material and is not entirely national programming, but lacks the significant coverage we require. A remnant of the looser inclusion "standards" of 2006. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 27 April 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!} 06:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KRLB-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and Washington. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough SIGCOV in Tri-Cities paper. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 20 April 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) 06:58, 27 April 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 Open-access operator#France. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Speed

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

Nominating on behalf of an IP who wrote the following rationale at WT:AFD:

I think there are 2 issues with this article, but I'm not sure of the procedure to follow so I prefer to post there : {1} It's a new compagny with no effective product or service: testing is expected to begin in 2026, before commercial service in 2028. The use of nearly only the futur tense or verbs with conditionnal or future meaning as ("would", "planned", "is expected"...) shows that. {2} It seems that the subject has no significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent secondary sources. International Railway Journal is a media of limited interest (trade magazine for railway industry) and the content seems more promotional than informative. Quechoisir is a French media with a national audience but the mention is anecdotical. La Tribune is a French economic media but the coverage is not significant. CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Transportation. CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: These are press releases about funding, likely TOOSOON. The project could end up not getting off the ground or going bust before trains start rolling. Oaktree b (talk) 02:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't gone through a full review of the available sourcing yet, but redirection to Open-access operator#France might be a suitable ATD in the event no suitable sources exist. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added multiple reliable, independent secondary sources, to address {2}. Slasher-fun (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This sounds like a promising enterprise. even if it would not gett off the ground, it would be an example of efforts.Keep and reinforce the ontitionnal if you like. Meerwind7 (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:50, 13 April 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. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I think there could be potential for a prose section at Open-access operator§France (Or split out into X in France) with a few lines about this particular company, but I don't see enough sourcing for a standalone article. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting but I'm leaning to a Redirect. Not sure what "ontitionnal" means though.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Open-access operator#France; there is coverage [8] [9], but i'm not sure if GNG or NCORP is passed. Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 20:46, 26 April 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. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Because of that, very little weight was given to keeps based on the assertion that the player will either play more matches or be the subject of additional coverage in the future. Further, the community has been clear that caps do not dictate notability. With both of those in mind, there is a clear consensus that the subject is not notable. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:44, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jensen Monk

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an English rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. Draftification would be an option, but this is a re-creation of an existing draft. JTtheOG (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and England. JTtheOG (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Professional rugby league footballer who made his professional debut in 2023, played the other day against fellow top level side Warrington in the Challenge Cup. Multiple sources within the article.Fleets (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources 1 and 2 are stats databases, while the next four are trivial mentions of the subject. BLPs require strong sourcing, which is why I draftified it the first time. JTtheOG (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Currently playing in the top tier with five appearances and will likely gain more. Currently borderline on notability for me but will likely be recreated if deleated. Mn1548 (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. He might be notable in the future but that would be speculating. Re-create if and when he plays a few more games and more sources are likely to exist. J Mo 101 (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are exclusively namedrops, zero coverage here. Arguments to keep based only on his appearing in a particular league are strictly invalid per SPORTSBASIC. JoelleJay (talk) 23:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of London Broncos players. Fails GNG as there is no SIGCOV. References are routine coverage and stats databases. Frank Anchor 01:22, 10 April 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) 02:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - two further news sources added referencing academy days, move into first team, and first appearance of the 2024 season.Fleets (talk) 11:08, 13 April 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) 05:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Young player, will likely have more written in the near future, 8 refs already. Mn1548 (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from repeating your !vote on a new bulleted line. Thank you. JTtheOG (talk) 23:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@J Mo 101: @JoelleJay: Would y'all consider a redirect to List of London Broncos players to be a better alternative? JTtheOG (talk) 02:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems sensible. I would have no problem with that. J Mo 101 (talk) 21:23, 27 April 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, Toadette^Edit! 18:01, 27 April 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. Star Mississippi 02:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Garland mayoral special election

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

Article was incorrectly PRODed [10] after being through an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mayoral_elections. I WP:REFUNDed it and brought it here. While incorrectly applied, the PROD put it best: "Routine election in suburban city, local coverage of routine results only without evidence of notability." Nickps (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Texas. Nickps (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My fault with the PROD. I missed a small "afd" edit summary in the page history. Usually edit summaries for AFD nominations are a little more prominent. Did you have the article restored and brought it here to AFD simply because I made a mistake in the PROD 3 years ago? Seems a little bureaucracy for its own sake. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nom is correct in their assessment of the article's notability, though there was no need to undelete it. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I need to explain my rationale here. Since most of the articles from the original AfD still exist (and the ones that don't are merged somewhere else), to me that looks like there is consensus that this content belongs on WP. The fact that I personally think this shouldn't be the case is irrelevant. Had I phrased this as a purely procedural AfD without endorsing the PROD's reasoning it would have been clearer. Nickps (talk) 12:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More input would be helpful given the context nom identifies in their comment of 30 March.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:59, 6 April 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) 02:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unexciting but notable. Elections are never routine. The two relistings suggest to me that AfD participants are being overwhelmed by the volume of nominations. Perhaps we need to tweak policy – so that a few more small-town mayors and random psychology professors are allowed in – in order to keep AfD at a manageable level. I find using Google Translate to make sense of Indonesian-language articles that are better than their English-language counterparts is increasingly draining. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Ow, I would love to see more articles about mayors in small towns/municipalities. The Netherlands had many tiny municipalities (often with less then 500 inhabitants). That those municipalities often survived only a few years is a small detail. The Banner talk 16:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC) No worries. It is true but I am not going to spend time on that.[reply]
Delete Nothing really here. Wikipedia is not a database of election results. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per NOTDIR and nom. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Pppery, and The Herald. Every local election gets local coverage, which is insufficient to show encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 02:20, 21 April 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. (non-admin closure) Toadette^Edit! 18:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shamako Noble

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

A hip-hop musician and writer, admittedly his album was released a long time ago in internet terms, in 2004, but the most I can do is find proof on Discogs that it existed. There are a couple of online articles written by Noble, and a couple of brief mentions in a university radio article and the Seattle Times. His candidature in California politics is confusing, and only cited to a Green Party application. Overall this is more like a resumé and not suitable for Wikipedia, fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Politicians, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. I agree that neither of those are significant coverage, and the article is written like a resume, but that doesn’t justify deletion (it is possible, though, to cut down some of the text). There’s a book covering him here and an interview here.

The book coverage is probably not enough to float an article on its own, though, but there might be another source I haven’t found immidiately. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I just added the book I found to the Hip Hop Congress article. There might not be that much to merge. Changing my stance to Neutral, unless anyone can find more sources (which I'm not sure don't exist). Mrfoogles (talk) 03:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. In addition to the book above, he's profiled in Banjoko, Adisa (2004). "Political Activist, Shamako Noble". Lyrical Swords: Hip Hop and Politics in the Mix. YinSumi Press. ISBN 9780970177117. The book series Lyrical Swords and its author has been the subject of RS (see for example) He's also got coverage for his work as an activist in Berg, Laurie; Berg, Anna; Robinson, Pamela K.; Wills, Jane. "Economic Migrants: The Banana Supply Chain, and the London Living Wage: Three Cases Civil Society Activism on Poverty". In Kumar, Ashwani (ed.). Global Civil Society Yearbook 2009: Poverty and Activism. SAGE Publications. ISBN 9781446202562. All together, this clearly passes GNG.4meter4 (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Just posing the question, if the consensus was to Merge this article, what would the target article be?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looking at the previous article, the majority of it was copy-pasted from his Green Party shadow cabinet biography here. I replaced that with the stuff I could cite. I don't know what's in the Lyrical Swords coverage and I can't find the mention of him in the Economic Migrants coverage, but from the sources I can see so far I think probably his article would be merged into Hip Hop Congress (co-founder) and possibly 2012 Republican National Convention (decent bit of coverage that's interviewing him participating in protests against it). Mrfoogles (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't have full access to the books/journals so it's hard to make a firm judgement here, but my impression is that the coverage seems weak. Probably fails a strict reading of WP:NBIO.-KH-1 (talk) 02:26, 12 April 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) 02:35, 13 April 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) 05:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see anything which actually passes GNG here and I'm not sure the profiles above necessarily get there - perhaps a merge might work as an ATD. SportingFlyer T·C 22:48, 25 April 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. revised article per the improvements made during this discussion. As for whether this should be subsequently moved or split, that's editorial and doesn't need a relist. Star Mississippi 01:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stars and planetary systems in fiction

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

This is an extreme (almost 400kb) case of fancrufty "list of appearances of foo topic in every imaginable work" (books, comics, games...). The topic may be notable (recent talk discussion suggests User:TompaDompa, who has an established record of getting similar topics to Good Article and beyond, tried to rewrite this but was thwarted - reverted - at some point and possibly gave up), Our execution is abysmally bad and begs for WP:TNT - after tiny prose lead, this is just a WP:IPC-violating list of random examples. I.e. this is another de facto list that fails WP:LISTN, a simple WP:INDISCRIMINATE listing of all instances a star or planet appeared in a work of fiction (WP:NOTTVTROPES). If we were to approach it as an article, beyond its lead, it is a major fail of WP:V and WP:OR). No prejudice to this being turned into a prose-based stub or start-class if anyone (TompaDompa?) wants to work on this, otherwise we may have to redirect it or just delete it, I am afraid. Note that this list is still growing with unrerenced ORish content (see diff from late March). Sigh. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Popular culture, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (EDIT:ADDED: or replace with TompaDompa's version linked below), this is a well-organized and full article. You may not like lists like this,ad but that is no reason to delete. Some of the listings may be O.R., but, like many pages like this, the discussed information may be found at the linked articles. It provides a great deeal of encyclopedic knowledge, is easy to read, and gives readers an adequate exploration of the topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn: We are not TV Tropes. TV Tropes content is not useless, and I like TV Tropes, but this list belongs on TV Tropes. There is precedent that these lists are unacceptable on Wikipedia. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is no reason that the "In popular culture" content can't be on the star pages, except if it is unacceptable content. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TV tropes is an essay, it can be summarized as "I don't like it". I've seen this TV tropes argument come up a lot in these list discussions. Some of us like the 'In popular culture' lists and find them informative and encyclopedic, some don't. This one works and should be kept to entries which have linked articles. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Essays are easy to dismiss. How about policies like WP:OR? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn: NOTINDISCRIMINATE is policy, and it says we should not be indiscriminately listing everything in a broad topic, like works of fiction that take place near stars that aren't the Sun. Making such a list would also arguably violate our policy on original research, as we are grouping articles together in a way that is not based on what the sources say, and there is no real navigational purpose. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Keeping the current version of the article is a complete non-starter. It contains blatant WP:OR, improper use of primary sources, misrepresentations of sources, and outright WP:PLAGIARISM all in the very first section. That being said, it could be fixed. Here's what a starting point for that might look like: Special:PermaLink/1218679535.
It's not like we cannot have high-quality articles on topics like this—Mars in fiction, Venus in fiction, and Sun in fiction are all WP:Featured articles—but the bulk of the nearly 400 kB here consists of a TV Tropes-style list with absolutely atrocious sourcing. The article has become a dumping ground for garbage "In popular culture" content to keep it out of the articles on the stars themselves. I would certainly be in favour of keeping the article provided that it is cleaned up properly (which in this case would mean rewriting it pretty much from scratch). As the nomination alludes to, I did just that back in 2021, which caused something of a ruckus and was reverted—the PermaLink above is a minimally tweaked version of what I came up with back then. I have since located additional sources that would be useful for writing a proper article on the topic, but have held off on doing so lest it be perceived as trying to force my preferred version through and causing another stir. TompaDompa (talk) 04:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to withdraw this if the version is replaced by https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?oldid=1218679535 and not reverted back as I gather happened before. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rewrite The current list is definitely not something we can keep. However, TompaDompa's version of the article does seem like an acceptable article. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~ as it currently is. The current article is rife with a multitude of pretty major issues as described already - poor sourcing, WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH and content that blatantly goes against WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. If the current content was replaced by the draft shared by TompaDompa above, then I would be happy to keep that version, but this current list should absolutely not be retained as it is. Rorshacma (talk) 03:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As the previous list has been replaced by a sourced prose article, I am striking my previous recommendation to Delete. As shown by the discussions below, there is still some discussion to be had regarding the final organization of the information here, such as should it be merged anywhere or split into more than one topic, but that can be discussed after the AFD closes if needed. As far as the current AFD is concerned, I do not believe there is any cause for a deletion at this point. Rorshacma (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SALAT. Far too broad to be useful. A sizable chunk of science fiction involves other planets and star systems. (Also, no Ringworld?) Clarityfiend (talk) 11:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per HEY. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note, then why not just go with the version by TompaDompa mentioned and linked above? If the nominator said they'd withdraw the nom if that version is used, and !voters agree, I'm not understanding the problem, which seems to have that easy solution. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As TompaDompa said, they attempted to rewrite the article to the version they proposed back in 2021, and after lengthy pushback on the Talk page, it was reverted back to the current version of the article. As they said that they were hesitant on changing it back to their version to avoid looking like they were independently ignoring that previous discussion, I made the statement that I would remove my recommendation to Delete if their version were used instead in order to hopefully show a consensus for them to go ahead with that rewrite. I'd imagine the other commenters and nom have similar thinking. Rorshacma (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn Maybe ping those editors and ask? Not everybody follows discussions after commenting. I concur that deleting is strictly inferior to replacing this with something else. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the above discussion, I have restored the version I linked above and will keep working on it in the coming days. Consider this a keep conditional on retaining this version. TompaDompa (talk) 17:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I give editors some credit for trying to clean this up, particularly as a magnet for unverified or even false WP:OR. But this topic is far too broad to be useful, and even the "X and Y" seems to be WP:OR and [[WP:IINFO], combining a mishmash of space, planets, and stars. If I can squint hard enough, I could maybe imagine a space in fiction article, which feels less like WP:OR, but still feels extremely broad. If we got rid of the blow-by-blow list, we could perhaps find a place to merge this. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shooterwalker It is rare for us to disagree, but I think the rewrite is not OR. Sources cited included tertiary encyclopedia of sf with entries on "Stars" and "planets". The topic seems notable and the rewritten version is hardly ORish - TompaDompa has extensive experience removing OR from articles, not adding it :P If I had any concern it would be whether this shouldn't be renamed to stars, planetary systems and planets in fiction, and whether List of planets in science fiction should not just redirect here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's one way of doing it. Another way would be splitting the topic into Stars in fiction and Exoplanets in fiction (or Extrasolar planets in fiction). The topic here is pretty much Extrasolar systems in fiction, which is another possible title that could be considered. TompaDompa (talk) 09:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TompaDompa Star systems in fiction would probably be simpler (also, star system is an article, but extrasolar system just a redirect to Planetary system...). A brief note on our solar system (a paragraph linking to other relevant articles, many of you that you already worked on and confirmed as notable) could head the article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Planetary systems in fiction would be more appropriate, as it is more about planetary systems (planets orbiting stars) than star systems (stars orbiting each other). The (inherited) scope here is a tad sketchy, combining stars and exoplanets, but on the other hand sources do not always distinguish carefully between stars and their planets (a source describing "a voyage to Alpha Centauri" may be to the star or to a fictional planet orbiting it, for instance). I'll keep working on it and see what I come up with. One option would be splitting this into stars in fiction and extrasolar planets in fiction, while turning planets in fiction into a disambiguation page for the latter and list of planets in science fiction (and perhaps Mercury in fiction, Venus in fiction, and so on...). TompaDompa (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My concern is that the article (X and Y in Z) is formed in a vague and WP:INDISCRIMINATE way that invites WP:OR, and even then, it's pretty short. But if it were reI'd be willing to give it some time to develop if the article were renamed and re-scoped. Or even split, with hopes of expanding both. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an editor, just a lowly user, but I just wanted to say I love this page and use it all the time to suggest colony names when I'm gaming. I'll be sad to see it go.

Will the historical versions of this page still be available once it's gone. 108.31.3.18 (talk) 02:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it does get deleted, try the Wayback Machine as it has numerous backups of the page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you, and I hope this will be preserved in history. Even better - if someone would care enough to copy this to TVTROPES... maybe you'd like to help? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move (or just merge? It wasn't the original scope of the article) to Planets in science fiction to tighten the scope and make it less arbitrary. Merge the "stars" section to Star, adding an "in fiction" section. I assume it must have had one at some point, but probably got spun off to sweep the cruft under the rug. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY (assuming it is kept as the TompaDompa prose version). It really can't be kept the way it was though, per all the arguments made above. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 18:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a perfectly good article, or at any rate capable of being so, at least in the form I am seeing, which is possibly after some WP:HEY work has been done. Maybe it was bad before. I mean it is original work, yes, so are very many things that we have here. List of statues of Queen Victoria and many scores of thousands of articles like that. If we had to copy a list that someone else made for articles like that, it'd be plagiarism, which'd be worse, and copyvio too really.
Everything we do, creating articles by choosing and melding material from various sources, deciding what belongs and what doesn't, is original work, for goodness' sake. WP:OR is to be invoked when there's a problem. There's no problem here, it's just incomplete. Sure the article could become really big, maybe too big (but I mean adding material to articles so that they become bigger is not a bad thing), in which case it can be split up or trimmed using some reasonable criteria. Sure, there are articles that don't belong here on account of being too detailed about a subject. But this isn't one.
Also I dislike terms like "fancrufty", which doesn't put me in a receptive mood as it just bourgeois snobbery and indicates that you are coming the matter with prejudgement, particularly when we are talking about "science fiction in general" rather than "Star Wars" or something. I'd prefer if terms like that are avoided. Herostratus (talk) 06:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Herostratus: If you are curious, this is what the article looked like when it was nominated. Which obviously bears very little resemblance to the current version. TompaDompa (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait wait wait wut? Keep and restore. Y'all practically erased the article. Why. Why would you do that. What do you think we are trying to do here??? It was better before. Well, after the article is kept we can talk about that I suppose.
As I said, original research is only a problem if its a problem. If you're synthesizing a new idea, or implying something in error. The idea here seems to be "Lots of science fiction stories have stars and planets in them", which is not a new idea. It's just true. If you're saying the idea is "Lots of science fiction stories have stars and planets in them, and we're cherry-picking only some of them to make some point", that's not true. The writers are not doing that. It's just that the article is not complete. So what is the problem? Don't WP:SHOUT in ALL CAPS at me about this rule and that rule. We all know there are a lot of rules here, many contradictory, and that the devil can quote scripture. Tell me in plain English why you all want to prevent the reader from getting access to this information. It's not like we're trying to decide if its worth our time to make this article. Somebody already has. It's just a question of whether or not to increase entropy by scattering this information to the wind.
The "primary-secondary-tertiary" rubric is taken from academia. It is fine for academia (I guess) but for what we are trying to do here, not so much. It's one data point of many to consider, yes. But don't give me four legs good two legs bad. We're supposed to be using our brains here. We are talking about throwing a fair amount of some people's work into the dustbin. Tell me why, in this article, the use of primary sources degrades the reader's experience. Can you? I'm all ears. Should the article include only those entities where some obscure reviewer has randomly happened to note "This article takes place on Alph Woo" and not include those where the review randomly hasn't? Why. Why. Good grief.
It there's stuff that's not ref'd, ref it. If you don't have the time or interest to do that (quite understandable), tag it. If there's reason to believe it's maybe not true, delete it. Keep in mind that, for good or ill, works of literature are considered reliable sources for their own contents here. We don't need refs to describe the contents or plot of a movie or book, the rubric is "To check the accuracy of this data, get a copy of the book". Otherwise 90%+ of our plot sections of books and movies would have to be deleted.
Sorry to be harsh, but if you all are going to be trying to pull stuff like this, you are going to be called to task. It's depressing to see what we are more and more becoming. Herostratus (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In plain English, compiling raw data about works of fiction is not Wikipedia's purpose, nor is analysing the same (it is, however, TV Tropes' and Wikia/Fandom's purpose). Compiling analysis about works of fiction made by others is, however. The latter approach has resulted in several WP:Featured articles: Mars in fiction, Venus in fiction, and Sun in fiction. TompaDompa (talk) 20:38, 16 April 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!} 06:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarksdale, Indiana

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

A "no there there" intersection, there's a single house and that's it. Searching is masked by the place in Mississippi but turned up nothing. Mangoe (talk) 02:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Though it appears as a named point on topo maps[11], there's nothing actually there except an unremarkable intersection, and I see no sign of it on any historical maps. ╠╣uw [talk] 13:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Brown County Democrat mentions it once. Coverage goes back to 1914. It doesn't appear in the book "From Needmore to Prosperity : Hoosier place names in folklore and history" either. Something was probably there at one time, but I don't know what it was.James.folsom (talk) 22:01, 14 April 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!} 06:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

François Mathieu

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

Fails WP:GNG & WP:NARTIST. Gedaali (talk) 02:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Arts, and Visual arts. Gedaali (talk) 02:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:01, 20 April 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) 06:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are other potentially notable people with this name, including fr:François Mathieu, a French senator, as well as a Quebec sculptor. I don't see an article about this painter in the French Wikipedia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:23, 27 April 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) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of first-class cricket centuries by W. G. Grace

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

The cricketer does not even have the most number of first class cricket centuries. For example, Jack Hobbs does not have a page for his fc centuries. For convention, this has beend done for cricketers having more than 25 international centuries. Hence, this article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharaoh496 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 12 April 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 April 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, Lists, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I understand the motive for this nomination, given we usually have limit the number of articles like this to record holders for nations etc, but given Grace is probably one of the games greatest players, and one of the players instrumental in the development of the game an article like this, which is incredibly well sourced and deemed good enough to be a featured article is good enough to keep it. There is coverage in articles of his hundreds also, whether in biographies, or more recently in debate whether or not one of many of his hundreds were first class. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There would be as good players. People can make properly sources articles - but its first class, and not international test cricket; not being as notable Pharaoh496 (talk) 09:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is irrelevant, as there's significant coverage of his centuries. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Don’t make rules by your own. It doesn’t matter if he’s the highest century scorer or not. The minimum threshold of 25 int. centuries is an informal guideline. The fact is that his centuries have been discussed and received coverage in multiple books and online articles. Clearly satisfies the criteria of WP:NLIST and WP:GNG. Robo^Cric Let's chat 14:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep his centuries are covered in multiple books, and therefore passes WP:GNG and WP:NLIST, particularly One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable Page and clearly passes WP:GNG coverage. 103.121.36.100 (talk) 03:00, 15 April 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!} 06:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Rajya Sabha election in Tamil Nadu

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

This was an indirect election, fails WP:Notability. I suggest it be either merged or redirected to the page, 2013 Rajya Sabha elections. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 01:40, 13 April 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 April 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 06:30, 27 April 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) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irena Justine

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

Fails WP:GNG, most of these sources barely seem to qualify this person as notable. Allan Nonymous (talk) 01:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree, the article subject doesn’t meet notability requirements. Nate Higgers (talk) 02:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And improve with the help of the (WP) pages in Indonesian about her and the films/series she played in, and that seem to show she meets WP:NACTOR although she died young.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. According to WP:NACTOR, the individual must have had substantial roles in various notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. However, the person in question does not meet this requirement, as they have never portrayed lead roles or appeared in notable films. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems important, and references seem legit. In general, multiple references talking about the subject like this is probably enough to indicate notability. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:*Keep There is no indication that the nominator has done WP:BEFORE before creating a deletion page [12]. He also lack the ability to understand about Indonesian subject and notability of sources used in the article as he did here in other nomination page that he created [13] [14]. 202.43.93.9 (talk) 03:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— 202.43.93.9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

— Struck per WP:SOCKSTRIKE Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references from the Indonesian article. I think she had many important roles. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subjects who are notable in Indonesia are just as important as subjects who are notable in the US, and article editors are improving the references. rspεεr (talk) 17:50, 18 April 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!} 23:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of career achievements by Dwight Howard

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

This is another WP:NOTSTATS violation featuring indiscriminate trivia. Let'srun (talk) 01:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Basketball, and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 01:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a harmless list of achievements rather than an indiscriminate collection of stats. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HARMLESS is generally not an accepted reason to keep.—Bagumba (talk) 07:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For reference, there's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Carmelo Anthony , Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Chris Paul and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Dwyane Wade (2nd nomination).—Bagumba (talk) 06:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think parts of this article do qualify as an "indiscriminate collection of information". Take the "NBA highs since 1983-84" section. Why is that season chosen as the cutoff? Who is the audience for statistics with that level of granularity? Who is going to take the time to confirm that all of that content is still up to date? The more important achievements should already be listed in the Dwight Howard article. Zagalejo (talk) 22:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Carmelo Anthony, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Chris Paul and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Dwyane Wade (2nd nomination). WP:CONTENTFORK packed with WP:UNDUE, indiscriminate mentions of being one of X players to achieve a trivial statistical cross section, or arbitrary cutoffs like "since 1983–84". Major, defining achievements should be captured in the main bio. Also fails WP:NOTSTATS: Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing The page is a pure stats dump.—Bagumba (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no good reason for this entire category of articles to exist. A person's notable accomplishments should be found in the article about that person. A person's non-notable accomplishments should be found nowhere. There will always be disputes whether a certain accomplishment is notable or not, and such disputes are valid and necessary. This type of article is essentially claiming that there's a whole new category "Sort-Of-Notable-Ish Accomplishments". There is no such category. If it turns out that articles about brilliant outliers with huge lists of notable accomplishments become too long to read, deal with those individually. TooManyFingers (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:01, 22 April 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. (non-admin closure) Desertarun (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Park Harriers and Tower Hamlets Athletics Club

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

Unable to locate significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and England. AusLondonder (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We don't have remotely enough coverage here to meet NCORP. JoelleJay (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, bar for coverage is clearly met with over 500 newspaper matches (see [15] and [16]). The component club has existed since 1926 and is home to Olympians and World Championships medallists. Also, when nominating an article, please add relevant WikiProjects to the talk page so that it will be properly categorized by the WP:ARTICLEALERTS bot. --Habst (talk) 16:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing a lot of trivial coverage and mentions in articles about related topics. Where is the significant coverage? AusLondonder (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first match from the London Evening Standard is about a murder in a park this group runs in? Do you honestly think these kind of mentions establish notability per WP:ORGCRIT? AusLondonder (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AusLondonder, some of the sources definitely establish WP:ORGCRIT. I agree that the London Evening Standard murder coverage isn't significant, but that still leaves over 499 matches to analyze. For example, [17] [18] is more than a mention. Thanks, --Habst (talk) 17:16, 4 May 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!} 05:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article is less than a month old, needs improvement but meets WP:N Orange sticker (talk) 16:35, 4 May 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.