Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< February 22	February 24 >

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 redirect‎ to Fairy Tale (Mai Kuraki album). ✗plicit 00:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like a Star in the Night

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

Wasn't able to find any coverage of the song independent from the album. May be sources in Japanese I couldn't find, but the Japanese version doesn't cite any. Rusalkii (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rusalkii (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to album as ATD. Ben Azura (talk) 21:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is some minor coverage available at a glance but most coverage of this type of material in 2002 will not be online in the case of Japan. The song charted at number 2 nationally, so it almost certainly satisfies WP:NM, but redirection seems like a viable alternative until sufficient sourcing is found at some point. Dekimasuよ! 03:51, 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!} 23:10, 23 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 undeletion of these articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tree of Peace Memorial Plaque

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

Now that Servare et Manere has been deleted, I think we can agree the various medals it hands out can also go — yes? Biruitorul ^Talk 00:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Slovakia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not think we have enough secondary RS for a stand alone article and I cannot think of a target for a WP:ATD-R. Lightburst (talk) 04:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to see more opinions here since this is a bundled nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 16 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!} 23:09, 23 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 00:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iobi

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

This has some coverage but doesn't appear to meet WP:N or have an obvious WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There doesn't appear to be any sources independent of Verizon and no evidence of WP:SIGCOV. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Iobinetwork (username indicates WP:COI, just removed the AfD template, I have restored it. Boleyn (talk) 15:04, 18 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!} 23:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: self-promoting but insufficiently notable for a stand-alone article. Nirva20 (talk) 22:27, 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 no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inverness Field Club

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

A worthy group, but I couldn't establish that it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. No obvious WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Archaeology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:32, 9 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!} 23:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Civic societies such as this have been significant in researching and preserving the past (e.g. this), in developing local civic facilities (which may include the library provision in this case, though that is uncited), and in small-scale financial support for education, but unfortunately it can be difficult to locate sources to demonstrate their notability here. I do feel that the outcome can be to discard information on the clubs and societies which make social life meaningful. (Elsewhere, I have sought to use Wikidata/SPARQL to portray such civic initiatives in Scottish history, from which perspective it would be convenient if this article / item were to survive, but I recognise that is not a sustainable argument for notability here.) A least-bad option which I am considering may be a partial merge into the article on Inverness itself. AllyD (talk) 08:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Google Books and Scholar links in the nomination find plenty of sources saying that something was published by or presented in a lecture to this club. Of the few that have content actually about it this looks the most promising, but I don't have access to the full text. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:32, 23 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!} 23:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep (or Merge) - Waffling on this one. Here's a block quote from the book above (there's a bit more about James Barron specifically that I didn't quote), and a brief history of the society in a 1916 review.

The relationship between local societies and local journalism was more often a positive and intimate one. Some bodies, such as the Inverness Field Club, made the shrewd move of electing as President the editor of the local newspaper. In his opening address delivered in 1880, James Barron, editor of the Inverness Courier, revealed that he had not been elected on the basis of his 'scientific attainments'. It was, rather, his position as 'middleman ... translating the knowledge and ideas of other men into what the members were pleased to consider a popular form'. Barron also edited the Society's Transactions and had them printed at the office of his newspaper. This practice of using the local newspaper as the printer and publisher of a society's annual proceedings was widespread, the published proceedings often being a collation of accounts already made public through extensive press reports.
— Finnegan, Natural History Societies and Civic Culture in Victorian Scotland

The Inverness Field Club derived its origin forty years ago from a series of lectures then delivered by Professor John Young, M.D., of Glasgow University, whose versatile personality remains a far from colourless memory with many friends and a few critics. The institution he was instrumental in founding (with the late William Jolly as its first president) does honour to the force of his influence upon associated study, and this seventh volume of its Transactions, covering seven years of contributions, is a well-balanced combination of field science with archaeology and history.
— "Review of Transactions of the Inverness Scientific Society and Field Club. Volume VII. 1906-1912". The Scottish Historical Review. 13 (51): 301–301. 1916. ISSN 0036-9241.

Together, this looks like a weak WP:GNG pass, which I'm inclined to give to a non-contemporary organization. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 17:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this topic further, I found a journal review summarising that Inverness Field Club organised a one-week conference about the Highlands during the Middle Ages in July 1980, then the following year published the book which was under review. AllyD (talk) 13:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The group appears notable but there are no sufficient sources to back up this notability. Mevoelo (talk) 08:25, 01 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of people from Ladera Heights

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

I'm not sure how it's practical to have a stand-alone list even though there's a word-for-word copy on the Ladera Heights Wikipedia page. I could just as easily move the references there. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 22:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No need for a standalone list for a dozen people. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unnecessary article for content copied from the Ladera Heights one. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. C-List celebrities do not need their own list, which is becoming a fork. Bearian (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient content for a standalone. She was ^afairy 02:24, 1 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 List of P-Funk members. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flip Cornett

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

No links since 2009. Importance not shown for WP:MUSICIANS.--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 21:47, 23 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 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and United States of America. Shaws username . talk . 22:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ All I could find on newspapers.com was his obituary [1] and an article that mentioned him once. [2] (and the same on Proquest) with nothing on newspaperarchive.com or on any of them for a Lawrence Cornett that's plausibly him. Nothing to meet WP:GNG or WP:NMUSICIAN. Shaws username . talk . 22:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of P-Funk members as an atd Shaws username . talk . 18:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No mentions found for this person in Books, News, Newspapers or any of the other Google items. I don't think he passes notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is an WP:RSMUSIC review of Cornetts work in this Allmusic staff review [3]. Still not sufficient to meet the notability requirements in my view (perhaps if one more article with sigcov was found we may have a case to keep). ResonantDis_tortion 13:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of P-Funk members, where he is already listed. As a longtime fan of that collective, I can confirm that he has some credits with them but was a minor player and received little useful media coverage with which to build an encyclopedic article here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect agreed with doomsdayer520, this is the best target, unless further coverage is sourced. ResonantDis_tortion 18:01, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kajona

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Mfixerer (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails notability guidelines. No relevancies in Gnews, Gbooks and scholar. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 19:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see any sources to establish NSOFT. Owen× ☎ 22:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: very little source online, just the software website. She was ^afairy 02:54, 1 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!} 22:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archie Fletcher

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

Not notable subject, no WP:SIGCOV could be found. Broc (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Music, and United States of America. Broc (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is one of hundreds of Tin Pan Alley composers, a one hit wonder. We don't even know when he died. Bearian (talk) 15:16, 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. Already deleted as G7. (non-admin closure) Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 19:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DIDWW Ireland Limited

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

Article previously deleted (February 2018, "Expired PROD, concern was: Company has no notability. Seemingly created to legitimise dubious cold call marketing.") Nothing has really changed since to indicate notability has been acquired - doesn't seem to satisfy WP:NCORP. References are mainly press releases in niche press and listings, doesn't satisfy WP:SIGCOV. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and Ireland. Shaws username . talk . 22:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with the nom. ww2censor (talk) 11:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Not a notable company. Spleodrach (talk) 12:42, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kriti Dhiman

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

Self-written biography of MasterChef India contestant. The article fails WP:ANYBIO. The only coverage I could find was in relation to MasterChef, in which case WP:ONEEVENT seems applicable. John B123 (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Television, and India. John B123 (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shaws username . talk . 22:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; As nominator notes, fails WP:ANYBIO. This should never have made it out of draft, but did so because the author...who is the subject of the article...made enough edits just working on this article to make it possible to move to mainspace. One might argue to draftify, but I don't think that's appropriate. I mean no disrespect to the subject of the article, but finishing 7th on a contestant show and having a few blurbs written about you because you were on the show doesn't make you famous enough for a Wikipedia article. No draft work is going to change that. All references so far provided are based on the subject's appearance on the show. There does not appear to be any notability based on anything other than their middle-of-the-field performance on the show. The claim that she opened a small bakery which became the best selling in Mandi Gobindgarh is unsupported by the citation used in association with the claim, nevermind that it would be 'best selling' in a relatively small community. There's no mention of the business at all in the citation. Overall, there's just nothing to go on here except for their appearance on the show, and that's just not enough. Maybe...MAYBE...if they won the show. But, that didn't happen. Delete. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Just not enough coverage in RS. Sources 1 and 6 are semi-reliable, the rest aren't RS per Cite Highlighter. What I find are similar articles with the same titles, indicative of press-release churnalism. Oaktree b (talk) 00:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Scrolling through all sources on the page, I find no significant coverage about this person's personal life, background and career, notable enough to warrant a page on her. Personal life segment has only one source which is an unreliable blog. There is no source on her education. What is written in the career segment does not even make parallels with the source. Most source are all about her as a contestant on MasterChef program and about the challenges she faced as contestant. RangersRus (talk) 13:43, 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 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!} 22:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jarreth Merz

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of notability under GNG or SNG. Under items listed under his "filmography" 8 have articles. Of those 8, 6 did not even mention him and two (only) included him as an item in a list. The two wiki articles under the "He is known for" statement don't even mention him. Two references have some content on him which appears to be self-description press release type wording. A third (behind a paywall) appears to be a review of "An African Election" the documentary that he made. North8000 (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The parts listed are bit parts, I don't see ACTOR as being met. I don't find any sourcing, beyond mentions in cast lists. Oaktree b (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 23 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Ali (lawyer)

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

Subject does not have the WP:SIGCOV from multiple independent sources to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, Massachusetts, and Washington, D.C.. Let'srun (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Although he is colloquially notable and has had a very successful legal career, there doesn't appear to be sufficient significant coverage at this point. Since he's currently under consideration for a District Court seat, we should draftify so this doesn't need to be completely rewritten if he's confirmed. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do not draftify: Amir Ali won major cases at the Supreme Court and was notable enough to have a Wikipedia page BEFORE he became a judicial nominee. It is counter-productive to draftify the Wikipedia page of a judicial nominee who was notable before his nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluthy (talk • contribs) 01:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because he had an article before his judicial nomination doesn't mean he was actually notable. What sources meet the WP:GNG? Let'srun (talk) 14:45, 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!} 20:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: as is the procedure for other similar articles. If he's confirmed, he'll certainly be notable enough to have an article. But there's no deadline. Marquardtika (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft: Otherwise he's a practicing lawyer. Testifying before Congress doesn't get you an article, and being a lawyer that works at the Supreme Court isn't a slam dunk either. We only have what's an extended resume at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per WP:TOOSOON and WP:HAMMER; he's not there yet. Bearian (talk) 15:21, 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 redirect‎ to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WRCZ-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 WP:SIGCOV. This survived a bulk AfD last year but that was more about other stations included than this one. Redirecting to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp. is a possibility. Let'srun (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Florida. Let'srun (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: yet another 2010s-launched DTV America/HC2/Innovate station without any—or any reason to attain—significant coverage of its own. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:21, 16 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!} 20:01, 23 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1980 Buffalo State Bengals football team

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

This team does not meet the WP:NSEASONS, having comprised an ordinary 3-3 season. Let'srun (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and New York. Let'srun (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems they were just a club team in this season? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, according to this and this they were a club football team in 1980 and moved to NCAA D-III varsity status for 1981. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 16 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!} 19:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As noted above by User:Ejgreen77, this was a "club" level team, i.e., not a varsity level school team. To my knowledge, we have no other artices on "club" level teams. Cbl62 (talk) 15:40, 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KQCT-LP

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

Subject does not have the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. PROD was declined. Let'srun (talk) 19:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Iowa. Let'srun (talk) 19:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As the creator of this article back in 2006, I can now say that this is an obvious remnant of the much looser inclusion and notability standards of 2006. (Note that I was not the contester of the PROD; I instead seconded it with the same rationale as above.) The contester suggested a redirect or merge to the list of Trinity Broadcasting Network affiliates, but that list only contains current TBN affiliates at the moment (this station was closed in 2010 by TBN and subsequently sold to another company, with seemingly-stillborn plans to relaunch it with different programming, before the license finally lapsed in 2021), so I can't exactly go along with that. (A list of former TBN translators would be much, much larger than the list of current affiliates, so it would need to be a brand-new list if it were to exist at all.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not independently notable and no workable WP:ATD identified. ~Kvng (talk) 15:20, 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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sigi Wimala

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

This page has had a single source since 2011, and contains mostly unsourced information. Sciencefish (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Beauty pageants, Fashion, and Indonesia. Skynxnex (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fairly meets WP:NACTOR with significant roles in multiple notable films.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:07, 9 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) 18:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, also id:Sigi_Wimala seems to have some extra sources and content, which might be possible to be used from someone who knows the language. --Konstantina07 (talk) 18:04, 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!} 19:54, 23 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) 21:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Owens (dog trainer)

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

WP:BLP of a dog trainer and author, not properly sourced as meeting inclusion criteria. The only notability claim on offer here is that his book exists, which isn't automatically enough in the absence of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about it -- but the only "references" present here are directly affiliated primary sources that are not support for notability, with absolutely no evidence of GNG-worthy coverage shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent or reliable sources. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - WP:BLP without any reliable sources; run of the mill author. Bearian (talk) 15:22, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yamara López

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. No indication of notability. JTtheOG (talk) 19:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Cuba. JTtheOG (talk) 19:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:37, 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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shabbethai Panzieri

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

Only ref on the page is a very old Jewish encyclopedia. Nothing much else found, little reason to think this is a notable person other than presence in another encyclopedia. JMWt (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Italy. JMWt (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The encyclopedia entry is a good sign for notability, and it looks like it cites several non-English sources; at minimum those should be checked for coverage. Having this much information on someone from the seventeenth century usually suggests notability, and it's not surprising that there aren't a ton of sources in English available online.— Moriwen (talk) 22:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The fact that it's in the Jewish Encyclopedia is sufficient to establish notability, as is inclusion in *any* reliable encyclopedia. There is an entire wikiproject devoted to creating articles based on this sole criterion. The fact that the encyclopedia is "very old" is the reddest of herrings. After all, WP:NTEMP. The linked JE article has plenty of sources, as Moriwen notes. Central and Adams (talk) 23:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is demonstrated based on the encyclopedia source provided. It does not decline over time nor does the value of the "very old Jewish encyclopedia" as a source. The article for Joseph Fiametta, which is interconnected with this one, provides an example of how additional sources should be added here. Alansohn (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Inclusion of a topic in a scholarly encyclopedia is prima facie evidence of notability. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per above, being in a known encyclopedia meets WP:GNG. She was ^afairy 02:57, 1 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!} 23:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Third Vote

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

This is not a notable concept. The sourcing in the article appears to be diverse from a first glance, but upon a closer examination it's clear that the only sources tied to one person actually talk about 'Third Vote'. The rest of the sources are inserted into the article in a WP:SYNTH fashion. For example, the first citation in the article suggests that the journal 'Electoral Studies' covers the topic of the article, but it does not mention 'Third Vote' anywhere. This article appears to have been created by a WP:COI account who is refspamming one person's (Andranik Tangian) work across Wikipedia. Thenightaway (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SOAP and WP:SIGCOV. Advocacy is the opposite of an encyclopedia. Some articles, but they are primary for the most part. Bearian (talk) 15:24, 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 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!} 00:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Constance Dima

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

She doesn't appear to meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG, or have a good WP:ATD. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think she is probably notable but the article is unsourced and there is no clear indication of signifance. But anybody who writes and translates essays, plays, literature and poetry and has a series of published poetry books is generally notable. These types of folk are generally notable. They are academics but not always. This individual is a school teacher. It needs a real expert to work on the article, who understands the language. scope_creep^Talk 14:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The press section of her personal website is not looking very promising. Seems mostly to be Facebook posts, personal emails, and blog posts. Jfire (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I looked for reviews of her novel in Greek and French and only found database entries and sales websites. Normally having a novel translated into a foreign language is a good indicator of notability, but the BNF does not record a translator in the cat entry ([4]), so I think she may have translated it herself. scope_creep has the right idea but I think we might be stuck with this one. Haven't tried the poetry books. -- asilvering (talk) 00:53, 23 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!} 18:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No book reviews in French, I don't see much of anything we'd use for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be an old SPA-created vanity or fanpage. 128.252.172.14 (talk) 22:03, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohsinwal railway station

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

No refs on the page for many years. Does not appear to be a way to verify the information on the page, although I do not read Urdu. JMWt (talk) 09:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Pakistan. JMWt (talk) 09:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - When I created this page, I entered the official website link. I added that back. There are two more reference links.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are already 2 newspaper references there at the article that work fine (they are In Urdu language, though). In my view, they are enough to prove the railway station exists...Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ameen Akbar. The articles found by Ameen Akbar are enough to meet WP:GNG. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 22:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Karachi–Peshawar Line. The references provided by Ameen Akbar do not come close to showing a WP:GNG pass for this article. Non-notable stations are typically redirected to the article on the line they're on. -- asilvering (talk) 01:17, 23 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!} 18:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ngrewal1 and Ameen Akbar work. Passes WP:GNG. 105.100.146.108 (talk) 20:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)— 105.100.146.108 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Urdu newspapers have covered this important topic. 103.148.128.211 (talk) 09:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)— 103.148.128.211 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the apparently gng-fulfilling coverage everyone is !voting keep on (via google translate):

Mohsinwal station will be closed and another station Rajput Nagar will also be closed for trial in next 10 days
Established since 1903, the railway station Mohsin Wal has finally been closed, the work of removing all the controlling equipment has been started. The closure of the stations has been started, in this series the work of controlling the loop lines inside and outside the railway station and removing the wireless equipment has started, in this series the loop lines were removed and the main lines were directed. Mohsinwal Railway Station was established one hundred and fourteen years ago, at that time it was named Harihar Railway Station as compared to Mouza Harihar, after a while Talamba Railway Station was named as compared to the nearby famous town of Talamba. In 1923, the Indian Railways planned a locomotive workshop here, for which six square meters of land was dedicated by the local Brahmin landowner Sajan Singh, therefore the British government renamed this station as Kot Sajan Singh. In the movement to give Islamic names to various places, this place also came under his influence, and thus it was named Mohsin Wal.
That's all. -- asilvering (talk) 15:21, 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 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!} 00:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nonfiction (band)

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

Completely unsourced article about a band, not making any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The only notability claims being attempted here are (a) that one song was a "modest commercial success" in unspecified ways, which isn't an instant notability pass if you can't quantify and properly reference a specific Billboard chart placement, and (b) having had two independently notable members, except that even one of those two members has been flagged for notability concerns since 2016 due to poor sourcing of his own, and the other one probably should have been because he's not actually citing adequate sourcing to genuinely demonstrate standalone notability independent of any of his bands either. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to have any referencing, and the article's been tagged for lacking sources since 2008 without ever having any sources added. Bearcat (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, California, and Michigan. Bearcat (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This is an unsourced WP:BLP. This band is one of hundreds with one hit of moderate success. In 2024, everyone knows we are not MySpace. There's not zero sources; see this interview, but interviews don't contributed to prove notability as we use significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. I would not oppose sending it to draft space as WP:TOOSOON or if someone can find better sources, of changing my mind. Bearian (talk) 20:48, 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 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.

This AFD was not set up properly. Bots had to tag the article with an AFD tag and post a notice on the article creator's talk page. The nominator is encouraged to review instructionst at WP:AFD before considering any future deletion nominations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maulvi family

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

Mostly a vanity page, pretty much no notability of the family and none of the individuals have their own wiki article. Nothing found to support notability claims and the article itself includes references which make no mention of this family. Individual members may be notable but not the family. As per WP:BIOFAMILY, notability of even one person is not sufficient for the entire family being notable. Jaunpurzada (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh and India. Jaunpurzada (talk) 16:58, 23 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 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Evaluation of references shows that not only they are unreliable but also unverifiable. There is no significant coverage about the family in reliable sources to contemplate notability. RangersRus (talk) 20:02, 23 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!} 00:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Evening Show

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

Doesn't meet WP:N, no suitable WP:ATD. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully this can now be resolved. Boleyn (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:48, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can't find much about it. Rare situation where a Korea-related article should be searched about in English. Found these two articles [5][6] but that's hardly significant coverage imo. toobigtokale (talk) 09:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 02:13, 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 merge‎ to G.I. Joe Team. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Pit (G.I. Joe)

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

The subject is not discussed outside of G. I. Joe publications except for a few mere mentions. Efforts to redirect this have failed. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Military. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to G.I. Joe Team, which from the page history, I see had been attempted prior to this AFD. The current article is completely made up of in-universe plot information, with the only sources being used being issues of comic books. And searches show that this is not a topic that could actually be expanded to anything beyond that. Outside of obviously unreliable sources, I'm only finding the most trivial mentions of The Pit that do nothing more than confirm that yes, it was the name of the Joe's headquarters in some of the continuities. It is in no way close to being notable enough for an independent article. Rorshacma (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Cool toy, not notable outside of the context of G.I. Joe though. Leaning delete because this has already been redirected and reverted 3 times so I doubt a redirection would stick. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am the one who redirected all those G.I. Joe articles. Yes, I did get blocked for it, but it was because most of them have the same problem as The Pit. 2605:B40:13E7:F600:949F:C33D:7BD5:A7CC (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if more sources are found, otherwise I am fine with a merge to G.I. Joe Team. BOZ (talk) 07:00, 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adverse vaccine reactions in pets

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

From a discussion at WP:FTN, appears to be a WP:POVFORK of vaccination of dogs and feline vaccination. Adverse reactions, such as they are, can be decently discussed in those articles. To be sure, the dogs and cats compilation here is something of a WP:POVPUSH by the article writer who seemed to have written the article with the express purpose of pushing a POV opposed to vaccination of pets generally. jps (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Medicine. jps (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per what I said at FTN: It looks like all the sources deal with cats or dogs separately (not "pets"), and we already have articles about vaccination of dogs and feline vaccination (where the creator of this page has added a lot of the same content already). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is such a WP:POVFORK with the same information from the above articles. I see no point to having the adverse affects of pet vaccinations, which differ per species, all in one article. Conyo14 (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support article has guidebook/POV sections as well as uncited sections. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's not entirely bad, but everyone knows in 2024 that we don't make separate articles that synthesizes data and research. Bearian (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A POV content fork. Owen× ☎ 00:14, 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 Trainwreck‎ on several counts. It is no longer red links, which solves to the nom's primary concern as well as the inhibited search issue. Issues of hijacking in 2018 by an IP or currently by a named editor, cannot be solved via AfD. If an additional DAB page or section of this one is needed, it can be created. If this needs to come back here, suggest conduct issues are resolved elsewhere first Star Mississippi 01:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trenkwalder

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

It makes no sense to have a disambiguation page of red links. Without a notable entity of this name, the article should be deleted. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris troutman: This page is an anthroponymy SIA as opposed to a dab: see WP:SIANOTDAB. There are actually many SIAs without a blue link entry, such as Feraye (name) and Aziory. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Except when it was Special:Permalink/801021320. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 16:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Does it matter? The promotional article has already been overwritten by a dab (which I later converted to a SIA) since 2018. If necessary, just split the history from the current article. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, because the administrator deletion tool deletes an entire edit history not an article title. Uncle G (talk) 08:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @NmWTfs85lXusaybq: Thanks for pointing that out because I've been here ten years and never saw WP:SIA. The subject still isn't notable, and the entries in de-wiki are themselves probably not notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment, (1) this article was hijacked from being an article about a company, to which an IP editor took objection, and who converted it into this rather strange list; (2) it doesn't qualify as a SIA as there is no special notability in the set of people sharing this particular name. In fact it's very rare for a family name to have set-notability unless the people who share the name are related, and a sufficient number of them are individually wiki-notable for people to want to write about them; the whole concept of SIA's doesn't really help family-name articles; (3) and it's all the wrong way round. Actually I think there's a chance some of these individuals are wikinotable, and this could be a reasonable DAB page, but we write the articles first, and the DAB pages afterwards. So at the moment, as a DAB page I'd delete it, but are we happy to ignore its history as a genuine article about a largish company that clearly exists/existed? Which article are we truly aiming to delete, here? One option might be to restore it as an article about the company, possibly moving to a different title, and permit the recreation of a DAB page if anyone cares to translate the DE articles about the various people of this name. Elemimele (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For a fair discussion about this page, I restored the original dab-page as it was before being redirected and slashed. The Banner talk 16:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trenkwalder seems to have been bought out by the Droege group, for which there's a German wikipedia article,[7] but we don't have one as a redirect target. We do have an article about Droege's founder, Walter Droege. Elemimele (talk) 17:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I have again restored the original disambiguation page and reverted hijacking the page by user:NmWTfs85lXusaybq. He seems very persistent in his attempt to destroy this page. The Banner talk 17:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article about the company is the original one and got hijacked by a dab. Just keep it as it was when the AfD started or restore it to the original one. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Out of our hands now; I guess you should have left well-enough alone. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Austria. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 17:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, this is ridiculous; we can't discuss a moving target. Here is my !vote for the admin who closes this: Restore original version of this article and move to Trenkwalder Group AG, and delete this DAB page (as it's not a SIA), unless sufficient genuine Trenkwalder articles emerge to justify a genuine DAB. As I write, there are only two links, one of which is tenuous. It is conceivable that there are other notable Trenkwalders based on the German Wikipedia, but we don't seem to have the articles to disambiguate here, yet. Elemimele (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - So, we had a redirect that was nominated for deletion and after an alternative was offered that RfD was closed as a "procedural close" (what IMHO was incorrect, as the nomination was withdrawn by the nominator). Then we got a slashed version of the original dab-page, what I corrected to the original dab-page (i.e. the version that got redirected), then an article of a company showed up, then the original dab, then the slashed dab again. What are we now discussing in this AfD? The Banner talk 22:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - - As a point of order which doesn't really help, I was the RfD nominator and I did not withdraw the nomination. It's here: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 23#Trenkwalder. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Given the nature of the deletion tool, I'd say the question is: Is there anything in this edit history, any form of this article, that we want and can justify per policy? Is the company notable? Is the list of people with this surname, and potential translations from the German Wikipedia, at various points also including a redlink for the very same company bizarrely inviting editors to write the original article all over again, suitable? 90.253.253.200 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has given us an utter mess of an edit history, to sort out whether and what part of we want. Uncle G (talk) 08:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no version of a disambiguation page that is better than nothing at all because any such page would inhibit Search. Which was precisely the point of the RfD before it was prematurely closed. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the 17 Sept 2017 version article about the company which was overwritten by IP in 2018, and upgrade it with sources from the de:wiki article de:Trenkwalder_Group and/or de:Trenkwalder Personaldienste (they seem to be nominated to be merged), with a hatnote to Hubert Trenkwalder who seems to be the only surname-holder in en.wiki ... ah, there are 4 football clubs for whom Trenkwalder would be a valid dab page entry (the company seems to have sponsored several), so perhaps a new dab page is needed. A dab page is needed, to include: Trenkwalder Reggio Emilia, Trenkwalder Reggio Emilia, Trenkwalder Admira Amateure and SK Schwadorf, either explicitly or as an "in-title" See Also link. PamD 12:30, 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 keep‎. In this dense thicket of comments, I see a consensus to Keep this article among discussion participants. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Association for Research into Crimes against Art

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

Non notable organization. Can't find any significant coverage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Organizations. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed, I cannot find any reliable sources when I do a detailed search. Maybe worth mentioning in another article but definitely does not need an article of its own. Endersslay (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please check the updated article. I have cited some 54 links to ARCA's work at this time. Many of the governmental and nongovernmental institutions, as well as mainstream newspapers and art-related publications. I am a bit puzzled that you could not find any reliable sources. I hope the ones I have added suffice. Avignonesi Avignonesi (talk) 11:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Avignonesi, replying to you here since the threads are getting mixed up. Sources that mention an article subject in passing are generally not sufficient to establish notability. See WP:SIGCOV and, for pages of this type, Wikipedia:SIRS, on the standards by which we evaluate this. Despite the new sources you've added, the problems raised in our longer thread below (most are primary or cursory mentions) remain in my view. As such, most of the substance of the article is not a synthesis of in-depth secondary sources, but rather original research. See Wikipedia:NOR. Arcendeight (talk) 14:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting I have just edited my typo "threats" to "threads." Apologies! Arcendeight (talk) 14:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree for similar reasons. Just carried out my own search and pulled up very little usable material. Also looked into alternative places to mention the subject, but none of the organizations or individuals mentioned has its own article. Arcendeight (talk) 14:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that ARCA works with relevant law enforcement agencies in Europe, the United States, and the UK, many of which intentionally have a smaller electronic "footprint" by choice or who would require layers of permissions to authorise having their names used. This should not reflect negatively on the CSO or its work mission, but rather speaks to the discretion required when working in the crime prevention and intelligence gathering arena. Avignonesi (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take another look and change my vote if convinced, but I would emphasize that our standards for notable coverage don't make exceptions for supposedly secret or discreet activities. I'm not sure what you mean by CSO in your preceding mission. Is this another name for the ARCA? I don't see the acronym anywhere in the article.

Separately, I'm not convinced much of the content in the article is particularly notable. For example, that an affiliated researcher has been appointed to a position at the British Museum doesn't mean much; I would find that much more notable if there was an official partnership between the ARCA and the British Museum. Also 3/11 paragraphs in this article are about one sentence in a Dan Brown novel mentioning the ARCA.

In any case, I'll look into the sources added and consider changing my vote, but as it stands, even if the article is kept, I think much of this content should go. In the meantime, I'll do some copy-editing as its not in a great state. Arcendeight (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On further consideration, I'm sticking to my original position. I further note that most of the sources included do not meet the criteria in WP:SIRS. By my count, only ~7 of 17 sources are secondary, the rest are used as primary sources. And several of these secondary sources don't stand for the propositions they're provided for. Two, for example, are about the Lot 448 film, but neither of the two mentions any tie between the film and ARCA. This does not count as significant coverage, which I think is really the crux of the issue: ARCA is, charitably, mentioned briefly only in a few secondary sources. By way of further example, the whole anecdote about the quotation in the Dan Brown book is only cited with reference to a blog post that does not contain the text the article claims it does! Arcendeight (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Arcendeight, I continue to disagree with/oppose this article's deletion though perhaps, earlier, it did need a significant update. In hopes that you will change your opinion, I will start this discussion explaining what a CSO is civil society organization using wikipedia's own entry for such organisation types. I have also added this to the article for clarification in case others are similarly stumped. ARCA has been in existence, providing expertise it its field since 2009. CSO is a term which is fairly common in United Nations circles and given there are articles describing them I thought it was already clear. Hope my change has rectified that. My apologies in advance as I assumed if you were editing/following this page, you yourself worked in Civil Society circles or in the fields of Law or not-for-profits. In the US, UK, and EU there are different categories for not for profit and they are divided into the types of "causes" and memberships they represent and in the US also according to tax status. ARCA is a CSO via European Union standards. Now on to the tough stuff, I've added significantly more citations using primary and secondary sources. They are in fact out there and available, if one knows where to look. Since that too may not have been clear, I have probably overcited, in hopes to put this to rest. I am happy to edit this page further to make it compliant with what you are looking for, though I do think the article now qualifies as being encyclopedic as well as verifiable and Notable given that significant coverage of ARCA's work and activities sited in this article are backed up and cited in reliable professional and media sources.

ARCA's been around and working on cultural property issues and crimes for more than a decade and has trained heritage professionals working in more than 40 countries. While small, it does important work and it is recognised by government institutions like the United Nations, UNESCO, Europol, Interpol and most countries with art and antiquities crime investigation units.

To link to some of its more public work, which I have cited and linked a PDF to ARCA's CEO was invited in official partnership to the British Museum's task force on this theft which involves more than 2000 objects from their collection. This is a select committee where ARCA's representative, Lynda Albertson, is only of just two of the 13 members appointed to the task force which have been publicly named. The other being James Ratcliff from the Art Loss Register. We cited this partnership as it is one of the few we are not judicially barred from discussing.

Albertson is also the individual whose work with ARCA is highlighted in the film Lot 448 which was a Tribeca Film Festival documentary entry. The film mentions ARCA both in the filming sequences, as well as in its credits. I've added a second film credit, both of which are in IMDB for verification.

As for the Dan Brown mention, I agree it is dated, and if it needs to go, I have no problems with it being deleted however it is verifiable that the organisation is cited in Brown's book, and the reference material he used was extracted from the blog article referenced.

If you tell me what else this article lacks or needs, I'd be happy to try and see if I can find the requested data, but I don't think this page is is violation of wikipedia's focus on encyclopedic articles, or at least any longer. Avignonesi (talk) 04:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose/Keep. I respectfully disagree. I was quickly able to find relevant links to important organisations who have worked with and cited the civil society's work including, UNESCO, UNIDROIT, and a European Commission funded project which substantiate this organisation's role in the art and antiquities crime area and therefore as a relevant entry to Wikipedia. I also note a recent documentary film, entered into the Tribeca film festival in 2021 which also highlighted the work this organisation has done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avignonesi (talk • contribs) 17:34, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no significant coverage from secondary sources. There are brief passing mentions, but that doesn't help the case for notability PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, mentions overwhelmingly fail to meet WP:SIGCOV. As such, most of the article is OR. Arcendeight (talk) 13:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to state for the record that I have made no threats, and I would appreciate it if the editor named "Arcendeight" would edit his/her comment for clarity. I believe they may have meant to use the word "threads" ,as threats implies malicious behavior, but given they used the word "threats" twice in their Talk rebuttal, I would appreciate it if they would clarify their statements or lined through them acknowledging to the Wikipedia administrators reviewing this page for possible deletion, that there has been no such activity on my part.

Nota Bene:

I would be remiss if I did not add that it has not gone unnoticed, that the most vocal of the editors marking this article as AfD, "Arcendeight", previously reversed edits I made, in relation to a more contentious entry to an article regarding a living person which related to the subject's editorial decisions regarding the nonpublication of an article on the topic of genocide in relation to the current Isreali war on Palestine. While I disagreed with the revert. I removed myself from that article's editing in order to not engage in controversy.

Shortly after that, and apparently following the articles I have edited to the one on the Association for Research into Crimes against Art Wikipedia article, this same editor has now voted in favor of AfD. This is unsettling considering the probability of one single Wikipedia editor electing to edit two unrelated articles I have edited, out of the 6,781,369 articles listed on Wikipedia (as of February 2024) seems more than tangentially coincidental, especially given the fact that I had bowed out of editing the page where we had previously had opposing viewpoints.

Despite my concerns regarding this "follow" and in the spirit of moving forward and working to correct very real deficits to this previously quite stale article over the course of several days, in the spirit of collaboration I have done the following.

I have (again) reviewed Wikipedia:Notability which discusses that a article's entity must be verifiable and that it must have significant coverage in reliable sources which are more than a trivial mention, but do not need to be the main topic of the source material. I have also reviewed Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) which states that a company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

While I believe that this was already concretized with the edits I made to this article earlier this week, which included the addition of more than 60 primary and secondary source citations, including the Association for Research into Crimes against Art being cited in newspaper articles, journal articles, and high level institutional acknowledgements of the Association's work coming from UNESCO, UNIDROIT, ICOM, I would still like to try to further address the editors, who are in favour of the deletion of this article, concerns. Bearing in mind that they have said they "cannot find any reliable sources when I do a detailed search" and "Just carried out my own search and pulled up very little usable material."

Here is the listing of even more citations which meet the secondary source criteria which I have now added to this article. For clarity, I have listed the topic areas where I have inserted these additional citations and am happy to move them elsewhere if the editors believe they would be better positioned someplace else in the article.

ARCA's founding, listing as a nonprofit CSO and information about its work mission, are detailed in these secondary source books and conference papers. In addition I have listed a few secondary source journal articles.

Hufnagel, Saskia, and Duncan Chappell, eds. The palgrave handbook on art crime. Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2019.

Van Herzeele, Richard. "16 Connecting the dots." Global Perspectives on Cultural Property Crime (2022): 220.

Christofoletti, Rodrigo. "Three Themes in Transition: Soft Power, Illicit Trafficking in Cultural Goods, and the Cartography of World Heritage Sites." International Relations and Heritage: Patchwork in Times of Plurality. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2021. 263-284.

Christofoletti, Rodrigo. "Two Sides of the Same Coin: Illicit Trafficking of Cultural Goods and Repatriation Toward a New Relational Ethics." Soft Power and Heritage. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2023. 261-279.

Massih, Jeanine Abdul, and Shinichi Nishiyama. "Final Conclusions and Remarks." Archaeological Explorations in Syria 2000-2011: Proceedings of ISCACH-Beirut 2015 (2018): 449.

Bruinsma, Gerben, ed. Histories of transnational crime. Vol. 9. New York: Springer, 2015.

ARCA's work and members research in capacity building, art crime during conflict, and the recovery of illicit antiquities is highlighted in these secondary source journal articles, conference papers, and book.

Hardy, Samuel Andrew. "Criminal money and antiquities: An open source investigation into transnational organized cultural property crime." (2020): 154-167.

Tsirogiannis, Christos. "Mapping the supply: usual suspects and identified antiquities in ‘reputable’auction houses in 2013." Cuadernos de Prehistoria y Arqueología de la Universidad de Granada 25 (2015): 107-144.

Sulistyo, Iwan, et al. "A Review Towards Global Crime Governance in Overcoming Trafficking in Cultural Property." 3rd Universitas Lampung International Conference on Social Sciences (ULICoSS 2022). Atlantis Press, 2023.

Guss, Aleksandra. ‘Międzynarodowa Konferencja„Konwencja UNIDROIT z 1995 r.’ Gdańskie Studia Prawnicze II, no. 50 (2021): 293–99.

Simone, Cristina, Mara Cerquetti, and Antonio La Sala. "Museums in the Infosphere: Reshaping value creation." Museum Management and Curatorship 36.4 (2021): 322-341.

Di Paola, F., Giuseppe Milazzo, and Francesca Spatafora. "Computer aided restoration tools to assist the conservation of an ancient sculpture. The colossal statue of Zeus enthroned." The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences 42 (2017): 177-184.

Amore, Anthony M., and Tom Mashberg. Stealing Rembrandts: The untold stories of notorious art heists. St. Martin's Press, 2011.

ARCA's professional training initiatives are outlined in this journal article and book.

BARTLEY, JANE E., et al. "Accessing Continuing Education for Provenance Research." 16th Annual Society of American Archivists (SAA) Research Forum Proceedings. Chicago, IL: SAA. Retrieved from https://www2. archivists. org/am2022/research-forum-2022/agenda# peer Brummer Gallery Records.(2022) N. Vol. 1147. 2023.

Herman, Alexander. "Plundering Beauty: A History of Art Crime during War." Art Antiquity & Law 25.1 (2020): 93-98.

Huffer, Damien, et al. "From the Ground, Up: The Looting of Vưườn Chuối within the Vietnamese and Southeast Asian Antiquities Trade." public archaeology 14.4 (2015): 224-239.

Confirmation of ARCA's annual conference can be found in this secondary source book and two secondary (magazine) sources.

Rush, Laurie Watson, and Luisa Benedettini Millington. The Carabinieri command for the protection of cultural property: saving the world's heritage. Vol. 17. Boydell & Brewer, 2015.

O'Byrne, Robert. "Art theft is nothing new--the 17th century saw churches across Italy robbed of their Raphaels, wrote RW Lightbown in 1963." Apollo. Vol. 181. No. 632. Apollo Magazine Ltd., 2015.

Abungu, George Okello. "Museums: geopolitics, decolonisation, globalisation and migration." Museum International 71.1-2 (2019): 62-71.

The point now being, that I think this article demonstrates sufficient evidence, but has an excess of reliable sources (some 70 in total) which document, in overkill, the subject's significant coverage instead of a lack of documented noteworthiness, or lack of documented reliable sources independent of the article's subject.

Especially when I look at other Civil Society Organisation articles within Wikipedia that are themselves not up for AfD and are similarly well cited. I might also add that there are other extremely poorly documented societies, organizations, activist groups, etc., which have not been well documented as being noteworthy who have not been stubbed AfD.

In conclusion, I am happy to edit out the superfluous, or if the other editors prefer to do so they have the liberty to do so themselves and I think I have provided them with sufficient material to vet what they feel gets the job done.

I'd also like to stress is that this is not a static page marked for Afd where the original creating editors have no investment in fixing the problem. One can see by the number of edits, that I am actively trying to improve the articles deficits, now that said deficits have been brought to my attention. I believe in doing so, this article adheres to and complies with (current) Wikipedia's standards. I could use tightening, and I can ask another editor to do so, but I did not want to wade into the vote matching approach to addressing this via the AfD talk but rather where edits normally occur, in furtherance of improving articles themselves. avignonesi (talk) 09:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3 sources that are 1) reliable 2) independent of the subject 3) significant and not passing coverage are better than 70 one line mentions. From a look over the sources you have added there are none that are all three of those things. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment Parakanyaa, if you can please select the three out of the 70 you feel meet the standards, given that you have read all the new additions in the 2 hours and 16 mins since I posted, I would be pleased to know which meet your standards. But to say that all 70 are passing mention only is categorically inaccurate. avignonesi (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The onus is on you as the person who provided them. I checked several and they all seemed to fail. Feel free to provide three that qualify. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PARAKANYAA, Early in my edits made this weeks to rectify problems on this page resulted in me deleting links and citations which didn't pass the 1-2-3 criteria you mention. All citations that are embedded now are:

1) reliable (most being academic sources, primary news sources, or publications from academic presses.

2) independent of the subject at the time the articles, books or conference papers were written, (though for transparency, three authors have been affiliated with the organisation AFTER the writing of the article or book indicated.

3) significant and not passing coverage. They speak to the Association's activities, its formation, its assistance in the recovery of looted and stolen art in the United States and the UK, and to it being called upon to comment on, or research, art and antiquities related crimes based upon its expertise.

Additionally, since 2010, this organisation has been noteworthy enough to annually draw conference attendees from around the world who attend ARCA art crime conference and have objectively written so in articles I've cited. Photos of these events showing 90-100 attendees are available on the association's own social media pages which I did not link to as they would be self referential.

Lastly since 2020 ARCA has been consulted upon and filmed regarding their work in investigations in two documentaries, both of which I have included and cited, one produced and paid for by SkyArts, a not insignificant channel, and the other sponsored by the jewellery company BVLGARI using an award winning director, as their entry into the Tribeca film festival. It doesn't make sense that a major Italian firm would sponsor an organisation that didn't hold standing in the field, nor would SkyArts waste valuable airtime approving a documentary which is/was viewable on their UK and Italian channels, which doesn't hold their viewers interest.

Respectfully, I think it is safe for now to say that we simply disagree. avignonesi (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All you've done is WP:REFBOMB this article in an effort to save it. That is not a winning tactic. If you show me three of the many, many sources you've added that fulfill all three of what I mentioned above, then sure, but what you have provided is not a valid reason to keep the article. We can't keep it just because it's important, somehow, if there is not significant coverage to back up that fact. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have already agreed that the total number of citation is in excess and have specifically asked for the dissenting editors assistance on which to keep and which to omit, moreover, because the distinction between primary and secondary sources is subjective and contextual, as Wikipedia itself states. To wit, I asked @PARAKANYAA for his assistance, which he declined. I was simply asking for constructive feedback from the editors in favor of the AfD to select which they felt provided the clearest examples of citations within Wikipedia's current standards for inclusion, especially in light of the fact that they felt this article should be removed.

I state on this record however that my "citation overkill" was done in part to highlight the fact that @PARAKANYAA claimed he could not find any significant coverage on the subject of this article and @Endersslay stated they too could not find any reliable sources when they did a detailed search.

The fact that I found so many, I think shows I have an interest in not only preserving the article, but underscoring that the other two editors are perhaps less well versed in the subject matter. If I am wrong, I ask them in the spirit of collaboration to please feel free to provide me with a counter viewpoint.

All that said, I categorically affirm that the citations added were not inserted to shore up my point, in contrast they were added to underscore the ease of which I found secondary sources documenting this organisation and to also underline the notability of the subject. My intent was for the opposing editors to take the time to read the linked existing legitimate sources to end this dispute, and knowing some are paywalled or are found in expensive academic books, I thought it best to make the list as comprehensive as possible and to then whittle that list back collaboratively.

While I have (repeatedly) stated that I am aware of the citation clutter, I have also (repeatedly) requested the opposing editors decide for themselves what they themselves want to see as a "legitimate source" given they are the ones voting in favour of AfD.

@PARAKANYAA said the onus is on me, but I am not in favor of deletion, so therefore I am not in a position to decide what he thinks does or does meet his standard. And as I perfectly know that no one knows everything or about the existence of everything. A subject's existence need not be known about by most people in order to qualify for an article. Some obscure physics and philosophy concepts are only known to a handful of scholars, but since these concepts are described by a number of reliable sources, Wikipedia elects to have articles about them. The study of art and antiquities crime should be no different.

With that in mind,

Here are not three but five select group citations. I have more than three as these are available to all editors as they are all open source whereas others are not.

Citation 6

Hufnagel, Saskia, ed. (2019). The Palgrave Handbook on Art Crime. published by Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-1137544049. The editors of this book state who Noah Charney is and that he is the founder of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art. They also state that he serves as the editor-in-chief of The Journal of Art Crime, the first peer-reviewed academic journal in the field and confirm the organisation's website.

Citation 13

ARCA is acknowledged for its research by the International Council of Museums' - ICOM) International Observatory on Illicit Traffic in Cultural Goods. ICOM is an organisation made up of 45,000 members representing museums and museum employees in 138 countries. The ICOM observatory's citation reinforces that ARCA is part of a important network of international partners including international organisations, law enforcement agencies, research institutions and external expert stakeholders working in the field of illicit trafficking as it relates to cultural property which museum professionals can turn to.

Citation 42

ARCA is cited within the framework of the UNESCO 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, and as a direct partner with UNESCO providing training in conflict and post conflict middle eastern countries. This citation clear shows that ARCA conducted this training, funded through UNESCO's Heritage Emergency Fund. As an added confirmation UNIDROIT mentions this training and photographs ARCA's CEO one one of the days of the training alongside a poster of the training session which has ARCA's logo clearly displayed alongside UNESCO's and UNIDROIT. https://www.unidroit.org/training-program-for-specialist-working-to-deter-cultural-property-theft-and-the-illicit-trafficking-of-antiquities/

Citation 53

In the open source court filings for the State of New York against Michael Steinhardt, Assistant District Attorney Matthew Bogdanos speaks to the fact that Ms. Albertson directs ARCA, an initiative to promote the study and research of art crime and cultural heritage protection and that in this role ARCA compiles dossiers on international trafficking networks and liaises with law enforcement globally.

Citation 55

ARCA was invited to UNESCO's Paris Headquarters as part of a Category 6 expert committee, aimed at reinforcing due diligence conducted in the European art trade while sensitising relevant stakeholders to the different implications of illicit trafficking of cultural property. This is confirmed by the PDF document which shows that Ms. Albertson gave a presentation right after the opening remarks in which she provided the attendees with an overview of the European art market and its role in the illicit trafficking of cultural property.

Thank you for your time. avignonesi (talk) 13:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent that you seem to allege bad faith, @Avignonesi, I categorically deny that. I edit regularly from my watchlist as you can see on my userpage. Your talk page is on my watchlist precisely because, when I reverted your edit a month ago, I posted a message there in order to explain my reasoning. As such, the AfD notification and subsequent CS1 error messages are on my watchlist. I apologize for any stress this perceived "follow," as you put it, may have caused. In any case, that is irrelevant to the substance of this discussion and my views are clear above, so I will bow out. Should you wish to discuss this further, I think my talk page or yours would be a more appropriate place so as not to clutter the AfD for the purpose of determining consensus. Warmly Arcendeight (talk) 14:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, easily meets GNG per sources existing and added. There seems to be a complaint about sourcing, with a call for "3, only 3". The first one I clicked on seems notable, so let's go one by one. Here's the first, from the Yale Daily News. Anything wrong with that one? Randy Kryn (talk) 13:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for contributing to this discussion and I agree this one is ok @Randy Kryn. I am not sure why the previous editors are asking me to justify with only three citations but I am trying to get this review for deletion rectified.

What do you think about the other five citations that I posted above? I tried to select from extremely reputable international sources that I truly hope won't be contestable. avignonesi (talk) 09:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't interviews not count for notability? PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PARAKANYAA Having read interviews, I would agree with you that the Yake citation is Primary as per wikipedia's notations. So I have removed it, also because there were sufficient others which confirm the same details. That leaves 70 others if you want to go through these one by one. My suggestion is to look to the five I listed above as they assuredly meet your

Citations 6, 13, 42, 53, 55. I specifically asked that these be reviewed as I am sure these in particular (and many others) meet the 1) reliable 2) independent of the subject 3) significant and not passing coverage criteria for justifying this articles presence within Wikipedia.

I listed these as I did not want to slow you down with your review process with links that are paywalled or books you might not have access to unless you are able to visit important art historical libraries. avignonesi (talk) 14:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Citation 53: court filings do not count for notability

Citation 55: being listed in a document with no commentary or discussion does not count for notability

Citation 6 has them citing ARCA but no actual discussion of the organization.

Citation 13 is just a listing of their resources (primary?)

Citation 42, they're mentioned briefly but little to no discussion on them, this one is closer though

None of these count. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would interviews not count for notability? The Yale Daily News is a reputable newspaper and (at least in the old bygone days) journalists usually check for accuracy and would be questioning the existence and importance of this organization if the data was inaccurate. The nomination states that no significant coverage exists, but it seems obvious from the added sources that it does. Why not just close the nom, or does the nominator still think that sources don't exist? Randy Kryn

Read WP:Interviews. Essay not policy of course, but still. Good for facts but getting interviewed by a reliable source doesn't make one notable. Yes, they exist, they're not a hoax, sources exist, but not ones showing significant coverage PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An opinion essay. Please be aware of how journalism works (or used to). Journalists check, then double-check, sources, and clarify all statements to the best of their ability. Interviews are usually secondary sources, not primary, and individuals or facts used in interviews are then vetted, analyzed, and either passed as correct or the article or interview is scrapped. The opinion essay may not take the process of journalism into account. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are inherently primary as they are not independent from the subject, and therefore cannot count for notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read my comment above? Primary means the topic subject is writing about itself with no review or vetting being done. An interview of the subject or someone associated with the subject then falls under fact-checking and normal journalistic methods. Journalism 101. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The interview with the person who runs the organization is obviously not independent of the organization. All mentions of ARCA in that interview are from the founder of the organization - no journalism involved. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PARAKANYAA, you're wrong. Interviews are not inherently primary. Also, Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent. If the local radio station interviews a historian about local history, then that doesn't make the historian non-independent of the subject of the interview (which is local history, not the expert).

Interviews can be independent or non-independent. An example of an independent interview is when the interviewer is a journalist, the interviewee is a historian, and the subject of the interview is a piece of history that the interviewee had nothing to do with. An example of a non-independent interview is when the interviewee is an actor, and the subject of the interview is the latest film the actor starred in.

Interviews can be primary or secondary. An example of a primary interview is when actors are asked questions about their personal experience with making their latest films. An example of a secondary interview is when the historian explains that there are two main points of view about a historical event, and that each viewpoint has different advantages or limitations.

As a mathematical likelihood, most interviews are primary and non-independent. This particularly includes nearly all interviews of celebrities and politicians. But "most" is not the same as "all". You cannot figure out whether a source is primary or independent merely by looking at whether it's an interview. You must consider whether the interviewee is talking about himself or about something else. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing Fair enough, and in future discussions I will take that into consideration.

Still, this is the entire portion about ARCA: "There was a big New York Times Magazine article about it at the same time “The Art Thief” came out, so the momentum allowed me to establish the ARCA, the Association for Research into Crimes against Art. It creates a bridge between academics and police by teaching police about art crime strategy with theory and practical knowledge." and "ARCA has established the first library with books published in the field of art crime and there are about 250 books in the collection,". He is talking about his organization. Non-independent. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the source in question is an interview, then we'd call that non-independent and primary. But if it's a normal newspaper article, and one small portion of the article quotes him, then that newspaper article is still independent overall, so Wikipedia would treat it as an independent source.

Similarly, a newspaper article might be primary or secondary; see WP:PRIMARYNEWS for more on that. I find that, over the years, editors have been quick to assume that newspaper articles are "second-hand, and therefore secondary", but even though that's the common mistake, it's also important not to go too far the other direction. If the newspaper article provides comparison, analysis, evaluation, etc., then it's secondary (according to our rules). It can be a bit complicated. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the second page source I clicked on, from UNESCO, a reputable organization. What is wrong with this one? Randy Kryn (talk) 15:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing in there that is "significant coverage" of ARCA. They are mentioned, that isn't a point for notability when there's nothing else. I will concede that is a lot better than most of these other sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article is about the collaboration event between UNESCO and the Association, everything in it concerns ARCA and UNESCO. Not understanding keeping this open, the nom has been well addressed and improvements in sources and to the page since its inception fulfill what should be the main purpose of AfD, to save articles that are savable with further effort (in this case the effort seems to have been successfully put in). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not saveable. At best there is one source that sort-of-maybe counts and nothing else. Interviews with the people who run an organization are inherently connected to that organization (therefore failing the criterion that sources be independent) and do not count for notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Journalism ethics and standards. These standards cover interviews. Interviews, if published by reputable newspapers, magazines, or hard-news television shows, are secondary sources. They are vetted. They are fact checked. As for "this is not saveable" that seems an incorrect assessment, as it has already been saved by the addition of many reputable sources (I've clicked on a couple more, the page is notable, and this discussion has become a time sink). Randy Kryn (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Not a single source I have seen seems to show this organization being notable, merely 70 very brief mentions. Notability is not inherited and someone who is in the organization mentioning the organization in an interview for two brief sentences certainly does not count. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now about 6 times larger than when nominated, on raw bytes, & seems ok. Johnbod (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod and Headbomb: This org publishes the Journal of Art Crime. It's not listed in Scopus, and I'm not sure how else to determine whether art and/or law journals might be notable. Do you have any suggestion? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, no - I don't know much about journal notability. But many notable organizations must publish non-notable journals. Johnbod (talk) 02:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have checked twenty of the references cited in this article and find them to meet the secondary citation criteria as well as the 1) reliable 2) independent of the subject 3) significant criteria. Some of the other citations are unavailable to me due to paywalls or the fact that the academic publication/book cited I do not personally own.

It is my opinion that this improved article meets the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia, however it could still use more work for smoother reading and perhaps arranging some citations in a better way and removing the redundant ones. A better alternative to deletion is to place the appropriate issue tags on the page, alerting others who read the article to the improvements that need to be made.

As it stands though it is overall a well cited article with numerous confirmatory secondary sources which I had no difficulty in confirming via open source and digital news sites.

While the subject of this article is an organisation working in a niche specialised field that may be more well known to those familiar with the fields of art historical research and art and antiquities restitution, it is no less notable than other organisations that are listed in wikipedia hyper-focused on art crime research, such as the Max Stern Art Restitution Project, or the Antiquities Coalition, India Pride Project, and others. All of whom have pages and are organisations bigger and smaller than this particular one. who have not been cited for removal and who also do equally fine work.

It is my opinion that many really good articles today started their Wiki life looking really awful. This one being 3/4th of the way to where it needs to be to be in good form. If not knowing about a subject were a good reason for deletion, we would be left with really few if any articles.

To me the article on the Association for research into Crimes against Art should be allowed to stay on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kittyroseandtheart (talk • contribs) 16:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Considering this user has never edited before today and the singular other edit is related to art forgery I assume there is a COI involved in this user's statement. Send some of those 20 references that fulfill the requirements, then. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have multiple degrees in art history and am interested in this field I have no COI. I simply started with simple things, articles on subjects I have an interest in and feel confident. If I had edited only one article on high speed trains, would you discount my opinion because I have never edited on art before? I don't think any new editor starts out editing by choosing a subject they are not interested in. I may be new to editing but not to the subject of crimes and criminals in the art world which is why I took an interest in this page, and when I saw it was up for possible deletion, I wanted to give input.

Before voicing my opinion though, I spent time reading the entire article itself before making suggestions for improvements and also verified the links in this discussion and many of the others linked in the article which were available to me. (as I already stated).

I will close with saying I understand, Wikipedia encourages editors to: Please do not bite the newcomers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers

So thanks for making this newcomer feel genuinely (un)welcome.

Happy Easter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kittyroseandtheart (talk • contribs) 23:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 14:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for clearer consensus which currently is split between HEY and delete, as the newly added references might not satisfy SIGCOV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- sources already in article are more than sufficient to satisfy GNG. I see above some people arguing that notability standards for organizations are higher than the GNG. This is false. A subject is notable if it meets either a subject specific notability guideline OR the GNG. Central and Adams (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is not a single source in this article that would satisfy GNG PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, clearly that's your opinion, as you've already stated it about a zillion times. I'm happy to trust the closing admin to evaluate the arguments by quality rather than quantity. Central and Adams (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

Comment: This has been REFBOMBED real badly. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 04:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @StreetcarEnjoyer, Thank you for contributing and for commenting.

I am (painfully) aware that there are too many citations currently and have acknowledged that in the earlier threads above and have been actively working to rectify this.

In the beginning, this article was AfD's with two initial reviewers recommending deletion saying they couldn't find citations about the organisation. Rightly, the article was outdated, and in need of a revamp in keeping with contemporary Wikipedia standards which I then did, making extensive changes.

Despite knowing that when an article meets WP:N, the mere fact that its subject may seem obscure to these editors does not, under any circumstances, mean it should be deleted, I went back in and tried to add as many open source references as possible, in part to show that the subject was not as obscure as the early reviewers thought.

This was done in part to prove a point, that either those recommending deletion had not looked very hard, or perhaps given its niche topic of concern, the dissenting editors didn't know where to look, or perhaps couldn't access or didn't take the time to look through some paywalled, print, or out of print publications which confirm this organisation's notability. I thought adding to many, rather than two few would assist in the review process.

The plethora of citations was also done to validate secondary sources on the organisation's formation, its work, its training programs, and its conference initiatives. Which now brings us to from a poorly cited article to an overly cited one.

As you can see from last week's lack of consensus, some very seasoned editors agree that there are sufficient secondary citations and notability, and one new-to-Wikipedia editor (as well as myself) both spoke to the article's need for reworking, which is a separate discussion apart from whether it meets criteria to stay or should go.

For the moment, I haven't started that reworking as I don't want to eliminate the citation overkill until we achieve a consensus on which citations are critical and which should go. Once that's done, I am happy to adjust there placement to achieve a smoother article or can leave those changes to anyone else interested in taking on the task.

I even created a citation shortlist which I had hoped the dissenters or other editors passing by might comment on. Again, no consensus.

End comment, I do feel this article meets notability criteria and has sufficient secondary sources cited to confirm this and therefore believe it should not end up in the dustbin.

Likewise, Several established long term editors, one of whom is a former administrator, also agrees and we have established that this agency's work has been acknowledged by United Nations affiliated organisations such as UNESCO and other NGOs. I commit to going in and editing out the redundant or superfluous citations once we conclude the AfD discussion, which I had hoped would have been yesterday, but now see will continue for another round. Avignonesi avignonesi (talk) 06:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hi @StreetcarEnjoyer, Thanks for your comment.

I am (painfully) aware that there are too many citations currently and have acknowledged that in the threads above and will work to rectify this. In the beginning, this article was AfD's with two initial reviewers recommending deletion saying they couldn't find citations about the organisation.

Knowing that when an article meets WP:N, the mere fact that its subject may seem obscure to these editors does not, under any circumstances, mean it should be deleted, I went back in and added what has now been commented on as too many citations.

This was done in part to prove a point, that either those recommending deletion had not looked very hard, or perhaps given the niche topic, didn't know where to look, or perhaps couldn't access or didn't take the time to look through paywalled, academic, or out of print publications which confirm this organisation's notability. I thought adding them would assist in the review process.

The plethora of citations was also done to validate secondary sources on the organisation's formation, its work, its training programs, and its conference initiatives and to collabboratively ask which ones the reviewers preferred.

Then, as you can see from last week's lack of consensus,some very seasoned editors agreed that there was now sufficient secondary citations and notability, and one new-to-Wikipedia editor (and myself) both stated this with the added acknowledgement that the article still has structural defects and needs reworking, which is separate and apart from the AfD discussion.

For the moment, I haven't done that reworking as I don't want to dedicate time to it if its going to be taken down and if it isn't I didn't want to eliminate the citation overkill until we achieved a consensus on which citations should stay and which should go. Once that's done, I or any other editor willing to take on the task can adjust the citation placements of those references kept, and (hopefully) achieve a smoother article in like with contemporary wikipedia standards. I even created a citation shortlist which I had hoped the dissenters or other editors might comment on. Again, no consensus.

End comments, I strongly feel this article meets notability criteria and has sufficient secondary sources cited to confirm this and that it should therefore should not end up in the dustbin.

Likewise, Several established long term Wikipedia editors, one a former administrator) agree citing that this organisation is notably referenced as a nongovernmental organisation by UNESCO. I am willing to go in and edit out any redundant or superfluous citations if reviewer can just give me some guidance on which they want left in once this AfD discussion is concluded, which I had hoped would have been yesterday, but now see will continue for another round. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avignonesi (talk • contribs) 06:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Has been thoroughly improved. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to anyone voting keep: the standards on notability for organizations are substantially higher than a lot of other topics. This article really hasn't been improved at all, merely had several dozen one line mentions thrown at it.

Of the 5 sources of the 70 that were suggested as workable, none were all three of significant, indépendant and reliable. People seem to be simply voting keep because they see a lot of sources, but actually checking these sources shows that they're all just offhand mentions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of my posts above, discussing only two of the many sources, you accepted one as fine and argued that the second was an interview, which I countered as a secondary source. You now say that none of the sources are "workable". Did you change your mind on the first source I suggested? We can go source by source if need be. And to ascertain if the "article hasn't been improved at all", even though, as Johnbod points out, it has been expanded sixfold since nominated, are you saying that none of the expansion is relevant towards easing your concerns? Randy Kryn (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are not independent so they cannot count for notability, especially with regard to organizations. Even if it did, there are two sentences even partially about ARCA, failing the "significant" aspect. I also addressed every source that was presented to me. I did not accept the UNESCO source as fine, it's still affiliated with ARCA and is not enough about them to be significant. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We disagree about interviews and had an extended discussion above as to the merits of interviews. Another, the Antique Trade Gazette, it seems that the British Museum used the services of this Association. This indicates trust and prior knowledge of the British Museum to the reliability of the Association as a reputable organization which could both address and solve its concerns. How is this irrelevant? Randy Kryn (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being trusted does not matter if there is not significant coverage. WP:NORG says "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."

ARCA has not. It does not matter how important they may or may not be, there is no coverage of them that is 1) significant 2) reliable 3) independent 4) secondary. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lest I be accused of "Policy Bombing" I would like to point out gently that Civility is part of Wikipedia's code of conduct and one of its five pillars and that an uncivil environment is a poor environment.

When editors make unverifiable assumptions as to another editors's motivations in casting their vote it is not only unconducive to achieving a positive outcome to this or any other AfD , but it can also be interpreted as disparaging.

In the prior AfD round for this article, we have already experienced discussions between experienced editors with many years of Wikipedia editing under their belts who clearly disagreed with other editors' opinions, finding sufficient secondary citations which they attested to as being significant, independent and reliable.

However questioning the intention and integrity of a newly minted editor, as was done in the last AfD session, or implying that other editors in this or the previous AfD session did not actually check these sources and voted to keep this article "because they see a lot of sources" is not only pure conjecture, but it could also escalate what is already a spirited discussion into a personal argument that no longer focuses objectively on the problem at hand.

Statements such as those used above may be construed by some editors as WikiBullying or Point of View (POV) railroading and are counterproductive to achieving consensus.

I personally respect every editor's right to disagree with me regarding my opinion that this article merits saving from deletion. But I would encourage everyone who is involved in this discourse to respect each and every editors' rights to draw their own independent conclusions, even if their opinions differ from one's own. Avignonesi (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's generally considered suspicious when someone makes their account entirely to argue in an AfD, and edits only in the topic area. Read WP:SPA. Sure, they could just be someone with an interest in art crime but making your account solely to vote in an AfD is not a good sign. You, yourself, have edited almost exclusively in the field of art crime, including writing the majority of this page 12+ years ago, editing mostly the articles of people and organizations associated with ARCA or art crime more broadly. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly anything I've read posted by Parakanyaa seems to be uncivil. Generally, it is considered very suspicious when several brand new accounts appear to vote on an AFD. However, I agree that immediately casting aspirations is a poor idea per Wikipedia:AGF. And to the new editors arriving here, just remember that AfD is not a vote. Industrial Insect (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes, individually acceptable statements add up to an overall feeling that is not so nice. I assume that this cumulative effect is what the editor complains about, rather than an isolated insult. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep - improvements made since nom. Sigcov and WP:GNG appplies.BabbaQ (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the sources are SIGCOV? PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Parakanyaa, I think you need to stop asking this question. Editors are not required to agree with you, nor are they required to WP:SATISFY you by convincing you that their decision is acceptable. We already know you think that this is an inappropriate subject for an article, and we promise that we will not forget your opposition when it comes time to close the discussion. You can stand down now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I just think that people are seeing 70+ sources and automatically thinking "yeah, notable". But I'll back off. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The morsels of information about ARCA provided by a number of the cited sources (although not by all) do seem to add up. -- Hoary (talk) 00:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dropped a COI notification on User talk:Avignonesi, and removed some, just a bit, of the purely promotional text in that article. I mean, that was bad. And the ref-bombing--I hope someone else will help with that. Drmies (talk) 02:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had been working off line on editing this article for another round without so many references but was undecided if it would be more beneficial to publish those edits during, or after, the conclusion of the AfD process. I'd also hoped other more experienced contributing editors would give guidance on which citations were preferred or pick this task up themselves. I was also heeding The Teahouse's advisory to not litigate every editor's comment in this removal discussion.

I have no COI, as I replied to @Drmies on my talk page. I have merely invested considerable hours researching and understanding this org's work, trying to reshape the content of the article in a meaningful way and with the sole motivation of saving it from deletion.

If my editorial tone was perceived as overly ardent, others could have freely edited themselves to curb my enthusiasm.

One thing I learned during this AfD process is that I'm rusty with Wikipedia editing. So much so that I didn't even know the term citation bombing, until it was referred to my interventions. And while I initially found the accusation insulting I later tried to internalise it as valuable constructive criticism for my over-insertion of citations in the attempt to prove the article's worthiness. My intention was never to obfuscate, but rather to improve the original article with too few sources by pointing out there are sufficient sources out there.

What I know now is:...

Each time I try to address one editor's comment to resolve this article's deficits, new concerns about the article itself, or the editors in favour of keeping are voiced.

My effort to encourage other editors to take a crack at fixing the overly abundant citations has been met with resistance, with one editor saying the onus for fixing them is on me. Only to have that person's recommendation countered with a suggestion that perhaps I shouldn't be writing on this article at all.

Until now I have advocated for the article remaining part of Wikipedia and made edits trying to work towards that end, no matter how contentiousness the AfD discussion has become and despite speculations about my motivations or that of other "keep" contributors.

Wikipedia should be about collaboratively working to create a stronger article when and where possible before deletion, not simply removing an article because no one is interested in the topic enough to give it, and its citations a fair and objective review and not simply wasting valuable editing time critiquing those critiquing, something I too am guilty of.

In the span of this one debate, I could have (hopefully) improved 15 other articles as could many of the other responders.

So I will bow out and leaving this save-kill AfD discussion to others. In the grand scheme of things I hope someone will pick up the gauntlet and redevelop this article into something worthy of keeping.

Defeat is not the worst of failures. Not to have tried is the true failure.

Wikipedianly yours. Avignonesi (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to assess actual notability, not source volume. As a caution to @Avignonesi: that you're flooding this discussion as you did the article. Please allow other editors to weigh in.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 2

Another relisting! There are already more comments than most Afd discussions get , and clearly no consensus to delete. Clear keep. Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably relisted due to the fact that this article was refbomb'd to hell and back, and in all this discussion, no one has brought up WP:THREE sources that address ARCA in depth. AfD is not a vote. If there are three good sources that fulfill our requirements for notability, I would have no issue changing my mind, but no one has addressed the argument. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, seems an obvious keep (or, at least as Johnbod points out, certainly not a delete close). This is a chance to ask something I've often wondered about. Do relistings give extra weight to anyone who comments afterwards? Say, as in this one, things have been talked out and a keep seems obvious (will hawk my only essay, WP:RULEOFTHUMB), but then it's relisted and one or two editors wander by for a ten-second look (happens more than we pay attention to and judge weight by) and vote delete because they usually vote delete, thus throwing the entire discussion aside to put closers attention and concentration on remarks which come after a relisting. Do closers often do that? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I had closed this, it would have been no consensus. There has been no clear assessment of sourcing meeting necessary depth. Refbombing here (not you, Johnbod) and in the article doesn't help any closer. Speaking only as myself Randy Kryn, no, all participation is equally weighted assuming it's policy compliant. Star Mississippi 15:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I really wouldn't say it's been talked out, as the ~~one~~ two keep votes that did look at the sources in the article admitted that there are no sources that qualify for notability, but that the fact there were so many brief mentions somehow made it notable - which is contrary to policy and rewards refbombing, and could be done on basically any article for an organization/company. There's gonna be a bunch of short mentions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Star Mississippi. As for PARAKANYAA, please strike out and greatly edit some of that comment. I am a Keep who looked at and read the adequate sources, and then tried to point out to you several which easily show notability. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. None of the sources you presented were independent of ARCA, or significant coverage. A two sentence mention by the founder is not significant coverage. For organizations, there must be significant, reliable, independent coverage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My strike out request was specific to your statement "the one keep vote that did look at the sources in the article" when it's obvious that myself and many other keep commenters had checked the sources. As for independent, we discussed that and disagreed above. As I mention in my non-prize winning essay WP:RULEOFTHUMB, things get a bit bitter between editors when more than one (and even one if obvious) relistings occur, which is why when quite a few editors agree on a Keep with good reasoning then the nomination should be closed, either by the nominator or an admin. This one probably should have ended long-ago. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced one with two. Anyway, independence aside: they were not significant coverage. In what world is two sentences significant coverage? PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is hellishly difficult to follow, and PARAKANYAA's point about just three good sources, please is well made, and unanswered. I picked source #22 at random for the sentence "In addition, the Association publishes scholarly books, articles, and reports, and organizes multidiciplinary lectures, conferences, and training opportunities focusing on contemporary topics related to art crime investigation, risk management, and restitution.". It turned out not to support any part of that sentence and not even be about this subject at all but about a marble sculpture. Source #19 turned out to be a 272 page book with no clue as to where in the book to look. Source #17 was a similar length book with no chapter nor page number. This is three randomly picked sources from the refbombing, and they are either vague handwaves or outright false sourcing.
One more random pick just in case: source #7. This turned out to be not about this subject at all. It turned out that the sole connection of the source to the topic was a 26-word potted author biography for the article. It was a source written by Noah Charney, but not actually about either Noah Charney or this subject.
The fact that the article and this AFD discussion has been drenched in this stuff, coupled with a reluctance to just point to three good sources for two weeks, now, is a good indicator that there isn't the sourcing to be had, and some reaching is going on.
Uncle G (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree. I participated in the original discussion and just now saw both relistings. I continue to think the coverage is insufficiently deep. Following @Uncle G's example, I take at random sources 27 through 34.
1. 27 stands for ARCA's mission. The only mention of ARCA is a byline that a person mentioned is their CEO and says nothing about their mission.
2. 28 stands for the same and at least mentions ARCA once (and three more times as a byline), though it doesn't really speak to their mission but rather an event theu organized. Not WP:SIGCOV, I think, but at least its a source that could support something (if not what it currently does) in the article.
3. 29 is paywalled, so I'm afraid I'll skip it for now.
4. 30 and #31 stand for the following: "At the grassroots level, ARCA's objective is to identify emerging and under-examined trends related to the study of art crime and to develop strategies to advocate for the responsible stewardship of our collective artistic and archaeological heritage." #30 It links to an association of archeologists that puts ARCA on a list of organizations "with a similar goal" to it. So it could tenuously stand for the proposition. Still, far from in-depth coverage. #31 merely points to a news story about an antiquities dealer who was arrested. It cites ARCA's blog for the proposition that the dealer had a family history of art-related crimes. Arguably a better indicator of significance than any of the other ones so far, but still not any in-depth coverage of ARCA.
5. 32, #33, and #34 stand for the proposition that "In furtherance of their outreach goals, researchers affiliated with ARCA provide consultative expertise and training on a number looted or stolen cultural property in circulation within the legitimate art market." But #32 merely states that a stolen statue was identified by someone affiliated with ARCA at a trade fair who then notified the police. #33, while being about the same individual, only mentions ARCA as a byline for another subject. #34 includes ARCA on a list of organizations dedicated to "Protecting cultural heritage, documenting loss, reporting crime," which does not directly support the proposition and is, in any case, not significant coverage.
Overall, the sources vary in their actual support for the proposition they stand for, and they seem to uniformly be surface-level mentions. Arcendeight (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are good sources all over, again, at random, look at source 62. It's about the CEO of the organization being featured in a film documentary about her work. I've discussed several good sources now, they exist throughout the references on the page. A personal note, this is one of the easiest "Keeps" and may be the most needlessly prolonged conversations I've read at AfD (and there've been plenty of stale-but-continuing-regardless discussions). Documentaries, operating a successful long-published journal, called into the British Museum and other major institutions who trust, use, and endorse the organization (if they weren't then the museums wouldn't use them), on and on. In summary: Jeez Louise. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited. Just because a person working for an organization is interviewed doesn't mean that has anything to do with the notability of the organization. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Holy cow but this AfD would be a lot easier to understand and certainly a lot easier to close without nom's continual badgering of everyone who disagrees with their take. Central and Adams (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one has to agree with me, I'm just pointing out the fact that the supposedly good sources are not in fact GNG worthy. No one has to respond. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should read that essay. It's like it was written about your participation in this AfD. It's eerie. Central and Adams (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Offering a rebuttal to a comment is also fine, although arguing repetitively is not". I'm not demanding a response, and I don't see anywhere I have. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If your comments take up one-third of the total text or you have replied to half the people who disagree with you, you are likely bludgeoning the process and should step back and let others express their opinions, as you have already made your points clear. Central and Adams (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When you dominate a conversation by replying many times, others may see you as attempting to "own" an article or the subject at hand. This is a type of tendentious editing. Central and Adams (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just saying. Central and Adams (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Admin comment Those who have already participated have made their POV known. Please allow for other voices, especially if you want this to close with a consensus found. If you have a new point to make, please then by all means do so but continuing to rehash the same points isn't moving the needle. Star Mississippi 23:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because I have nothing else to do, source eval of this revision (I tried to do a table but it nearly crashed my browser)

Extended content

1 - paywalled/physical source that i can't check

2 - paywalled/physical source

3 - paywalled/physical source

4 - paywalled/physical source

5 - paywalled/physical source

6 - paywalled/physical source

7 - mentioned in a byline, not sigcov

8 - mentioned in passing, not sigcov

9 - not mentioned

10 - mentioned once in passing

11 - listed, no discussion

12 - arca describing itself

13 - ? wouldn't load for me

14 - mentioned once in someone's author bio

15 - paywalled/physical source

16 - paywalled/physical source

17 - paywalled/physical source

18 - paywalled/physical source

19 - mentioned once in passing

20 - paywalled/physical source

21 - paywalled/physical source

22 - mentioned once in passing

23 - mentions their ceo gave a speech, approximately one sentence, 46 words discussing them. better than most but 46 words is not sigcov

24 - mentioned in a byline about an author

25 - mentioned once in passing

26 - listing of ARCA's courses by ARCA

27 - not sigcov, byline

28 - an event they organized, not sigcov

29 - paywalled/physical source

30 - not significant coverage, listed with no analysis

31 - not significant coverage, they're used as a citation

32 - not significant coverage, mentioned for one sentence

33 - not significant coverage, mentioned as byline

34 - not significant coverage, listed with no analysis

35 - one paragraph describing the courses they sell, 134 words, which is probably closer to significant coverage

36 - paywalled/physical source

37 - paywalled/physical source

38 - ARCA itself, fine for reliability, does not count for notability

39 - information from ARCA itself posted to another site

40 - information on a course they hosted, no information about them as an organization

41 - ARCA itself

42 - mentioned once in passing, no discussion of them as an organization

43 - not even mentioned

44 - paywalled/physical source

45 - an event they hosted

46 - says they held conference, talks a bit about the conference but nothing on the organization itself. this might count. maybe

47 - from ARCA itself

48 - from ARCA itself

49 - paywalled/physical source

50 - paywalled/physical source

51 - listed once, not sigcov

52 - paywalled/physical source

53 - this is a law filing and doesn't count for notability

54 - listed, no commentary, not even a description

55 - ARCA itself, not independent

56 - about the journal, does not mention ARCA

57 - not sigcov, not even mentioned, though their journal is

58 - movie listing site, reliable for the fact the film exists, not sigcov

59 - IMDB, usergenerated and unreliable

60 - the article cites them, but doesn't talk about them much at all

61 - mentioned once in passing

62 - interview with the founder. might count? at least the interviewer is saying things about arca so maybe but idk if its enough about the organization

63 - IMDB, usergenerated and unreliable

The only sources that might count for notability are 35, 46, and 62, but even then they're iffy on "significance" (though they seem reliable). If anyone can prove any of the paywalled/book sources discuss in depth, but considering they were all added in such a short timespan, I have my doubts. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox Upload

I've uploaded a draft revision attempting to rework this AfD article on my sandbox. Please note that my revision was created several days back, before @PARAKANYAA 's last comment and after I had bowed out of the discussion in frustration over what seemed to me to be personal attacks. When this was written, I had hoped that a consensus could be reached allowing the article to stay, and if so, this sandbox version, might be adjusted by one of the "Keep" editors.

I (hopefully correctly - first time using sandbox with others) elected to upload this reworked version to my sandbox vs. directly over the live article given there have been several editors who have referenced citations they approved of, or disapproved of. My thinking was that I didn't want to muddle this discussion further or confuse people with differing citations numbers.

I also, where possible eliminated citations from expensive paywalled texts that some editors don't have access to, though Wikipedia:Citing sources does not require me to do so. I did so to eliminate any editor's concern that I simply stuffed random citations from costly books or subscription sites as a way to sneak past editor scrutiny. Removing some of these weakens the article's "keep" defense, but I was trying to find a middle ground to achieve concensus. I must point out that experts who follow art crime know where to gain access to these reference books so I can attest to actually having looked at them, despite one of the editor's comments that these citation additions might have been inserted to obfuscate.

There are still too many citations which don't meet all three criteria, but overall its a clearer article I hope can be saved. I hope someone will consider working on it where I have left of.Avignonesi (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment out of boredom I spent a few hours looking for sources. The problem with searching for sources on this topic is that so many things cite them that it is a royal pain to find. I'm not as strong on delete anymore, it's bizarre because they have done so many things and seem to be very respected in this field (alas not a keep rationale) but are barely talked about on their own in great detail. I won't complain if this is voted keep ATP, I'm gonna try to look more and see if there's anything in the paywalled sources because, maybe. I've found a few articles that are very very close to fulfilling SIGCOV, but nothing that exceeds it. The sources are all very reliable and there's so many that address them but it seems no one has anything to say on them besides saying the basics, actions and quoting them. IDK anymore tbh

If there's nothing or this doesn't qualify a plausible redirect is probably Noah Charney, he founded it and mentions it a lot.

but anyway, for future notice to everyone in this AfD, if you want to save an article please do not refbomb i beg you that turns everything into a nightmare, just get 3-5 of your best sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Out of the numerous sources, only 3 of them (excluding paywalled and book sources, which I have no access to) could count for notability, and even they're debated on whether or not they're WP:SIGCOV. I'll be happy to change my opinion if consensus on the coverage of the sources is significant, or if the inaccessible sources are reviewed, but for now, I don't believe the subject is notable.

Industrial Insect (talk) 19:46, 1 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 14:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Telephone (artwork)

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

The three sources (which seem to use the same text anyway) only briefly mention the telephone as part of one exhibition, no indication that it is actually a notable work of art. Fram (talk) 14:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 14:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find anything about this particular artwork, many articles about telephones in art. Doesn't appear to have been a notable piece past the initial display a decade ago. Oaktree b (talk) 14:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. After the lead the text is gallerist gobblededook. Johnbod (talk) 14:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It would be too big of a stretch to say the artwork is notable, perhaps consider listing it under the artist's article?Avignonesi (talk) 16:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No WP:SIGCOV, does not meet WP:GNG. Netherzone (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete as per the nominator.Pragnain (talk) 03:51, 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 keep‎. T. Canens (talk) 02:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coimbatore–Bengaluru Cantonment Vande Bharat Express

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

Does not meet WP:NOTTIMETABLE and WP:NOTABILITY, content is more suitable in a railway information website. This is not done for other countries. Refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/New_Delhi%E2%80%93Kalka_Shatabdi_Express for more info.

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason: (Many of these already have multiple issues and/or are stubs) BhandupAamche (talk) 12:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. BhandupAamche (talk) 12:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also WP:CITEBUNDLE BhandupAamche (talk) 12:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep:The nominator is using wrong notability guidelines. The article being a stub or having multiple issues are not proper reasons for AFD. The subject easily passes WP:GNG as it has multiple reliable sources. Thilsebatti (talk) 13:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.^[1]

From WP:GNG. I believe it does violate WP:NOT. Arnav Bhate (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NOTTIMETABLE is an essay, not a guideline, and the subject is clearly notable as it meets GNG with significant coverage in multiple sources. – DreamRimmer (talk) 14:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise you to withdraw this so that I can include it in the bundle and discussion can be kept at one place. Arnav Bhate (talk) 14:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two things can be true - there can be elements of an article that need to be removed (the timetable bit) and the article can still be notable under the GNG. That is the case here. SportingFlyer T·C 15:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What part of the article that is worth keeping is not in Vande Bharat Express or Vande Bharat (trainset)? Arnav Bhate (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't matter - it passes WP:GNG so is notable as a stand-alone topic. I've removed the most obviously WP:NOTTRAVEL sections. SportingFlyer T·C 17:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer, @Thilsebatti, @Arnav Bhate,

If that's the case, then I'll remove those fields in all the "Soon to be deleted pages" and met the WP protocol. Is that fine? Sanjeev4125 (talk) 13:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I am removing anything related to coach composition, halts, timetable and speed except in the infoboxes. You can do the same. Arnav Bhate (talk) 13:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Arnav Bhate,

Ok I'll get those done. After that will that notice be removed?? Sanjeev4125 (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The notice will be removed when the discussion is closed. This is usually done 7 days after it has been started. Arnav Bhate (talk) 07:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK @Arnav Bhate. The edits which I've performed, let me know if any other to be removed. Sanjeev4125 (talk) 10:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Schedule = Timetable also has to be removed. I'll remove it now from all Vande Bharat articles so you don't have to edit them, but if you find it in any other article then you should remove it. Also, this page is on my watchlist so you don't have to ping me everytime. Arnav Bhate (talk) 10:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^ Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.

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. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard Year-End Hot 100 singles of 2023

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

I believe this series of "Billboard Year-End Hot 100 singles of [year]" falls into WP:NOTDATABASE. These lists exclusively rely on the primary source that is Billboard and does not include third-party sources to discuss their significance. I suggest deleting or merging all of the articles in the template {{Hot 100 year-end charts}} into the article Billboard Year-End. Ippantekina (talk) 06:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Popular culture. Ippantekina (talk) 06:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Merging all of the "of (year)" pages into one existing article does not seem practical to me. Including the (100 singles/year * 50+ years =) 5,000+ lines of chart data, that would run counter to Wikipedia's SOP of splitting up overly long lists. And it looks to me like the remainder of these pages' contents rely too much on the chart data for context to be worth keeping without it. - 2A02:560:5821:6C00:B5A6:42B4:CE4F:FEE0 (talk) 13:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If merging is not a viable option then I believe deleting them altogether is fine, as per WP:NOTDATABASE. Readers can go directly to the Billboard website to retrieve this kind of information and not Wikipedia. Ippantekina (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The website isn't much use, unfortunately. Most of the historical charts were never digitized, presumably, and in turn much of what was is now paywalled. The primary ref for the majority of the pages in question are scans of the corresponding print magazines, hosted at Google Books and other such archival sites. That, combined with the direct links to the articles about each artist and work, does make the "Wikipedia editions" of the charts much more user-friendly than any others I'm aware of.

I don't know that that's greatly relevant to your case, though... - 2A02:560:5821:6C00:3044:FC82:C927:A607 (talk) 09:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, falls under none of the four bullet points mentioned at WP:NOTDATABASE, not any "spririt of the rule" I can see. Mach61 (talk) 19:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a user who frequents this type of articles, this is the only place that keeps this information alive in a reliable way, since the Billboard website contains only the information of some more recent years and as already mentioned the rest is from archives of printed magazines. The idea of these lists to some extent is to summarize the best commercially performing songs for each year, so I see it as more valuable information than just a database. I am open to talk about on how to improve the only-primary sources issue. DiegoF 1996 (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe something like this: List of Billboard number-one singles § Sources

- 2A02:560:5821:6C00:B140:3122:2709:15F2 (talk) 08:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Analysis of the availability of independent source material about these subjects would be quite helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While this does look like directory, it is still encyclopaedic. NavjotSR (talk) 05:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an interesting article, and the other year-end articles are not even candidates for deletion. Plankton5165 (talk) 04:39, 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 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 11:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of European League of Football broadcasters

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

Per WP:NOTGUIDE. All the sources are WP:PRIMARY, otherwise too overreliant on a single primary source. Not a single reliable third party source. Fails WP:LISTN. In short, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Europe. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a grouping not discussed in secondary sources. Fails WP:LISTN. Let'srun (talk) 21:34, 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 delete‎. Owen× ☎ 18:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of second-tier formula racing champions

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

Do we need another list of champions when these lists about championships all have their own listing, thus making this completely unnecessary. Unnecessary WP:FANCRUFT list that is only good for the most obsessive motorsport fans, also WP:LC and WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies. Also, not notable enough to pass WP:LISTN, in fact fails all requirements. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists of people, Sports, Motorsport, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – As I said on the first nomination in this set of articles, this is a very straightforward delete. Procedure wise, this could definitely have been handled as a batch nomination as the reasoning is identical for all articles of this type. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not described as a group. Fails WP:LISTN. Let'srun (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nominator and Let'srun. EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 07:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Unlike many of the similar recent nominations, I think this has some potential. At the moment this article is stuck trying to be multiple things at once. I think it is possibly reasonable to keep a list of champions (and by default, seasons) of just the original F2 into F3000 into GP2 into the current F2. It is not unusual for these to be grouped together (indeed the navboxes on our articles such as 1984 European Formula Two Championship and 1985 European Formula 3000 Championship reflect this), and for example Motorsport Magazine considers GP2/F2 to be one championship, and on [8] if under "group" you select "F2/F3000/GP2", it gives all of the above, plus the FIA Formula Two Championship (2009–2012) and 1960 Formula Two season. So this is not a hard failure of WP:LISTN. I would suggest removing all but the above mentioned championships, and probably mergeing it into one table (with perhaps the "revived" F2 as a separate section). A7V2 (talk) 23:11, 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 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!} 00:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Quran News Agency

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

Been sitting here with an unaddressed one source and notability tags for 5 years, probably time to let this slip unless serious improvements are made or sources found. Koopinator (talk) 16:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:21, 16 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!} 08:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find anything other than a few primary sources (all on its own site). LizardJr8 (talk) 16:58, 23 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 Påryd. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vörehult

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

No real assertion of notability, no sigcov to be found online and Google Books only returns statistical lists. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NGEO. AlexandraAVX (talk) 09:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. AlexandraAVX (talk) 09:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Vörehult appears along with Kanagärde and Mjödehult on lists. Each is recognised by a road sign along the 521 road south of the village of Påryd. Vörehult features on a boulder climbing website.[9]. It has a few houses, but as the nominator says doesn't appear to pass GNG or NPLACE. Could be mentioned in the Påryd article and redirected there if a note is added about the boulder climbing, but needs a second source. Rupples (talk) 11:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The rock climbing mention doesn't seem like noteworthy information unless there's significant secondary coverage to be found, and risks being WP:UNDUE if added to any other article. I haven't checked any tätort maps but based on maps Vörehult seems to be a good bit outside of the actual bounds of Påryd, so not sure it fits there. It's definitely too minor to be meaningfully redirected to Kalmar Municipality which feels like the only other candidate. AlexandraAVX (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agree there would need to be better sources for the boulder climbing. Having searched for sources and found nothing of note, I'm not pushing for a redirect. Rupples (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources. No real relevance. I could be changing my opinion if a source is provided. With as well a small expansion of information.BabbaQ (talk) 14:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From my before search, a very very small place, but people have been born and lived there, and has a road sign, so passes the very low bar of WP:GEOLAND. Actually one of my stranger before searches as it's mostly individual people from there have actually come up, along with a rock to boulder. Just need one clear source to WP:V. SportingFlyer T·C 11:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The low bar of GEOLAND is for legal recognition, road signs and similar do not count as legal recognition from my understanding. AlexandraAVX (talk) 13:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, but they do prove people think it's currently an active place of note, which is what we're trying to record here. SportingFlyer T·C 15:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kalmar Municipality which looks to be the lowest active level of self-government. It is a real place, but I can't find reliable sources giving details. And I am not seeing evidence of statistical or other information that would justify a separate article in the absence of sources. In particular the current municipal website implies that there is no administration on the district or parish level which might group Vörehult with Påryd or another nearby settlement with clearer notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. But looking at this one sentence article, a village with 9 inhabitants, it's hard to understand a Keep. Are there additional sources from your BEFORE search you could bring up here or place in the article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to understand a keep only if you ignore WP:GEOLAND's contention that populated places are notable. SportingFlyer T·C 09:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- My house is a populated place. It is not notable. So that makes short work of that argument. Liz is right. Instead of fallaciously promoting "presumed notable" into "notable" we should be looking to sources. I've only found one, a land survey of Kalmar county, which explains that this is a 285 hectares (700 acres) family farm, with 1 kitchen, 2 halls, and 12 fields, and not actually a village at all. ("Släktgård i 5 generationer, förvärvad 1958. […] 7 rum, 1 kök, 2 hallar") So I'm going with this being a populated place with barely as much public land survey information as my non-notable house and nothing more, a 1-sentence article that calls a farm a village, Wikipedia not being a directory of every surveyed house and farm on the planet, and a delete. Uncle G (talk) 12:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~If the source is from 1958~~. What date is the source? Things may have altered since, e.g. new residences built and the status of the place changed. However, the article needs sources as being named on a map doesn't establish notability. I'm torn between redirect and delete; on balance leaning delete unless a source is found to verify the place's standing. Rupples (talk) 13:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - 1959. It's the Sveriges Bebyggelse for Kalmar län (OCLC 747336336). I couldn't even find anything else. Uncle G (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Redirect to the parish would have been my preference here, but as others have pointed out there doesn't appear to be a lower level of administration than the municipality. The Kalmar Municipality article doesn't reference this place nor many others in the municipality viewable on maps. A possibility would be to expand the Localities table in Kalmar Municipality by including Vörehult, coordinates and a verified population figure. At present, the population of 9 inhabitants stated in the article is unsourced, undated and possibly original research. Rupples (talk) 12:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Påryd. Swedish Wikipedia has an image showing districts within Kalmar Municipality: [10] This source places Vörehult within Karlslunda distrikt (on a mapped boundary),[11]. Karslunda district is based around Påryd, the only sizable settlement but there isn't an article on the district on this Wikipedia. Given this, I think it reasonable to redirect to Påryd by including a heading in that article for Karslunda district and listing Vörehult and other localities thereunder. Karslunda district looks in area to be the equivalent of a civil parish in England, but I don't know what the administrative function of Karslunda district is, if any. See Districts of Sweden#Other examples. Here's another mapped boundary source showing Vörehult within Karslunda district: [12]. Rupples (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No objections to a redirect to Påryd per Rupples who was able to find the district maps I couldn't track down. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Påryd. The only hits I get for Vörehult are in church records or family pages in local newspapers (as a place were people were born). Draken Bowser (talk) 21:00, 1 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shehu Ahmed Tukur

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

Not yet notable per WP:NPOL: not yet been elected to office. The only secondary coverage I can find on him in reliable secondary sources is routine coverage of his candidacy, and passing mentions in election articles. The one exception was this article on a brief legal dispute over his win in a 2022 primary election [13], but I don't think that single reference pulls him over the line of WP:ANYBIO or WP:NPOL. Wikishovel (talk) 08:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Nigeria. Wikishovel (talk) 08:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Architecture. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage and WP:NPOL as but an unelected candidate for political office. Longhornsg (talk) 11:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, this is a recently created article and I think if this is closed as Soft Delete, it will just be recreated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Some coverage here [14], unsure of the quality of the source as well. I don't think we have enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 23:36, 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 no consensus‎. I see opinion evenly divided between Keep, Delete and Merge and there has been no participation after the last relist. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Game Over (2013 film)

AfDs for this article:

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

It is not useful or important topic, not for the filmmaker and not for the Iranian cinema Backlashblues1976 (talk) 05:26, 6 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 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV - every source seems to be minor mention, part of an itinerary or list without any discussion. Wizmut (talk) 06:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The film was screened at least in 37 film festivals in 2013 (and at least 14 times in 2014 and 2015) and then at least screened at the Bay Area festival in 2019. So WP:NFILM's following criterion is met: "The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release." And I'm sorry but why say it's "not important for" this filmmaker or Iranian cinema? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC) (N.B.- Not opposed to a redirect to the page about the director but cannot see why we ought to; absolutely opposed to deletion; renaming Game Over (short film) might also be a good idea).[reply]
Thank you for your reply. Regarding the deletion purpose, the film was an average success for a young filmmaker at the time, based on the grade of festivals that the film had screened at, and the film had no significant achievements, neither artistic nor conceptually, for the filmmaker in comparison to his debut and also two last films. I want to delet this page in order to put the focus on the most successful films of the director. Backlashblues1976 (talk) 13:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I cannot see how the existence of this page could hinder your effort in improving the pages about other films by the same filmmaker. You don't have to edit it but that's not a reason to have it deleted. if your point is that more attention should be given by readers to other of his films, that's also not a reason for deletion at all. It's less notable and certainly less covered in media than other films by the same director, fair, but again, that is not a reason for deletion. It meets at least one criterion for notability of films on Wikipedia. If a redirect is decided, part of the article should be merged into the director's page, but deletion does not seem suitable. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Where are the 1st and 2nd Afds??-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I submitted the page for deletion, 2 days ago via PROD. The same day, user [GB fan] rejected the submission for the following reason:

"remove PROD, was previously PROD'd in edit at 21:23, 13 September 2013‎‎‎‎‎‎‎, was later removed, must go to WP:AFD"

So, I have followed the description and resubmitted my deletion proposal for the 3rd time. Backlashblues1976 (talk) 13:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. PROD and Afds are 2 different processes, this is the 1st Afd. Anyway, let's wait until this is over (and maybe the page should be renamed then, unless someone does it before that). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Comics and animation, and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Backlashblues1976, you created this article in 2013. Why do you want to delete it now? Toughpigs (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. Backlashblues1976 is the director, Seyed Mohsen Pourmohseni Shakib. Here's the diff where they admitted to that. Backlashblues1976 created a page about themselves a month ago, and now they want to delete the pages they created about their own student films, White Paper and Game Over. Toughpigs (talk) 23:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is rather odd, I get a bit of an impression that this is a case of an artist not being happy with their early work and wanting to forget about it, not sure if that is a good reason for deletion.★Trekker (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I think that is not a good reason for that. Due to that and My oh My's sources, which show that the film is notable as it meets WP:NFILM, I am !voting Keep. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Seyed Mohsen Pourmohseni Shakib. As with White Paper (film), nearly all of the sources available for this are guides for shorts programs in which the film has screened. When it comes to coverage of the film itself, there's not enough to require a separate article. hinnk (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional discussion of the available sources would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested to the Shakib article seems sensible. Oaktree b (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note Nom is both the creator of the article and apparently has a CoI as the director of the film (see WP:COIN#Seyed Mohsen Pourmohseni Shakib). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Mushy Yank. As to " I want to delet this page in order to put the focus on the most successful films of the director", we don't delete articles in order to assist the subject's promotional campaign. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TLA^tlak 07:52, 23 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!} 06:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025 World Men's Handball Championship qualification

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

A user divided the article 2025 World Men's Handball Championship into 2 articles : 2025 World Men's Handball Championship and 2025 World Men's Handball Championship qualification : this is useless. The newly page created is unnecessary, overkilling, messy and does not add much of a value at was done previously on the 2025 World Men's Handball Championship page. Plus it has never been done before for the previous tournaments : IHF World Men's Handball Championship. What's more, some of the parts of the page will need to be upated in the original pages and in this newly created article. I propose we delete this new page and we go back to normal as it was before the division into two articles. Pindrice (talk) 05:12, 31 January 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 January 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Handball. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inviting all editors who recently contributed in editing the page 2025 World Men's Handball Championship @Kante4, Vin28rol, ShopperSignal78, Snowflake91, Frozizi, Thmetzi, 90sveped, Zelyceen, Sidoux29, Almagestas, Felipe.moraislima, Mohammed07102007, NCanny2, Family27390, Bcp67, Makejets, and ILoveSport2006:.
Delete It does not any value of what is already present in the overall article. Comment to @Pindrice:, your ping did not work as you did not sign your post. Kante4 (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inviting all editors who recently contributed in editing the page 2025 World Men's Handball Championship @Kante4, Vin28rol, ShopperSignal78, Snowflake91, Frozizi, Thmetzi, 90sveped, Zelyceen, Sidoux29, Almagestas, Felipe.moraislima, Mohammed07102007, NCanny2, Family27390, Bcp67, Makejets, and ILoveSport2006:.

Better ;) Pindrice (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Someone reviewed it already and didn't ask it to be nominated for deletion. The 2025 World Men's Handball Championship article was so messy before, with multiple tables, an unfinished bidding process section which had false information (it took me years to find out info about the bidding process because no one bothered to put the info in the section) and a messy qualification section.

so I decided to follow the FIFA World Cup route by making changes like adding a qualification page. Also, in my opinion we didn't need a summary of qualified teams and a qualified teams list on the main page, That's why I put the latter into the new page. Deleting the page would feel like I am being punished for caring. If you don't think the qualification article isn't good enough, then improve it, please. The more people editing on the page, the better. It should be exciting to see the World Men's Handball Championship expand to have separate articles about the tournament (like you have for FIFA World Cups), yet I'm getting a reaction like what on earth am I doing. Finally, if it's a problem to do both brackets for the European qualification (both European qualification and general qualification article), then I'll do it, it's not a problem. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 19:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if anyone has any advice to improve the article, please tell me. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 19:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like Kante4 said, it does not add any new value of what is already present in overall article. The difference between handball qualification and FIFA World Cup qualification, is that each confederations has its own separate qualification and inter-confederation qualification matches for FIFA WC, while qualification to Handball WC happens through continental championships. 90sveped (talk) 23:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Like Kante4 said and in my personal opinion, this article is not outstanding enough to stand alone and had not handball world championship tournament has ever had an article about qualification. Redirect to 2025 World Men's Handball Championship. Mohammed07102007 (talk) 03:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep valid article split and already contains more information than other qualifying sections for other tournaments. SportingFlyer T·C 12:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on primary sources and no evidence of third party coverage to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 03:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TLA^tlak 07:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Draftify If the original author says he can improve it, we give him that chance, and it should go through AfC again, ensuring it it meets notability first. DarmaniLink (talk) 18:59, 23 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. This is a procedural close since the nominator has withdrawn their request and there is no one arguing for deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gun violence in the United States by state

AfDs for this article:

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

Now a duplicate of Firearm death rates in the United States by state after merging in some columns and figures. Some columns dropped in the merging process, but none directly related to guns. Plenty of room for more columns/tables in the mentioned page. Wizmut (talk) 06:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that is is not the same sort of deletion request as in the previous AfD - I consider the following columns as less-relevant, but would be open to adding them back:

Removed from Firearm death rates in the United States by state:

State abbreviation
Population
Population density

(To be) removed from Gun violence in the United States by state and not added to the other article:

Population
Murder excluding negligent manslaughter (one column for non-gun homicide per table is enough)

Wizmut (talk) 07:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Firearms, Lists, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very confused about what this AfD is trying to accomplish. Merge and redirect I guess? PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, merge and redirect. Although the merging is already done, unless someone wants to say otherwise. Wizmut (talk) 14:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both list have problems. Only listing how many people were shot and died, when many who get shot get to the hospital in time and live, is ridiculous. Its still a crime whether the person dies or not. If its "firearm death" then you should list how many people were killed in what was deemed self defense. Also list deaths by accident. Dream Focus 15:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gun accidents by state I can find for 2021 from CDC, gun assaults by state I can find for 2019 from FBI - but more to the point, assuming a few more columns are needed, do you think we need two articles or just one? Wizmut (talk) 15:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it's not a wholesale deletion, and is mainly being merged with a similar article, I'm not opposed to deletion. -- Hi Ev 07:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a great idea to merge these pages, since the subject and the data overlaps greatly. Also appreciate the work already put in on merging the data, eliminating the extraneous columns, and updating to a more current source from 2021! Great steps forward. I'm not opposed to merge, in fact I would like to help out with it. I just want to ask about the direction of the merge. Firearm deaths is a more narrow category than firearm violence. I think merging into the broadest category would be better, so that more types of topical data can be included. A title like "gun harm" could also be appropriate, and more general than both the two existing titles. The second concern I have is the page usage. The gun violence page has much more traffic (thousands of views per month), as well as more watchers/contributors/viewers of recent edits. It seems like it would be beneficial to be merged in that direction. Cliffroared (talk) 00:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Completely flexible on all points. Choosing the right term might be difficult because suicide is not always considered violence, not all violence results in death, and gun harm isn't a common term (wish it was). The CDC can be seen using the phrase "gun violence and injury".[15] Perhaps "Gun violence and injury in the United States by state?" Wizmut (talk) 01:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I see discussion but we need very.specific.proposals.on.what.to.do. It's not the time to discuss which columns should be in which article. This article was brought to AFD but it doesn't seem like the nominator is seeking deletion which makes this entire discussion rather confusing. We need proposals that are not vague and editors who support them or have alternative suggestions on what to do.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. This is a weird mix of a part-merger, repeat nomination, renaming... anyways.

Here's a specific proposal:

Rename Firearm death rates in the United States by state to Gun death and violence in the United States by state
Delete Gun violence in the United States by state and redirect to new page
continue content discussion on the new page

Wizmut (talk) 08:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Close this discussion which should never have been started here and certainly should not have been relisted. The proposal was not for deletion and it is utterly inappropriate for AFD. Try improving the article(s) by editing and with discussion at talk page(s). Thincat (talk) 09:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's cut out the bureaucracy. This is a weird case of lots of cruft needing deleted and being left with two almost-identical articles. Before nominating I had already put a refurbished version on one of the two articles, but it would have been reckless of me not to check in to see if I had gone too far. Turns out nobody minds getting rid of the cruft and nobody has said there should still be two articles. Wizmut (talk) 10:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What would have cut bureaucracy would be to have proceeded with your editing (and thank you for this aspect), including the redirecting as you thought suitable. All you did there was fine. Nothing required AFD. The only reason for an AFD would be if you wanted the edit history before the redirect to be deleted and that would not have been appropriate if material had been merged. AFD was not at all best (or even good) practice. Thincat (talk) 13:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this comment. I'll wait another few days and just make the changes in my proposal above, unless anyone objects. If anyone has content suggestions please make them on the talk page for either gun/firearm article.

If it's appropriate for me to say so, I'll withdraw the nomination from this process, but mind that I do still intend that everything mentioned here redirects to one page. Wizmut (talk) 13:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now wishing I hadn't criticised. You were, I think, doing well meaning and worthwhile editing but, in my view, did not need to seek confirmation at AFD. However, my comment now seems to me to have been too harsh. Best wishes! Thincat (talk) 10:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, the points were well-taken. Regards Wizmut (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - this is an extremely important article right now. Laypersons will literally die without it. Folks need to know whether they should move out of their state to another, if they are afraid of crime, or nearing retirement. I just read a Fox news article about a couple in California, who moved to a place they thought was safer, but California is actually and factually in the 3rd quartile of crime rates. It was linked from Apple News. Our readers need and deserve facts, not fear. Bearian (talk) 20:17, 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of traditional armaments

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

A poorly-defined topic that overlaps with the many lists in Category:Lists of weapons; concerns over the page have been expressed over many years without a resolution, improvement or integration in the project (long-standing orphan with no interlanguage link); hence alternatives to deletion have failed. Klbrain (talk) 06:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Someone from Wikipedia:MILHIST should be pinged. Pinging @User:Master z0b, @User:Dellant, @User:ladymacbeth9 per relevant member list. --Ouro (blah blah) 06:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Firearms, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There seems to be no inclusion criteria here, and given the vague title (what's a 'traditional armament'?) I don't see how there could be. The fact that this list includes cricket bats and golf clubs as 'traditional' weapons as well as a 'Oddities/Hard to classify' section is a good indicator of how useless the article is. Nick-D (talk) 07:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. We already have the category. Srijanx22 (talk) 12:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, ill-defined, WP:ORish "traditional" criterion and weird joining of weapons and armor. Lists of weapons does a much better job. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Category exists, and list is poorly-defined and essentially useless. Intothat darkness 13:31, 23 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 procedural keep. No prejudice against renominating any of these individually or in smaller batches‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Delhi–Kalka Shatabdi Express

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

Does not meet WP:NOTTIMETABLE, WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NOT, content is more suitable in a railway information website. This is not done for other countries.

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason: (Many of these already have multiple issues and/or are stubs)

Post-close admin comment: I have commented out the full list of nominated pages because it was triggering the post-expand limit for templates on the daily AfD page. --RL0919 (talk) 01:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More for consideration that I could not find the time to add: All such articles about individual services. E.g. Humsafar Express articles, members of Slow and fast passenger trains in India, members of Indian express train stubs, etc.

Arnav Bhate (talk) 06:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Arnav Bhate (talk) 06:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair warning: AfD participants hate very long lists of articles. Also just to put it out there, Shatabdi Express#Active is a good ATD for all the Shatabdi trains. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AfD participants hate very long lists of articles.

Then should I make multiple AfDs? Arnav Bhate (talk) 08:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is happening Arnav?? Why are all these pages being asked for deletion?? I mean this is insane. Sameer2905 (talk) 09:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am following my interpretation of the policies. As an example, there are no articles about individual ICE or TGV services, or the train services of China. Similarly, these articles are not suitable for the wiki. Arnav Bhate (talk) 09:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep One of the craziest AfDs I have ever seen. A couple I spot-checked are under-sourced, but train lines can be and are generally notable, and it's absolutely crazy to try to use a mass AfD to delete all of these at once. This basically has to be closed as an administrative keep since you clearly didn't do a WP:BEFORE search for any of these, and WP:NOT doesn't cover your reasoning. SportingFlyer T·C 09:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are not train lines. These are individual train services, with articles consisting mostly of timetables, halts and coach compositions. Everything else in these articles can be summarised into tables, these tables already mostly exist, just lack all the columns. Arnav Bhate (talk) 09:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
so request to add all train services to this list. BhandupAamche (talk) 10:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are too many: I counted at least 600 more articles. I don't have the time or patience to nominate such a large number. My hands are already cramped from this list. Arnav Bhate (talk) 11:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

but request to add only the services like Shatabdi, Duronto, Uday, Vande Bharat, Amrit Bharat, Tejas Rajdhani & Rajdhani, like these not the normal express trains or ac express. BhandupAamche (talk) 12:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding any additional articles after the AfD has started is likely to just be further disruptive. SportingFlyer T·C 15:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I stopped. Arnav Bhate (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep. While the nomination is well-intentioned, it's too hard to evaluate so many different articles (I count over 230) at one time, in one discussion. Some might be notable and some night not be, but a bundle this large is unwieldy. Shaws username . talk . 11:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But you have to agree that nominating more than 800 articles in any bundle size will be unwieldly. Arnav Bhate (talk) 12:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
pls refer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Coimbatore%E2%80%93Bengaluru_Cantonment_Vande_Bharat_Express as extension for more services articles. BhandupAamche (talk) 12:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do, but with a list this size if someone was to only spend one minute on a WP:BEFORE (which usually takes longer) it would take them just under four hours to go through all of them and specifying which are different (if some are) would get very difficult. Shaws username . talk . 12:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I consider these articles to mostly be a violation of WP:NOT as consisting mostly of information that does not belong in Wikipedia, such as train timetables and coach compositions, which may also be subject to frequent change. In this case most of the checks of WP:BEFORE shouldn't apply, right? I agree that it is very difficult, but something has to be done as soon as possible, otherwise the number of such articles will continue to grow. Is there a place where I can establish consensus on whether a train service article consisting mostly of such things should exist on Wikipedia or not? If there is, then I will withdraw this nomination and instead go there first. Once consensus is established, such articles can slowly be deleted, via, say WP:PROD. Arnav Bhate (talk) 13:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the reasoning though, but I agree that many of them probably are a violation of WP:NOT and they sound unencyclopedic. However, some might have notability from other reasons but there's no way to know without a WP:BEFORE. I definitely agree that something should be done though (although I'm not sure what) or the list will keep growing. Like IgnatiusofLondon, I'd also agree that redirects are preferable to a mass-deletion (at least until they can call be checked) An RfC might also be a good idea, perhaps a concensus that a certain topic needs to be checked and then nominated editors can work through with a faster deletion?

And no I'm not proposing doing 100 a day, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas had a procedural close for the same reason, they've been listed 3-5 a day to slowly work though. (Although with an amount this large that would obviously have time issues) Shaws username . talk . 15:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the lot, strong objection to "procedural keep" - I do not think that "procedural keep" is helpful. There are lots of these train service articles - they are not about lines - they are about allegedly-named services on those lines. There needs to be a way of discussing whether Wikipedia should have these articles. Discussions on Wiki projects don't really work. People have articles on their watch lists - they do not find out about Wikiproject discussions relevant to the articles - there needs to be a fair way of having these discussions - and this is probably the only way that might work. I doubt if any of these train services are sufficiently notable to justify having an article on them. The ones I have on my watch list tend to cite train timetable websites and sometimes news articles that mention the service. Are "procedural keep" editors saying that they would prefer that Arnav Bhate started (for example) 100 deletion discussions each day? If he/she did, the text of the justification for deletion would be identical in all 100 each day.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion is the strongest possible remedy. Some of these articles might pass WP:GNG, or at least seem like they do. Some of them obviously don't as written but might with a WP:BEFORE search. It's just impossible to tell when there are so many nominated at once - bulk nominations have to be done with care. In the past, figuring out the question of if we should have these has been done by RfC, and then the articles deleted through a series of bulk nominations. SportingFlyer T·C 17:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not familiar with the process of creating an RfC. Arnav Bhate (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consider Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over and Wikipedia:Delete the junk. These are not policies but essays and they are not exactly applicable here, but keeping so many bad and possibly inaccurate articles just in case a few might be good does not sit right with me. These articles pop up on the first page of google results and may potentially contain outdated information. Editors who want to can start the article again. We can even redirect instead of delete to make it even easier. But an RfC is probably the best. Arnav Bhate (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I don't think those essays are really applicable here:
In this context, the essays sidestep the major concern that several editors have expressed: that some of these articles might be fine, but nobody's going to pick them out when we have 243 articles bundled together for deletion.

For what it's worth, notability aside, the few articles I've sampled from the list aren't shockingly bad: they just need to have their timetables removed and their contents copyedited to ensure the articles are aware that they have been written at a particular point in time. If we applied WP:TNT, I don't think any new articles on these services would be dramatically different to the articles we currently have, if these articles should exist at all.

Thus, the strongest deletion argument for these articles is notability, not the state of the articles. The rationale in your nomination, WP:NOT, applies to sections with these articles, especially the timetabled sections, but we can imagine (and in fact, Wikipedia does have) articles on train services that don't violate WP:NOT. If the only reason for deleting these articles is that some of their current content should be deleted, then per deletion is not cleanup, WP:TNT is a little lazy.

As I said in this discussion, nobody has bothered to update those unreferenced sections describing mostly-defunct passenger services at Italian railway stations for 10 years. I'm fairly confident that train operating companies and booking sites have a similar if not higher SEO ranking than Wikipedia, and people expect Wikipedia to be unreliable on this kind of topic. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know they are not applicable, they are just similar in sentiment. When sections violating WP:NOT are removed,what is left in most articles can be summarised in a table similar to the one at Vande Bharat Express. Also, yes, it is lazy, which is why I said RfC would be best. And you can see why someone might be a bit lazy: there are more than 900 such articles that I found in a list, with many more that I know exist but were not in the list. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And no one has improved the articles despite them being tagged for multiple years, this shows that there isn't much interest in improving them. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about services definitely aren't the norm. For example, you will find that none of the services in List of TGV services have articles. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a great rationale for deletion either; it's analogous to WP:OTHERSTUFF. Each article should be evaluated on its individual merits, not the merits of other articles. I'm fairly confident that there is sufficient coverage using reliable, secondary sources to sustain an article on Frecciarossa's Paris–Milan route that started a few years ago; that there isn't an article on it, nor any other Frecciarossa route, doesn't mean that there shouldn't be one, just that no editor has got round to it yet. Besides, Template:Infobox rail service is used on approximately 3,000 pages. And notability derives from the universe of available sources, not the current sourcing an article uses. So, your previous comment, no one has improved the articles, is textbook WP:NOIMPROVEMENT.

The strongest argument for deleting these articles (and this is only my opinion) is their notability, not their current content or presentation. Indeed, it is preciely the notability bar that means that many railway services do not justify standalone articles. By whichever process this series of articles is brought to community review, I suspect that the community will likely want to evaluate the individual notability of individual articles, or pursue appropriate alternatives to deletion for articles that do not evidently demonstrate notability.

I notice this is among your first AfD discussions, and I offer these suggestions as friendly advice (and it is only my opinion, as a new-ish editor), just as other editors have offered the friendly advice that bundling so many articles for deletion together is unlikely to yield the result you expect. It's worth having a read of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions if you haven't already. Your commitment to keeping Wikipedia's coverage of Indian transport at its highest possible standard is laudable, and I'm grateful that you're giving this series of articles the attention it deserves. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep: I'm minded to agree that "train service articles" likely fail notability guidelines. I also agree with other editors regarding WP:NOT: the schedules are unencyclopaedic and I doubt anyone is going to maintain them consistently for them to reflect future changes. I recently came across a similar issue on Italian railway station articles: ten years ago, an editor decided to add the services passing through each station unsourced, but a recent spotcheck found that many of these services are no longer extant. All the same, I'm not convinced AfD, either as bundled or individual nominations, is the best or most efficient venue to discuss where the line should be drawn for a series of articles this large. There might be subtleties in coverage that allow some services to have a stronger case for meeting notability guidelines. Only for that reason, if this AfD isn't closed as "keep", I think redirects as alternatives to deletion are preferable to mass-deletion, because the likelihood of a "mistake" is quite high when editors can't reasonably be expected to carry out WP:BEFORE on such a large number of articles. At the back of my mind, I wonder (WP:IAR): could this issue be brought to RfC or some kind of temporary WikiProject/taskforce specifically to decide and execute consensus? IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 15:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we're going to bulk delete this many articles, I think a RfC is functionally necessary to determine these aren't articles we want on the site/that this group of articles collectively violates WP:NOT. Further complicating matters is a number of these do actually meet GNG and the problematic parts of the article, including timetables, can simply just be removed without deleting potentially encyclopedic information. SportingFlyer T·C 15:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree 100%. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 02:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to the main service articles are fine with me as well. Arnav Bhate (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle but procedural keep, I do agree the vast vast majority of these articles are not notable (seeing as they are not named and are just called "[TERMINUS A] - [TERMINUS B] [TYPE OF SERVICE]") but a 200 page size bundle is impossible to go through in 7 days. RfC first would probably work better, or some particular egregious examples can be done maybe 10ish articles at a time? Jumpytoo Talk 19:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the lot the articles I have sampled are poor quality and not important or useful enough to keep here. Sgroey (talk) 01:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Procedural keep due to the unwieldy size of the list of nominated articles. Consider steps mentioned in WP:ATD, such as redirection, and nominating articles in much smaller batches. Java Hurricane 02:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So would you be fine if I redirected these articles to the main service articles? Arnav Bhate (talk) 06:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you did that en masse, redirecting might also be disruptive... SportingFlyer T·C 21:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have removed sections definitely violating WP:NOT from the first few articles. If this is fine, then I will continue to do so later. Arnav Bhate (talk) 06:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed three of these and this looks good to me. One was clearly under-sourced and might have been deleted at a stand-alone AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 12:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. It's not possible for a single discussion to evaluate 200+ articles when there's variation in the content. An RfC would be helpful for gathering information about Indian train services--naming, sources, what is and what is not encyclopedic. Given that standard, it would be easier to evaluate individual articles. Mackensen (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep I understand the intention here but it just isn't possible to evaluate this number of articles in any good faith way. Have any page creators been notified because the creator of New Delhi–Kalka Shatabdi Express was not and the discussion should involve still active page creators. Merging and redirecting is also an option that doesn't involve a 200+ page AfD. AusLondonder (talk) 16:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep per all above. It is simply impossible to fairly evaluate this many disperate articles concurrently in the time available (and this would be true if they were listed in separate AfDs at the same time as well). This is magnified when we consider that there is a high likelihood that sources discussing are going to be in languages other than English. Thryduulf (talk) 20:39, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep A good chunk of the articles here, especially the Rajdhani, Shatabdi and Vande Bharat trains are sourced enough to clear WP:GNG. As stated above, evaluating 243 articles at one go is impractical. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:39, 25 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 04:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

European BEST Engineering Competition

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

fails general notability guideline. created by User:EBEC2009, obvious conflict of interest. written like an ad. ltb d l (talk) 04:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Europe. ltb d l (talk) 04:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. CosmoBurst (talk) 05:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Catfurball (talk) 16:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While the style of the page may be arguable, the contents describe a relevant european-wide event that has involved hundreds of engineering students throughout Europe. It deserves to stay, IMHO. GioAlea88 (talk) 17:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This article is widely visible to new editors since it is featured in the 'Newcomer task: links' section of Special:Homepage, so any new editors wanting to comment should read WP:AFDDISCUSS and/or WP:GNG. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 14:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @GoldRomean: left this message about deleting it on my talk page Lajmmoore (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: under G11 (which I previously nominated this for). This article is promotional and there are no reliable sources cited or that I could find that indicate notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is an Advertisement Tomlovesfar (talk/contributions)

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 04:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saikai Pearl Sea Resort

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

fails general notability guideline. uncited and written like an ad. ltb d l (talk) 04:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Amusement parks and Japan. ltb d l (talk) 04:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Travel and tourism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:08, 23 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 stations owned by Innovate Corp.. ✗plicit 04:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KZLL-LD

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/KZLL-LD

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

Article has only 2 sources and doesn't explain much or more about the station. OWaunTon (talk) 02:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:26, 23 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 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: another run-of-the-mill 2010s-started DTV America/HC2/Innovate that simply has little prospect of ever attaining the requisite significant coverage. By itself, an article's failure to actually "explain much" isn't automatically a reason to remove it, but this is one of those stations where there really is nothing to say. Yet another nominal survivor of last year's bulk nomination. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Missouri, and Oklahoma. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:12, 23 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!} 06:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Wanser

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

The only serious source talking about this person is this. I looked for others on google and only found podcasts and promotional interviews, some with self-admitted friends of her. Bolt and Thunder (talk) 03:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Women, and United States of America. Bolt and Thunder (talk) 03:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - with all respect to the nominator, there are a number of serious books that dedicate coverage to Wanser, both positive and negative. All one has to do is to click the "Books" link in the Find Sources section on this very page. I agree that much of that information needs to be added to the subject's article, but a lack of effort on editors' part (so far) to improve this article is not a very good reason for deletion. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In 2022, IEEE Spectrum, an engineering magazine that's been around 60 years, conducted an in-depth interview with her, which wasn't used as a source. I added it. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Has good RS online. Subject is notable enough. Adhi2004 (talk) 10:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As is mentioned there is coverage in a number of books- this coverage also spans a number of years, which also suggests they are notable enough. Editing84 (talk) 09:40, 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 redirect‎ to Paradies Lagardère. If editors would prefer a different Redirect target article, that can be discussed on the talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hachette Distribution Services

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

I can't find sourcces sufficient for WP:NORG. Even this article (available through WikiLibrary), which is an analysis of Hachette's business strategies, just has a trivial mention in the data at the bottom that HDS exists, and no discussion of it as an entity. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and France. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ while there's a single source that it exists [16] I couldn't find any secondary sources for it to verify any information for a potential merge. Shaws username . talk . 12:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hachette (publisher) Shaws username . talk . 23:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect into Paradies Lagardère, which is its ultimate controlling company via the Lagardère Group. Nate • (chatter) 22:58, 15 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) 02:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect into Paradies Lagardère, hardly anything here and no citations.Maxcreator (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 redirect‎ to Idea Factory#Games published. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gakuen Toshi Vara Noir

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

Did not find any sources for this game, lacking notability. GamerPro64 06:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. GamerPro64 06:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Idea Factory#Games published, searches under its Japanese-language title, as well as under both "Gakuen Toshi Vara Noir" and "Kingdom of Chaos The Universe" turned up no reviews, though apparently the game had a (bad) spin-off anime that itself has received no attention other than being trashed by a couple anime blogs. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:39, 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) 02:51, 23 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. I'm going out on a limb and closing this as Delete as there have been two relistings without further participation. But I find those arguing that this article is inappropriate are more persuasive even though I don't see a consensus to Delete (or a consensus for any outcome). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalist Congress Party (Sharadchandra Pawar)

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

The Nationalist Congress Party of India has recently undergone a split, forming two factions. The faction led by Ajit Pawar has been recognized by the Indian Election Commission as the legitimate heir to the NCP name. Sharad Pawar's faction has been order to take a new name for upcoming 2024 elections. Since the Sharad Pawar faction no longer has the right to use the NCP name, this article claiming NCP lineage seems to be problematic at best. A new article about the new faction can be started when they've chosen a name, but that new article should not make it appear to still be the NCP. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No,We will redirect this page after name is selected. Qzgjeth (talk) 13:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After NCP name and Clock symbol given to Ajit pawar, ECI has given Sharad Pawar faction name "NCP - Sharad Chandra Pawar" , so this considers as different political party, like Kerala congress has many factions and name Mahesh Chhanga 78 (talk) 13:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Qzgjeth and Mahesh Chhanga 78: The problem is that the article's content refers to the NCP, whose continued existence falls under the Ajit Pawar faction. This new party is a new thing, and while we can note that it devolved from the original NCP, it has to be written about as a new thing, with no history past the 2023 split. Implications that this new thing existed prior to 2023 are incorrect. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this page should have only name NCP and original NCP history with president as Ajit pawar and NCP Sharad Chandra Pawar on separate page Mahesh Chhanga 78 (talk) 14:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What legal rights to a political party's name someone has doesn't matter for Wikipedia. What matters is what reliable sources refer to the party as. The AfD doesn't make a case for deletion, it makes one for renaming the article. Cortador (talk) 14:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Cortador: In this case, I believe WP:TNT applies. The article is false from its outset. The bulk of the content and citations of the article are about the legitimate Nationalist Congress Party, not this offshoot organization. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article can be recreated when whatever name they've chosen is finalized. Oaktree b (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Election Commission has approved a new name — the ‘Nationalist Congress Party-Sharadchandra Pawar’ — for NCP chief Sharad Pawar’s faction.

Source:https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/sharad-pawars-group-now-called-nationalist-congress-party-sharadchandra-pawar/article67821766.ece Lionel Messi Lover (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retain: Reliable Sources like The Hindu, Hindustan Times and many other news portal cites that The Election Commission has approved a new name — the ‘Nationalist Congress Party-Sharadchandra Pawar’ — for NCP chief Sharad Pawar’s faction and also sought a ‘banyan tree’ as its election symbol. Source:[17] [18] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionel Messi Lover (talk • contribs) 8 February 2024 1:20 (UTC)
Comment The point of this deletion discussion (at least my point in initiating it) is not that the new party is not notable, but rather that the article, being an almost verbatim copy of the Nationalist Congress Party article, is completely incorrect and will need to be rewritten from the ground up. If the article is retained, that will still have to happen. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of this could be included as a footnote in the main Nationalist Congress Party article Block345 (talk) 17:39, 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) 01:41, 15 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) 02:45, 23 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 consensus is to Delete this article. But if an editor wants to work on this in Draft space, let me know or contact WP:REFUND. Know that any article deleted through an AFD must go through AFC and not be moved directly into main space. And, of course, any editor may create a Redirect from this page title to a target article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generation Beta

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

Non-notable neologism with non-serious coverage in sources. Wikipedia is supposed to describe trends in society, not create them. However, this page is the first Google result for Generation Beta and will therefore cause a kind of citogenesis event. Also per WP:Crystal ball. Kk.urban (talk) 02:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Kk.urban (talk) 02:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any relevant mention (if any refs are worthy) into Generation Alpha and redirect. Too soon to merit a standalone article. --Ouro (blah blah) 06:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A better merge target may be Generation#Western world. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh good one. I therefore support merge with Generation#Western world per Novem Linguae. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: TOOSOON I think. Most of what I find is PR items (but I'm not sure why exactly...). The few articles here that use the term show it hasn't really caught on yet. It doesn't even appear to start until next year. Oaktree b (talk) 14:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTALBALL StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Too soon, and being the first google result for "Generation Beta", it doesn't have enough information. Mseingth2133444 (Did I mess up? Let me know here) 00:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But make the redirect not point to Gen Alpha. Mseingth2133444 (Did I mess up? Let me know here) 00:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or draftify if has not been such already and won't be indexed by Google Mseingth2133444 (Did I mess up? Let me know here) 23:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mseingth2133444 Drafts are deleted after six months without editing. I don't think this article should exist in six months, either. Kk.urban (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Delete then. Mseingth2133444 (Did I mess up? Let me know here) 02:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - way too soon. We are even debating known future events, like the 2034 Winter Olympics. Bearian (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per OP and everyone else. The citogenesis argument is especially on-target. Dan Bloch (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: But if it is deleted, how do we prevent it from coming back immediately? It's already been draftified once. Dan Bloch (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the recreation is close to the current text, it will qualify for WP:G4. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: While it's TOOSOON, it does have room for improvement. It was moved to the draftspace and then someone moved it back to the mainspace. I was primarily working on this article when it was still a draft. It might be ultimately better to move it as I will be working on it. -- Wesoree ^{(talk·contribs)} 18:37, 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. The only thing clear in this discussion is that this article needs rewriting. But after two relistings, I don't expect further participation in this discussion so it calls for a closure. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional Commission

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

Tagged as needing sources since 2008. A sort of list of quite different organizations that happen to share a name. WP:N is not established, as this article cites no source that discusses the topic of "constitutional commission" as such, rather than individual ones. Perhaps this could be made into a WP:DAB page. Sandstein 20:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 20:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (maybe delete). The most newsworthy Constitutional Commission today is that of Chile (see 2023 Chilean constitutional referendum). It is not mentioned. Athel cb (talk) 09:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Convert to DAB:~~ I disagree that "Constitutional Commission" is not notable; it's just another term for a type of constituent assembly. But, this page is more similar to Constitutional Convention and Constituent Assembly (disambiguation), so it should also be a dab. If there were actual content here, beyond unreferenced descriptions of a few commissions, I would propose merging it with constituent assembly, but we don't have that. Alternatively, we could merge Constitutional Convention, Constituent Assembly (disambiguation), and this page into one disambiguation page, since they're all basically the same kind of thing, and have the other two redirect to the one page. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC) Striking !vote. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In light of James' !vote, I would say that the information that he's provided should be added to constituent assembly in its own section. I still don't see the need for a separate article, unless and until that article is too long and we need to spinoff a new article. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my discussion with James and his !vote. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but quite possibly split State constitutional commissions in the United States and others. Constitutional commissions (plural) satisfy GNG. There are sources that discuss "constitutional commissions" (plural) as a group. The following deals with constitutional commissions generally and appears to be international (covering at least Australia and the US) in scope: [19] (see pp 19 to 21; also published at 19 Public Law Review 308). It deals with constitutional commissions as expert bodies generally. It seems to indicate that "constitutional commissions" in that sense are not just a name. The following deals with constitutional commissions generally and appears to be international (covering at least the whole of the Commonwealth) in scope: [20] (see pp 239 and 240; see also p 62). Again it deals with constitutional commissions as expert bodies generally. I think this source, in particular, is broad and general enough to make dabification unnecessary. The following deal with state constitional commissions (plural, because multiple states have them) in the US: [21] (see s 546 to p 575) [22] (see section on "constitutional commissions") [23] (see pp 423 to 429) [24] [25]. The following deals with ten constitutional commissions for multiple countries in former British Africa: [26] [27]. The following deals with constitutional commissions in former British colonies generally: [28]. James500 (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC) The following deals with constitutional commissions in British decolonization: [29]. The following deals with constitutional commissions in transitional states: [30]. This source is completely international in scope. James500 (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I should point out that WP:GNG is solely a test of the volume of coverage that exists in independent reliable sources, not the length of any Wikipedia article. If a sub-topic satisfies GNG we do not have to wait until the article on the parent topic becomes too long in order to create an article on the sub-topic. That would be a serious nuisance to editors, and GNG was created to prevent nuisance arguments and nuisance disputes about whether the parent article is or is not too long. I should also point out that that approach is likely to result in the parent article becoming unbalanced, to the point where the sub-topic is given disproportionate space in the parent article. The whole point of GNG is to stop this kind of thing. [I should also point out that Constituent assembly is already 38kB long. It is already fairly lengthy, and does not need to be "stuffed" with even more sub-topics.] James500 (talk) 12:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough point regarding article splits and based on source 2, I'm persuaded that a constitutional commission is sufficiently distinct from other forms of constituent assemblies. That said, the several articles we have on this topic are a mess and there should be some sort of discussion about how to reorganize these articles. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that at this moment this page presently needs to be rewritten. I think that anyone who has read the sources should be able to the rewrite the article. I expect that it will be rewritten soon. I do not think that a discussion is necessary to decide how to reorganize this article, because I think it is obvious how this article should be reorganized. James500 (talk) 18:47, 11 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) 01:00, 15 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) 02:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article needs to be improved as there are clear issues with the article (for example empty headings), besides that, I would vote keep

Mr Vili talk 04:38, 23 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!} 23:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Levicoff

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

Fails WP:N. Of the article's six sources, two are e-mail screenshots, and the other four are news articles which mention the subject only briefly. No substantive, third-party coverage was located. Historical-idealist (talk) 02:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Historical-idealist (talk) 05:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Radio, Education, Christianity, California, Pennsylvania, and Vermont. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find one mention of him in the acknowledgments of a book, and a handful of mentions in local newspapers (one line each). He does not meet NACADEMIC. There are no substantial sources about him. Lamona (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find much even for book reviews. This is rather brief, the source seems reliable [31]. I don't AUTHOR is met. Oaktree b (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in terms of WP:RS sources there are only a few passing mentions. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:40, 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 redirect‎ to Tjodalv. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gromth

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

Tagged for notability for 11 years. Really badly sourced. I don't think this metal band really meets any criterion of WP:NBAND. They only released one album, which was supposedly "album of the month" in Scream (magazine), and Rock Hard did feature it, but I can't find anything else. There were no reviews and barely any news in the Norwegian mainstream press. The article previously claimed to meet WP:NBAND#6 by claiming that Kjell Karlsen was a member, who was 80 years at the time, but the real name of the Gromth member is Kjell Åge Karlsen (though that guy is a member of another notable band, Chrome Division). Geschichte (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Norway. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tjodalv. Could not find SIGCOV sources other than an entry in a niche metal encyclopedia. Has been deleted after a debate from Nowiki. Nom participated in that. One band member has a biography where the band is mentioned in a discography header. The band lilely stopped activities in 2013 or soon after. Nothing updated since and the website has been inactive since 2013. gidonb (talk) 03:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The entire History section is unencyclopedic and unsourced (except for them losing the Melodi Grand Prix), and does not meet WP:NMUSICIAN or WP:GNG. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 23:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:43, 16 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!} 02:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not seeing any significant coverage to justify an article. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tjodalv as an ATD. Couldn't find sources to justify a stand-alone article. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:28, 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. The consensus is to Delete but if an editor would like to work on this in Draft space, let me know or make a request at WP:REFUND. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Generative AI tools

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

No references and this is completely incorrect formatting for Wikipedia, this is like an essay. Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: The article is unreferenced as as no clarity about the subject, need to update missing information as well as writing tone. Morekar (talk) 09:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Too vague, there is already Large language model#List and hundreds or thousands of "generative AI tools" Mr Vili talk 04:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no RS backing the article, from a quick search I just did. Cinadon36 16:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mr vili. Large language model seems to cover this well enough already TappyTurtle (talk) 05:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article is somewhat slopulous and seems to have been written by a GPT. jp×g 🗯️ 17:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
which, would be quite ironic given the article’s topic, lol TappyTurtle (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed a lot of "whatever and AI" articles/drafts written by LLMs. I imagine it's similar to how the first thing everybody 3d prints is some accessories and brackets for their 3d printer, and the first thing everybody makes on a lathe is random lathe attachments, etc etc... jp×g 🗯️ 05:38, 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 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!} 02:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Devlin

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

i think this might be a hoax. "San Fransokyo" is a fake city from a movie, and i could find no referencing. "He looks not a day over 58, but is really 82 years young." ??? and 99% sure this person did not play bruce wayne (batman). also the filmography referenced is very minor roles so not notable enough for acting. Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Most of the hoaxing appears to have been vandalism by 173.66.25.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 173.66.166.151 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) that I have reverted. No substantial opinion at this time about whether this article should go or not, though I will note that such vandalism persisting on a BLP is probably a valid argument against keeping the article. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: His website is the first thing in Gsearch, appears to be a writer now. I couldn't find any book reviews, the usual places to buy books are all there is. Minor acting roles, not seeing any sort of notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:06, 23 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. Another article nominated soon after its creation. I don't want to be a broken record so look at other AFDs from 2/22 for my remarks. A clear consensus to Keep and discussions about a Merge or Rename can occur on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Guangzhou bridge collapse

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

WP:LASTING, WP:NOTNEWS 5 dead is not significant, article creator has created many other such articles that fail these Cutlass ^Ciera 02:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

five is not major but under the circumstances of how the bridge collapsed is notable Dubstar44 (talk) 02:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the way the bridge collapsed and how it collapsed is notable as its not every day a boat smashes into a bridge causing a large portion to collapse articles like this are not always needed for death tolls but how it happened and such as the boat crashing into the bridge Dubstar44 (talk) 02:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"the way the bridge collapsed and how it collapsed is notable", is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 14:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, bridge collapses are rare and this one made the international news. WP:NOT#NEWS is designed to prevent tabloid-style "journalism", such as celebrity gossip. Abductive (reasoning) 02:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An event being in the news does not make it notable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to List of bridge failures. The bridge itself does not appear to be notable. I think a redirect is fine as the article can always be recreated if more detail comes out. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Knowledgekid87: I actually think the bridge itself is notable. See also for instance the Chinese article including the history. So, I'm interested to know why you think the bridge itself is not notable? 82.174.61.58 (talk) 14:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or otherwise rename into Lixinsha Bridge: I expanded the article and there is more information available in other sources. There is also more information about the history of the bridge (see also the Chinese article of the bridge and Chinese article of the 2024 accident). 82.174.61.58 (talk) 13:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Rename as and adjust to make article about Lixinsha Bridge - Bridge collapses are notable enough. there are much less serious incidents with articles at List of bridge failures
Merge into List of bridge failures; this event is serious enough to warrant inclusion (as that list includes a number of non-fatal collapses, plus several collapses with more fatalities than this one), but I question whether there is enough material for more than a stub article. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 03:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now per WP:RAPID. It's literally just been 1 day after this event when the article is nominated. Managed to get to numerous international news outlets [32][33][34][35] so there is enough coverage to pass the simple WP:GNG. I'd imagine that the last paragraph at WP:LASTING applies here too. I would not be opposed to a merger should notability be not there after a few months. S5A-0043^Talk 05:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now and rename Lixinsha Bridge. It notable per WP:EVENT and has WP:COVERAGE as it has international coverage with CNN and NYT, also it may meet WP:LASTING if the claim "Due to low safety standards and poor enforcement, building fires and similar deadly incidents are common in China” found in Yingcai Boarding School fire has a reliable source (the source [36] does verify this) and applies to this bridge too. Whether it’s WP:LASTING for a bridge, I’m unsure. But keeping the current encyclopedic summary of the bridge collapse in a Wiki article about the Lixinsha Bridge sounds good. waddie96 ★ (talk) 11:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep. Meets WP:GNG, who knows if it's going to meet WP:LASTING. Example of WP:RAPID. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:10, 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 keep‎. I see a clear consensus to Keep this article with a possible Merge discussion in the future. And, again, it's impossible to evaluate LASTING after one day. Please do not be in a rush to nominate articles unless there are serious problems and a more compelling deletion rationale demonstrating BEFORE might have influenced this outcome. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Lochem bridge collapse

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

WP:LASTING, 2 dead is not significant Cutlass ^Ciera 02:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Netherlands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, bridge collapses are rare and this one made the international news. WP:NOT#NEWS is designed to prevent tabloid-style "journalism", such as celebrity gossip. Abductive (reasoning) 02:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An event being in the news does not make it notable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move and repurpose to Nettelhorster Bridge. The bridge itself and its plans to be may be notable, and the collapse can be integrated into that article. DarmaniLink (talk) 05:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now or rename into Nettelhorsterbrug and don’t hurry to delete. It’s a recurring topic in all the Dutch national news sources. It’s highly likely the event will have a long aftermath. As its seem as a main disaster in the Netherlands, it’s likely to fulfill WP:EVENT. 82.174.61.58 (talk) 07:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and/or potentially integrate into article about the bridge. Nom cites WP:LASTING which actually states that "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." AusLondonder (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as likely LASTING and rename/rework through a separate procedure. This nomination is focused on the references instead of on the sources in defiance of NEXIST. gidonb (talk) 09:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:LASTING. waddie96 ★ (talk) 11:59, 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. There is a lot to say about this AFD. First, I think it is really out-of-line to nominate an article for an AFD discussion 16 minutes after it has been created and it results in an outcome like this. What an article looks like in the first hour of its life is very different from what it looks like 7 days later. This conduct should be discouraged unless the content has serious problems like vandalism or BLP violations. If this happens regularly, a visit to ANI could be warranted.

Second, it doesn't matter whether or not individual editors here think this event is or isn't notable or counting up how many people died in a disaster, we make these decisions by what reliable sources say and so far, I don't see anyone arguing for Deletion challenging the sources brought up by those editors advocating Keeping this article.

If the coverage isn't SUSTAINED, it might be warranted to return to AFD for this article but based on this discussion, I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Valencia residential building fire

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

Another WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING article created by this contributor, no indication of notability Cutlass ^Ciera 02:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now that i realize that he did this twice today, i think a complaint should be made at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Lukt64 (talk) 02:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article creator seems to have a problem with creating WP:NOTNEWS failing articles and one sentence vehicle accident articles. If this continues without their response I will take this to ANI. Cutlass ^Ciera 02:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

with the vehicle ones i understand but some of these incidents are notable and i do try and expand on them however some get speedy deletions like this right now once more information comes out i can add on Dubstar44 (talk) 02:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest keeping in the draft space until the subject is more notable? waddie96 ★ (talk) 11:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

being as you have put all of my recent articles for deletion without looking further and looking at the basics I feel it is sort of personal that you are deciding to nominate my articles for deletion especially seeing that you looked back a year to see me creating vehicle accident articles mainly in the Philippines that is not in mu opinion relevant here as I am providing a basic paragraph saying what has happened in the article adding the references adding the event of how and what happened and if the article is notable enough to be seen by an official member like a president of a country that should be notable as it is an acknowledged Incident by a leader of a country. Dubstar44 (talk) 03:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I caution Cutlass and Lukt64 to use Dubstar44’s talk page, followed by dispute resolution if that doesn’t help, before turning to ANI. A threat to a 'complaint to ANI' is disturbing and gut-wrenching for a Wiki user, I’m sure we’ve all had the threat wavered over our heads, and it’s no shallow one. Let’s be civil. We all have one clear goal editing Wikipedia. I have made comments on a draft space article of Dubstar44’s, and also posted some comments on their talk page. waddie96 ★ (talk) 11:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When BBC News covers an incident in Spain, that's a pretty strong hint that the topic is notable. The corresponding article in the Spanish Wikipedia is much longer and has several references from reliable sources. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- See es:Incendio de Valencia de 2024 Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to this statement as bbc normally only cover notable incidents and the way the building was in flames within 10 minutes should be notable in itself Dubstar44 (talk) 02:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
" the way the building was in flames within 10 minutes should be notable in itself" No that is a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 05:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If you look at the Wikipedia list of building or structure fires, ones that do have an article have either more societal impact or deaths.Yxuibs (talk) 03:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The incident has happened recently and with cutlass ceearing this deletion the article was up for no more than 15 minutes allowing no time for the article to be expanded on. Dubstar44 (talk) 03:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Spain. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS, the fact that BBC covers it doesn't necessarily add to notability. Revisit in 6 months to see if this fire has an WP:EFFECT. LibStar (talk) 03:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Currently 4 people are confirmed dead and 19 others are missing, which could make it one of the deadliest building fires in Spain's recent history. It's already being reported as the most serious fire in Valencia since the 19th century and the story is dominating Spanish news media. This easily passes notability. I also think articles shouldn't be nominated for deletion when the incident itself has not even concluded yet, as doing so only discourages people who make a sincere effort to write something. At least give it some time. Johndavies837 (talk) 03:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a global encyclopaedia, we definitely don't document every event with 4 deaths. What next a traffic accident with 4 deaths covering in the media? LibStar (talk) 04:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A large fire potentially killing up to 23 people and leaving hundreds of people homeless is not at all comparable to a traffic accident. Johndavies837 (talk) 04:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"potentially killing up to 23 people". Now you're WP:CRYSTAL balling. LibStar (talk) 04:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Spanish firefighters have said they don't expect to find the 19 missing people alive, so yes that would be up to 23 killed. Johndavies837 (talk) 05:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's still speculation. LibStar (talk) 05:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's relevant to the discussion when it's coming from an official source. There's really no need to delete an article while the event is still ongoing. Although I would still vote keep even if the death toll remained the same. Johndavies837 (talk) 05:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should reread WP:N and WP:NEVENT before commenting on AfDs like this. Nothing you're saying is actually relevant to whether this article is notable or non-notable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of WP:N and WP:NEVENT. My original comment said it was already the worst fire in the region since the 19th century, possibly one of the deadliest building fires in Spain's recent history, and dominating Spanish media. It's also getting international coverage as noted by others. This event clearly passes all notability requirements. Even now, more than 24 hours later, it's still the top story on the BBC. Johndavies837 (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An event being in the news does not make it notable. Being deadly means absolutely nothing in regard to the notability criteria. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although not as serious as the Grenfell Tower fire, there is a significant number of deaths, with the toll likely to rise. The current death toll (mid-teens) is high enough to sustain an article. Mjroots (talk) 06:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked the death toll, right now it's 4 not mid teens. LibStar (talk) 11:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. I would be happy to reassess its notability in a few months, but it looks significant enough at the moment. Ron Oliver (talk) 06:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. It's WP:TOOSOON to say there's a lasting notability, and while there may be it's speculation to say there is, so draftifying instead of deleting makes sense to me, although a keep to evaluate again in a few months is also agreeable. Shaws username . talk . 11:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looking at more sources since my last !vote I'm more inclined that it does merit keeping, the BBC still has a live reporting page for it. There's widespread international coverage from the US, India, France, South Korea, Aljazeera, the Ledbury Reporter (which seems to be a local newspaper in England) and more. It remains to be seen if it's WP:SUSTAINED into the future but that can be looked at with an AfD in a few months. Shaws username . talk . 16:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It appears to be a notable fire. It's very likely more information will become available of the aftermath and investigation. In this case WP:RUSHDELETE apply in my opinion. 82.174.61.58 (talk) 14:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The scale of the devastation is too big and is a serious mass casualty incident. Borgenland (talk) 14:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep At 6 people dead right now, and over 10 more missing and presumed dead, it might be the deadliest fire in the history of València and the second-worst peacetime building fire in Spain after the 1979 Hotel Corona de Aragón fire. MaeseLeon (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep im changing my vote now that 6 people are dead and 10 are presumed dead Lukt64 (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is the number of people that died a criterion for notability? LibStar (talk) 23:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: May have a lasting impact like the Grenfell fire did, but it is too early to know. Either way, a fire which kills 10 people in a developed country like Spain is notable, especially as it has been covered by many international sources like BBC News, CNN, Al Jazeera and ABC News (Australia). harrz ^talk 16:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"May have a lasting impact like the Grenfell fire did, but it is too early to know." Which is a reason for not keeping. LibStar (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fatal incident widely covered in international media. Parallels to Grenfell Tower fire have been noted in several articles already, sparking discussions on the use of cladding materials. Consider WP:SNOW close RWalen (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 10 deaths in one of the most serious fires in Spain's recent history, with international coverage and with an article in good condition is notable. There would be no doubt if it had happened in Kansas City or Manchester. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: This is a catastrophic fire that has killed at least 9 with many more missing. The fire echos back to the Grenfell Tower fire with two entire buildings engulfed and appears to have involved flammable cladding like the Grenfell Tower fire. This event is very significant and will likely go down in history as one of the worst fire in modern Spanish history. The fire has also been covered by media from around the world. User:Stormchaser246 (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: 9 deaths + 1 missing, the worst accident of this kind in the Valencian Community and in the Spanish state for ages, echoes to the Grenfell Tower fire, international and foreign local media attention are enough reasons to keep it on the wiki. Had it happened in an Anglophone country we'd probably wouldn't even be discussing it. --Sacesss (talk) 09:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The very rapid spread of the fire tips the event into notability for me. (The fact that the article was started by someone who has also started unrelated articles on non-notable subjects is irrelevant.)--A bit iffy (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The very rapid spread of the fire tips the event into notability for me." is not a notability criterion. LibStar (talk) 09:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should have worded that better. I meant "the unusually rapid spread", i.e. an exceptional event.--A bit iffy (talk) 13:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per all noted above (death toll, reported worldwide, debate over cladding materials). Alexcalamaro (talk) 06:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment should we also create an article for this? China: 15 dead and dozens more injured in Nanjing flat fire LibStar (talk) 09:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely yes. As @Sacesss suggests, had it happened in Kansas City or Manchester instead of Nanjing, there would already be a 100 Kb article by now, and nobody disputing if it's notable enough. You're invited to start it. MaeseLeon (talk) 10:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have already created Nanjing fire article in Chinese Wikipedia. The article about València residential complex fire at least has a cause and effect, and is not simply news.And a large scale fire will have investigation results in the future, so it is likely to be mentioned again in the future. 日期20220626 (talk) 11:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, far from local news, made the top bracket of the BBC home page. Ten deaths in a housing catastrophe in a developed country is far from usual. I have no doubts that if this had happened in Nowhere, Vermont and the in-depth sources were in English, this page would be 300k in length now. Unknown Temptation (talk) 15:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A misleading and unconstructive nomination containing a bad-faith attack on an editor. If a fire of this scale had occured in the UK or US there would be no credible suggestion of deletion and the article would be nearly unreadable in length. 2022 Bronx apartment fire was literally listed at ITN, not being nominated for deletion. Some editors need to understand systemic bias and stop trying to make the issue worse. AusLondonder (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unfounded accusation. At the time of nominating this article for deletion the death toll was marked as 4 and it was a stub with one source. The article when I nominated it I looked at the sources and noticed it was mainly routine coverage. After I nominated this article for deletion the article was massively expanded. The creator of the original article has had many problems with creating disaster stubs and one sentence vehicle accident stubs. Cutlass ^Ciera 18:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a building safety related topic. This is not another fire in a building, this fire was caused by a bad thermal insulation material choice. The death toll was low due most of inhabitants left the building early. --RíoCigüela (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep also per all noted above (building materials, worldwide reporting, etc.). JoseJan89 (talk) 11:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Spain. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just sorted this into the events and Spain deletion discussion lists. I do not believe this should be SNOW closed so that editors who watch those lists should be given time to review this article. (Note: brought here by discussion on the enwiki Discord channel.) voorts (talk/contributions) 18:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it already was on the 23rd, the text saying that just burried among the comments. Shaws username . talk . 23:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Note that there is a discussion about this AfD at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Questionable activity at an AfD. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all noted above. waddie96 ★ (talk) 11:46, 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 redirect‎ to Tornadoes of 2024#January–February (Indonesia). as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Sumedang tornado

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

WP:NOTNEWS, WP:LASTING Cutlass ^Ciera 01:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Article is a contentfork of Tornadoes of 2024 and WP:Weather has basic criteria for tornadoes that get articles (WP:NWEATHER). Hey Cutlass, honestly, I would withdraw the AfD and then just do an instant redirect to Tornadoes of 2024#February 21 (Indonesia). The AfD is just too-long of a process (since it is a seven-day process) for this and a BOLD redirect is what I would have done. So, unless you feel we need seven days for this discussion, just withdraw and BOLD redirect it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The event didnt even cause any deaths, something that automatically makes it near unimportant unless it causes hundreds of injuries. Lukt64 (talk) 02:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The one thing thats sure is notable about this tornado is that it occured in Indonesia, a tropical country located in the equator, which doesn't get affected by the Coriolis force, So a tornado with this magnitude shouldn't exist in Indonesia, yet it did, I feel like we should keep the article because of this one fact, I think this is notable enough. SomeoneWiki04 (talk) 04:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not for us to decide. If academic journals start publishing articles about this, then we can talk about it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Environment, and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An event being in the news does not make it notable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It being in the news is not what made it notable, Like I said before, I feel like it occuring in Indonesia is what made it notable, Take a look at the Port Orchard tornado, It didn't even cause any casualties, it might even deal even less damage than the Sumedang tornado, but it has an article nonetheless, because its rare, My opinion is to probably just make it a redirect at minimum. SomeoneWiki04 (talk) 13:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But why is high casualities 200 homes damaged? 50 people injured? Great achievement (talk) 07:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect into Tornadoes of 2024#February 21 (Indonesia). Not enough information (yet) for having its own article. 82.174.61.58 (talk) 15:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet GNC criteria, obviously. Cinadon36 16:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, but in the future, such an article could be merged to a country tornado list. I have started Draft:List of Indonesia tornadoes, and based on List of tornadoes and tornado outbreaks in Asia, there appear to be enough tornadoes for there to be a list. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above 68.129.15.101 (talk) 00:53, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a weather event with no deaths, also fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 03:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tornadoes_of_2024#January–February_(Indonesia): Nothing to suggest standalone notability. Owen× ☎ 00:11, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Potters For Peace

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

Fails WP:ORG. Source 3, 10 and 13 are dead. In any case, sources 10 to 15 are about Ceramic Water Purifiers and not this organization, so it's a content fork. LibStar (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Environment, and Colorado. LibStar (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't have time to fix the article myself right now, but a Google Scholar search shows up lots of articles about the group. Some discuss the group itself while many are about the technical quality of their water filters.

Rarick, Charles A. and Duchatelet, Martine, Potters for Peace: Building Social Entrepreneurs One Piece at a Time (2006). Journal of the International Academy of Case Studies, 4(1)2006, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2491964
Carpenter, B. S. (2010). Embodied Social Justice: Water Filter Workshops as Public Pedagogy. In Handbook of Public Pedagogy: Education and Learning beyond Schooling (pp. 337-340). Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203863688-52
Kowalski, K. (2008). Removal of virus-sized particles and escherichia coli by the potters for peace ceramic water filter (Order No. 1460862). Available from ProQuest One Academic. (288219160). Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/removal-virus-sized-particles-escherichia-coli/docview/288219160/se-2

Lijil (talk) 08:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources don't have to be available online to be valid. In this case, the references that appear to be dead may be available through The Wikipedia Library or a university library. I think that the references establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:05, 23 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 WKTC. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

W67DP

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Merge with WKTC. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and South Carolina. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete Basically unreferenced. - Altenmann >talk 02:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with WKTC: its broadcast history can apparently be divided into two eras: repeating WKTC, and a Telemundo affiliation that wound up shifting to a WKTC subchannel after this facility faded away. Neither exactly suggests independent notability, even if the Telemundo affiliation at least appeared to get some coverage at launch. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:00, 23 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!} 23:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Schweiterman

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

Non-notable former actor. Article is largely unsourced except for an IMDb link and a Palm Beach Post reference. Fails WP:NACTOR. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Film. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find two short paragraphs in a "where are they now" article about the cast, and in a dubious source, and a couple of mentions in four or five not-very-strong sources. Nothing substantial. Does not meet GNG. Lamona (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Just enough coverage of his character... There's a sequel coming out, talk of him having a cameo, so there is some recent coverage as well. [37], [38], [39]. Oaktree b (talk) 00:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this person does not seem independently notable. Brad (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no independent detailed coverage. - Altenmann >talk 02:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no significant coverage Mr Vili talk 04:42, 23 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. Based on minimal participation. PrinceofPunjab^TALK 03:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Carlos Alcaraz tennis season

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

There is nothing especially notable about this season so far. Does not actually fullfil WP:TENNISSEASON I think we should we should Redirect it to Carlos Alcaraz and Draftify it till he has won a Masters title. PrinceofPunjab^TALK 04:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Tennis, and Spain.

PrinceofPunjab^TALK 04:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify The page is not ready for mainspace yet. Wait till he has won something major. LiamKorda (talk) 05:49, 23 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.

[1] Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.

[1]