< December 27	December 29 >

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dirth[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. No significant coverage or other indication of notability. Lennart97 (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I now notice this page survived an AfD all the way back in 2005, apparently passing 2005's notability standards. The criteria met were:

One member, Jon Moss, is notable. This is no longer a valid criterion.
The band was mentioned in Music Week & the Daily Telegraph. No evidence of this was ever given and I can't find it, but if found this coverage could of course make a difference.

Lennart97 (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Already mentioned briefly at the Jon Moss article, and that is sufficient. I can find no evidence that this band ever did anything except play a few local gigs. They are mentioned briefly in a few directory sites as a very brief tidbit in Moss's career, and almost always with no supporting information on anything they ever did. If they were mentioned in the major sources described in the 2005 AfD, those were probably minor gig announcements. Does not meet any of the current requirements at WP:NBAND. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 22:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd just point out for now that this group may well have three notable members, not one... Wix Wickens has played with some of the biggest names in the industry over the last 40 years (dismissing him as simply "from Paul McCartney" doesn't do his career justice), and I wouldn't be surprised if vocalist Neil McCormick was actually Neil McCormick, the chief music writer of The Daily Telegraph newspaper, who has dabbled in music on and off since the 1970s. This would also explain the mention in the same newspaper... McCormick using his column to plug his own band. That said, even with three notable members forming a "supergroup" of sorts, can we really keep an article with apparently no sources whatsoever, by a band who appear to have never officially released a record, and only played some small gigs? It sounds like a bunch of famous friends playing occasionally just for fun. Richard3120 (talk) 23:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:56, 28 December 2021 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consortium Project[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. There are a few reviews in metal webzines, but overall a lack of significant coverage by reliable sources. Unsourced, no other indications of notability. Lennart97 (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The amount of reviews is really impressive. As the nominator implies but fails to conclude, meets WP:MUSICBIO via WP:NMUSICOTHER #1. The claim that something should be deleted, just because it is currently unsourced, conflicts with WP:NEXIST, among others. gidonb (talk) 06:44, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Good thing I didn't claim that, then. Neither is "an impressive amount of reviews exists" a reason to keep, especially if those reviews are from poor quality unreliable sources. Would you care to provide WP:THREE sources and explain why they qualify as WP:RS? Lennart97 (talk) 09:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See sources below. This nomination is an obvious before failure. gidonb (talk) 13:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probably keep. When WP:BEFOREing for reviews for just one of their albums, IV, the best would probably be Metal.de, DPRP (print), Music Street Journal (print), Metal Rules, Powermetal.de, and the hits also include [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] (scroll down a bit), [7], [8], [9], [10]. It seems the band crosses over between the metal and prog rock scenes. Blabbermouth found it worthy of coverage, though may stem from a press release. That being said, the frontman would be a possible merge target if he had an article. He has a small Allmusic bio, which is a good start. Geschichte (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- THREE would be useful because an indiscriminate list of webzine album reviews is not necessarily an indication of notability; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subhuman (Italian band) for a similar case nevertheless closed as delete. I have yet to find one review from the list above for which I'm able to verify the reviewer's credentials, if the reviewer is named at all. At least one site (SeaOfTranquility) is explicitly listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources as a generally unreliable source; another review (on El Portal del Metal) is clearly user generated as opposed to written by a staff member. Lennart97 (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kono (character)[edit]

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

Trivial fictional character that doesn't meet WP:GNG. No reliable sources found. Avilich (talk) 17:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 17:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. Not mentioned at Legion of Super-Heroes. Not mentioned at List of DC Comics characters: K. I'd say redirect to the list and add her entry there but the current article is not even properly referenced... if before this is deleted someone adds her entry to the linked list, I guess we could redirect instead of deleting. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with List of DC Comics characters: K in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE while transferring her information there. --Rtkat3 (talk) 21:23, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only source currently being used in the article is a single issue of a comic book, and searching for actual information in reliable sources turns up nothing on this character. Even unreliable fan sources like fan wikis barely have anything on this particular character. I've said in the past that character list articles are not an automatic catch-all to shove unsourced material that is inappropriate to be kept on the encyclopedia, and this extremely minor character with zero information sourced to reliable sources is a prime example of one that should be deleted outright. Rorshacma (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more attempt to get consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – The Grid (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only source is a Wikipedia article that doesn't mention this character. Vexations (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2022 (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 DigiPen Institute of Technology. Selectively. Sandstein 17:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Claude Comair[edit]

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

This article was written primarily by Supadude888, who has edited primarily this article and the DigiPen Institute of Technology, the organisation ran by the subject of this article (their only other edits appear to be on the subject of mountain climbing); and the anonymous ip 198.244.110.191 (a Seattle area IP address) who has also only edited DigiPen, Claude Comair & mounting climbing articles, and so is likely just Supadude logged out. I don't want to go all Sherlock here but Supadude is also the contributor of the picture of Claude, which he uploaded as 'own work', so its extremely likely Supadude is Comair or works for Comair.

The article almost exclusively references DigiPen's own website, the website of DigiPen's research arm, a MobyGames page (which is a user generated wiki and fails the definition of a reliable source), as well as a very brief mention in an article from 2013 about Nintendo Software Technology. The BBC article referenced is nothing to do with him, but a timeline of Lebanese history.

A Google News search turns up very few results (an article on his son where he is mentioned in passing, an article collating covid PR releases from Seattle area businesses, and an Ars Technica article which is just quoting him once).

The article falls back on listing patents, which as WP:PATENTS notes is a fairly common way to puff up a self promotional article.

Therefore I generally see that it fails the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability. JT_dale^Talk~ 02:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oh boy, this is a tough one. He seems notable but the sources used are garbage. We'd need to strip this article down and start over again. Oaktree b (talk) 05:29, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:45, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:45, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:46, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:46, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He is not going to pass academic notability, I am not thinking the institution he is over fits the "significant" and "accredited" terms that need to be met to make an academic leader notable. However, if he gets enough indepdent coverage he may be notable. We seem not to have much here, but sometimes that happens because people go for low hanging easy self references, instead of digging up 3rd party coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The google books are turning up some mentions such as this [11] which appears to be an indepdent source, I am not sure how it works on reliable. It is also more about the place he heads and its opening a new campus.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to DigiPen Institute of Technology. A look at the google books search sources suggests to me there are multiple references to his institution. Although the one that changed my mind was this [12] which is a test prep quesiton name dropping him and his institution. I am not sure that is a GNG building source at all. Still, the one I listed above is a slightly better reference, but more on the institution than Comair. Overall I think merger is the best way forward.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – The Grid (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of other good solutions, merge and rd what's salvageable (not much, if any) to DigiPen. This is a pretty obvious puff/selfpromo piece so it's hard to see through it to the potential notability underneath. There's a lot of corporate fluff too at the DigiPen article, to be clear. At any rate, any future independent article for Comair will have to start from scratch. There's too much taint and self-promo in this one. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted per request of the page's sole editor. ‑ Iridescent 21:22, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Woeber[edit]

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

Not seeing evidence of notability. Sources included are trivial mentions, nothing turning up so far in news or web searches aside from profiles. Does not appear to pass WP:GNG or WP:NBIO ASUKITE 20:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ASUKITE 20:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ASUKITE 20:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ASUKITE 20:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. Consensus is that the sources found do provide sufficient coverage for WP:GNG. RL0919 (talk) 20:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Gorman (American football)[edit]

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

Not finding enough WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources in my search to meet WP:GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Added WP:FOOTY tags as subject used to be a soccer player as well as a football player. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 21:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's astonishing to me that WP:GRIDIRON grants presumed notability to any man who played in, e.g., the obscure United States Football League (1983–1985), but doesn't acknowledge even a single women's league. pburka (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That's because we haven't found a women's league where 90-95+ percent of participants meet the general notability guideline. In fact, only about 50 women football players have articles, see Category:Female players of American football and its subcat Category:Legends Football League players. BTW, whenever I've done an article on a USFL player I've found them to meet GNG BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very few women players of gridiron football are likely to pass our notability standards, but Gorman was voted the best defensive player in the league, inducted into the Hall of Fame, and has had some SIGCOV. Examples: (1) "Liz Gorman, un 'touch down' al corazón", CR Hoy Noticias (mainstream news outlet in Costa Rica), 2015 (feature story on Gorman); (2) "Mind the sport, not the underwear: American football star Liz Gorman", Yahoo News, 2013 (feature story on Gorman); (3) "Skimpy outfits will end someday, lingerie football player says", CBC, 2012 (story focused on Gorman's leadership of effort to eliminate the skimpy uniforms), (4) "A Lingerie Football League Player Doesn't Like Playing In Her Bra And Underwear", Business Insider, 2012 (more coverage of her efforts to change the league's skimpy outfits), and (5) "LFL Gets Undieway", Men's Fitness, 2/28/12. Unsure about whether this next group come from reliable sources, but see also (6) "The SIZZLING HOT LFL Hall Of Famer Who Is Reportedly Trying Out With The WWE, 2015, Bro Bible; (7) "LIZ GORMAN DEMANDE DU RESPECT POUR ELLE ET LA LFL", Cover Girls du Sport, 2014; (8) "Liz Gorman, another Lingerie Football player, could enter WWE", SuperLuchas, 2015; (9) "Lingerie Football Star Liz Gorman In WWE Tryout", WhatCulture, 2015 (describing her as a "lingerie football league legend"); and (10) Beauty and brawn: Stars of 'world's sexiest sport' out to break all stereotypes", Spin.ph, 2013. Cbl62 (talk) 00:44, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Though that's more than my search brought up, I still do not see enough for a pass of GNG. (1) You pointed out seems short, its only five sentences. (2) I agree is significant, so 1/3 for a pass IMO. (3) The content related to her seems to be mostly quotes; the only non-quote content of her is "Liz Gorman, who plays with the Tampa Breeze of the women's Lingerie Football League, also thinks more traditional football attire will happen someday ... Gorman believes the league will eventually evolve to the point that the more revealing outfits will go." So I do not see how that is SIGCOV. (4) Is almost the same thing, and links to the previous article. (5) May be SIGCOV, so that's 2/3? The others do not seem to be reliable sources, so I do not see enough for GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Way way way more coverage than we found for Vainowski. And there is no requirement of three. Two is multiple even if you discount the others (and I don’t agree with discounting 1, 3 and 4. Cbl62 (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation of GNG is three pieces of SIGCOV. BTW, this AFD has nothing to do with Vainowski, I just stumbled upon this article and did not see what made her notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SIGCOV above and second Pburka's incredulity. But honestly what's new in AfD discussions involving female athletes these days... Le sigh. Seany91 (talk) 09:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG and sources above, and I hope that the local consensus to exclude nearly all women players of American football is challenged. The fact that Wikipedia only has pages for about 50 players should be seen as embarrassing rather than a point of pride. pburka (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pburka has a valid point. Women’s American football has been around for quite a few years and has network television coverage. While I doubt that every player (or even a majority) would pass GNG, a grand total of 50 player bios doesn’t strike me as being over-representation. And Gorman is one of the true legends — three time Defensive Player of the Year and inducted into the hall of fame. Cbl62 (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are at least two examples of significant coverage above. In addition to that, Gorman's own individual accolades are enough to make a stand-alone article worth keeping, in my view. Others will disagree and I can understand why this is up for deletion but I certainly believe the project would be better from keeping this one. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There appears to be significant coverage for Gorman's career. I don't have an issue with 50 artlicles for female football players, since the sport has rather niche appeal unlike, say, basketball, but it appears Gorman is one of the most well-known and decorated players of the sport. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per evidence of coverage provided above. Needs a major update to reflect her stats and other details of her pro football career. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 00:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources provided above are sufficient to establish that significant coverage exists. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:14, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG and RS noted.Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2022)} 05:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CAcert.org[edit]

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

Contested WP:PROD. Not a notable topic, clearly written as an advertisement and relying on primary sourcing. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources seem sufficient to meet the notability guideline. Granted, they are positive and not critical, but they do contain some substantive information, but they don’t strike me as particularly promotional for coverage of a certificate authority. --Eruedin (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think I will likely be voting !keep but really ought to complete (due diligence first Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)). In general X509 Public key certificate (PKI) stuff is in my view very important. To be clear this is one of a number of certificate authority entities, (with an eye-cacthing name) but is a not a trusted authority. Probably useful for cheaper community based arrangements. I'd be concerned this might need 3rd party independent reviews and there is a risk the article might use CAcert for CAcert.org and Cartificate Authority certificate. PKI stuff sometimes ends up doing my head in, but it is critically important, and I'm not sure if I've mentioned nonsense in this comment. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. CAcert is the only example of a transparent, open-source, collaborative, international project that manages to issue personal certificates based on mutual verification of identity documents between individuals. By its singular nature, CAcert is part of the history of computing. At a time when state-certified digital identity will become a hot topic, it is worth keeping a reference to CAcert on Wikipedia..Golffies (talk) 10:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Of the sources provided so far only one may be considered reliable and be used to help establish notability. The rest are either bug reports, user forums or primary sources, which mean most of this article is original research. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 11:36, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Can't tell if this article is neutral: CACert.org is a free project "à la" Wikipedia. --Frans45 (talk) 13:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Some indications nom. may not have done a proper before and has failed to check the books link. Obvious example is: Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Smith, Curtis (25 September 2006). Pro Open Source Mail: building an enterprise mail solution. Berkeley, Calif.: Apress. p. 132. ISBN 978-1-59059-598-5. OCLC 255341703.

Keep Agree that sources are sufficiently notable. MagentaSwann (talk) 01:13, 2 January 2022 (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 , a SNOW delete. Also CSD G5, as created by a block-evading editor. JBW (talk) 23:21, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Smmcpan[edit]

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

No indication of notability, sources provided are company directory listings and the subject's own website. I am unable to find multiple reliable sources that significantly discuss the company. ... discospinster _talk 18:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 18:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 18:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's wildly too soon, the company has not been in business long enough to be written-about or have a track-record. The referencing is totally inadequate (e.g. to companies records, and currently the only record that exists is a $1, 1-share incorporation). And as for the comment about how their world-wide ranking, this is a company whose business is selling ranking-manipulation; you want a 10,000 likes on an Instagram post, they'll arrange it. As such, web-statistics about their world ranking are likely to be extraordinarily unreliable. Elemimele (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep the website of the compnany it has a good Ranking by Alexa — Preceding unsigned comment added by The TUrkish Producer (talk • contribs) 04:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Delete unless reliable sources are provided. @The TUrkish Producer: Alexa rankings are not a factor in determining notability. GoingBatty (talk) 04:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - would have been eligible for G5, as creator is a sock of user:علي أبو عمر. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a sockpuppet-of-علي أبو عمر page creation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough RS and sockpuppet. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Relatively straightforward WP:G5 and WP:G7 (only other major contributor has voted delete here) at this point. No need to keep this open unless we want to buff our AfD stats. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 22:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Turtles. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Al Nichol[edit]

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

NN musician, fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. No significant coverage for the subject other than namedrops and casual mentions in connection with the notable band in which he played. Seeking a redirect to The Turtles, which the article creator reverted without comment or explanation. Ravenswing 18:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (permanently) to The Turtles. Nichol did nothing notable outside the band so he does not qualify for a standalone article. I also see no need to publicize an unfortunate mistake he made in 2005 as the only factoid to be found outside his time in the band. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:40, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Other band members have their own articles, one them who only has one source to there page, (Don Murray). BigRed606 (talk) 03:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid reason to keep. That being said, not every member has his own article, including two of the high lineup members, one which already redirects to the band's article. Howard Kaylan, Mark Volman and Chip Douglas are highly notable, of course, while Murray, John Seiter, Joel Larson and John Barbata fulfill the WP:SINGER criterion of being members of multiple notable bands. This is not the case with Nichol. Ravenswing 08:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That argument by BigRed606 inadvertently shows that Don Murray (drummer) should also be redirected to the band, through this very same process, unless someone can find evidence that his later artistic career was notable.---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 03:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Turtles. Notability is solely through that group. ShelbyMarion (talk) 03:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Turtles. Notability begins and ends there. Toddst1 (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Turtles. Not a public person outside of his membership in the band, the only thing for which he might be considered notable. There is not much we could say about this subject that is not already in the article on the band. Vexations (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2022 (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. RL0919 (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin "Joonie" Gary[edit]

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

Despite my due diligence, I cannot find how this subject meets our WP:GNG let alone WP:NMUSIC.

I believe it is WP:TOOSOON for this subject to have a Wikipedia article. Missvain (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2021 (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. People disagree about the quality of the sources, including the newly-added ones. Sandstein 08:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alabama Renaissance Faire[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article's references from reliable news media are more than adequate. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It really depends on how someone views local sources. To me, adequate would be substantial coverage out of the general area. The sources that you added are from Florence, Alabama where the fair is at or are trivial mentions. SL93 (talk) 00:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mild Keep There's an Alabama Magazine article from 2007 in GNews that seems fairly detailed, other are simply travel guides or the like. That 2007 article and the TV news coverage would seem to be just enough to make it notable. Oaktree b (talk) 05:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One or two local news reports, the rest of the sources are general reporting and the fair is just mentioned (but not featured), or non RS from the Faire website. IMHO - Not enough to establish WP:GNG. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Those newly added sources are routine coverage. 2 and 6 are outright promotional. This is a WP:REFBOMB. -- asilvering (talk) 20:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, a couple of mentions in the local press about a local event is not SIGCOV. Hughesdarren (talk) 09:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Despite my due diligence, I cannot find broader significant coverage outside of some promotional/advert stuff in local publications or passing mentions. Not enough to convince me this faire is notable enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia at this time. Missvain (talk) 05:13, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources seem sufficient to meet the notability guideline. Granted, they are positive and not critical, but they do contain some substantive information, but they don’t strike me as particularly promotional for coverage of a local festival.–Chaser (talk) 01:57, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to Florence, Alabama#Festivals, where it is already briefly covered. As stated a couple times above, the sources are largely routine or promotional coverage, which does not really meet the WP:GNG as a stand alone article. However, it is already covered as one of the events on the main article on Florence - redirecting there, at the very least, makes sense, and some of the sources can probably be merged over there. Rorshacma (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets my reading of WP:GNG. Sources are plentiful and fine, and spread between TV, Magazines, and Newspapers. There is a substantial amount of coverage, as indicated by ten plus pages of google hits. It's also been around for 36 years, so there's that. Regards, GenQuest ^"scribble" 07:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note Bene: I have added additional wider-coverage references, partially re-written the article, and expanded it by 35%. There are a lot more untapped references and info out there. The article needs some more editing work and added content, not deletion. Was BEFORE even considered here? Wondering, GenQuest ^"scribble" 15:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GenQuest I don't appreciate WP:BEFORE being mentioned. My nomination said that I searched for references. Please AGF. On top of it, I am a long-time AfD contributor and most of my nominations have a delete consensus. I also see that Missvain had issues finding coverage as well. SL93 (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The recent addition of newer sourcing has helped make it credible.— Maile (talk) 01:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the sources that have been and have been added to the article demonstrating passing WP:GNG. Claiming this is of only "local" interest is not only not accurate, but the term "local" is so ambiguous. Local to just the town near the faire? To the counties adjacent to it? The entire state? In the latter's case, it's not just "local." Oakshade (talk) 22:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oakshade It was never ambiguous. The sources in the article were only from the city that hosts the fair for much of the AfD. SL93 (talk) 00:19, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -I looked at this again to see if I was going to revise my delete vote...and I can't see any reason to. As far as the RS articles go, there are two links to local TV channels, there is a dead link to "rocketcitymoms.com"...the rest are general articles discussing festivals where it is just mentioned, (including on a list of 48 festivals to see in Alabama).. and links to its own website and some renfair page. There is no substantive independent RS substantiating this as being notable beyond the local level, and in fact, not even a lot of local material either. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Closed. It seems that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Welsh Lost Lands (2nd nomination) was properly created a few months after this one, and is still open. Thryduulf (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh Lost Lands[edit]

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

This article lacks notability, seems to be more of a point of view of Welsh-England history and is really badly written and sourced. Looking at it word by word it seems some of this exists in the Wales and Wales-England border articles. I would say it should be merged into one of these or deleted. DragonofBatley (talk) 01:22, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion was not created fully, nor was it transcluded at WP:AFD until today. Thryduulf (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. 17:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. 17:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. 17:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G7. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Omnia (Precision agriculture system)[edit]

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

non-notable software, lacks significant coverage. Mvqr (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2021 (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. Geschichte (talk) 08:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Otis Anderson Jr.[edit]

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

Not notable football player. His death is tragic but that doesn't make him notable. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'm finding some coverage not related to his death, e.g. [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that his death doesn't make him notable. The news coverage of his life and death do, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His death was tragic. But I feel there are enough sources for a GNG pass, including during his college career. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While his death alone does not make him notable per WP:EVENT, There is enough non-routine coverage to justify inclusion. WP:NGRIDIRON allows for articles on players based on players having "notability arising from their college football days." these three sources, referring to Anderson as a "star" player and describing some of his accomplishments such as all-American Athletic Conference honors, combined with the unusual circumstances of his death, are enough to pass WP:GNG. Frank Anchor 15:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Suffecient notability independent of his death. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient coverage to pass GNG. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per the sources provided by BeanieFan11. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2022 (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 00:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andranik Alexanyan[edit]

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

Alexanyan appears to be only boderline notable for taking part in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2009 where he placed fifth (WP:1E). As such all of the relevant information for this can easily be included in both that article or the more specific Ukraine in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2009 article. I cannot find additional information regarding subsequent notable endeavors, if there are any. While this article has a lot of information, it's rather trivial and largely unsourced, including things like he's an "optimist". The bulk of the article was written in 2009 with nearly all changes since then being related to formatting. Grk1011 (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per several other AFDs of child singers, actors etc. who did not have career beyond 1E. Geschichte (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep : This article should be a stub.StephenWilliams021 (talk) 13:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Geschichte (talk) 09:52, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To editor StephenWilliams021: The consequence of a topic not being notable is that it isn't eligible for an article at all, not that it isn't eligible for a full-length one. Only if the topic were found to be notable after all, would reducing the article to a stub for other reasons—unsourced assertions, unencyclopedic trivia, biased or subjective content—be a possible outcome. Largoplazo (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After over twelve years of the article's existence it remains entirely unsourced and notability not shown. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 11:41, 31 December 2021 (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. What a mess. First off, this AfD is a good indication that when a set of things in a category may reasonably be expected to have differing levels of notability, a mass AfD is a bad idea. Further, there's a lot of poor argument here. WP:GEOLAND exists because legally recognized places will generally have received substantive coverage in reliable secondary sources, but that coverage may often be inaccessible. This is particularly true outside the anglosphere. This doesn't necessarily mean every legally recognized place needs to have an article, but at the least an exhaustive search is needed to determine a lack of notability. Several !votes here obviously were not backed by such a search. Conversely, referring to a previous AfD isn't helpful when the topics are obviously different, and as such I am disregarding entirely any comments that did so. Further, even notable topics do not necessarily required a standalone article, per WP:NOPAGE. As such there's not as much engagement with the substance of this issue as I'd like, but nonetheless there's consensus here that at least Akuşağı, Baskil requires a standalone page; that the other titles meet WP:GEOLAND; and that the other titles require a case-by-case discussion at the very least if mergers are considered. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:14, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aladikme, Baskil[edit]

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

I redirected these geostubs sourced to Koyumuz per these discussions [18][19][20], but was reverted because they have a second source which adds the phrase "The village is populated by Kurds." I propose that these articles be redirected to Baskil district as well, since the additional information is extremely trivial and is already found in a table at the target article. As always I have no objection to keeping any of these if reliable sources and non-trivial content are added. –dlthewave ☎ 12:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 12:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 12:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per the outcome of a much more recent AfD on the same subject where the nom had to backtrack and withdraw(!). Pinging those AfD partipants: @Styyx, Necrothesp, Ingratis, SportingFlyer, and Pharaoh of the Wizards:. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts, you've only pinged the participants who !voted Keep. This looks a lot like canvassing. –dlthewave ☎ 13:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop pinging me and posting on my talkpage. I've never met a more disingenuous user than you. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging additional participants @Darth Mike and FOARP:. I disagree that participants in a different AfD should be notified, but if we're going to do it then we need to notify all of them. –dlthewave ☎ 13:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep per previous outcome" is only valid is these articles are similarly expanded; without such expansion, this !vote has no legs. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per Lugnuts. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect All per the previous, very well-attended AFD and ANI discussions on this exact topic. FOARP (talk) 13:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Okay I'm gonna be quite honest about this, it's starting to piss me off. I can already tell this is going to end up as a trainwreck. People here seem to think that all Turkish mahalles/villages get about the same coverage, which is false. If you take a look at the Düzce District template, you can see that while going from top to bottom, I've converted Akyazı into an article, but Altınpınar and Asar are still a redirect, and then Aydınpınar is converted as well. This notability shit differs from village to village (I though people knew this but oh well). So you can't take the consensus of an AfD about Mahalles in Aziziye and apply them to every fucking Turkish geostub in existence and proceed to hope for the best and you can never, ever see an AfD and immediately !vote "Redirect all" without even an hour passing of the nomination. I doubt a WP:BEFORE was done and also doubt anyone else made a search. This is should probably be closed as a procedural keep before we turn this into a clusterfuck of a situation. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 14:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all So you're concerned about a quick "redirect all" !vote but not that all of these were made within minutes of each other themselves? Where was the BEFORE when these were created to have better sources than a weather site and a list of names in a footnote? The clusterfuck is that users mass-create thousands of pages at once without prior approval of sources and methods – in violation of Wikipedia:Bot_policy#Mass_page_creation – but then the rest of us are expected to do the work of finding sources or discussing them one at a time. Reywas92^Talk 14:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to the parent district (no merge required), per WP:MERGEREASON, where all content can be better presented for our readers. Irrespective of any notability and sourcing issues, there is entirely insufficient content to justify standalone articles here. No prejudice to restoring as standalone articles on a case-by-case basis as and when such content can be created from adequate reliable sources. Perhaps a wider-audience RFC is needed to establish a community consensus solution to dealing with these minimally sourced "this place exists" geo-stubs rather than circling round the redirect-revert-AFD tree for each one (or batch), with almost identical comments being made every time by the same contributors? _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from a neutral outsider. There seems to be a huge discrepancy between policy on locations in the US and policy on locations everywhere else at AfD. When yet another railway siding with a grain silo in Illinois gets nominated for deletion, there's a good-natured hunt in ancient newspapers, and if someone finds a reference that a genuine human once called this home, the article is kept, even if the reference is merely a newspaper clipping that a little old lady gave Nowhereville as her address when reporting a lost dog. Nothing needs to have happened there; just it has to have been, once, an inhabited place, even if only inhabited by one person who never did anything notable. Meanwhile whole villages and towns elsewhere are deleted even though it's blatantly obvious they're inhabited places (and it's utterly hopeless trying to retain an article on a very substantial new town in the middle east). I have no idea what our policy on locations actually is, (and nor apparently does anyone else), because it seems to vary with the nationality of the location. It would be great if things were more consistent, and a consistent policy might save a lot of ill-feeling. For my part, I agree with Wjemather Elemimele (talk) 15:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to the parent district (no merge required), per WP:MERGEREASON, as Wjemather states. Should anyone care to put the work into turning any of these sub-stubs into actual articles, they can do so. Since neither the article creator nor anyone else seems to be motivated to do so, a district article is a perfectly proper place for these redirects. That being said, the keep argument presented so far is utterly specious: Wikipedia is run by consensus, not by precedent in a single AfD. It remains, per relevant guidelines and policies, not the responsibility of editors to prove that significant coverage does not exist, but the responsibility of editors who seek to keep the articles to prove that it does.
Further, User:Lugnuts would be well advised to tone down the canvassing and the hostility -- far from it being objectionable to write to his talk page, as he seems to feel it is [21], it was the nom's duty to do so. Nor is it objectionable for a nominator to withdraw the nom if during the course of the AfD the articles are improved enough to pass notability standards; wouldn't we all wish that editors were motivated to properly source articles, and for nominators to graciously acknowledge that when it happened? Ravenswing 15:20, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When the nom has been asked multiple times not to post on my talkpage, it's probably wise not to do so. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

... so if you'd happen to find, down the road, that these articles were deleted and/or redirected without your knowledge or input, you'd be fine with that? Ravenswing 15:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But they wouldn't be without my knowledge. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ravenswing Just going to cut you off for "Since neither the article creator nor anyone else seems to be motivated to do". I've done this a week ago for geostubs of Düzce, I'm currently doing this for the above and even have done it for Akuşağı and Aladikme. It doesn't take more than 30 minutes per article, that's why I'm finding these immediate "Redirect all"s unconstructive... ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 15:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Splendid. Feel free to ping me when you're done, I'll take a look at the articles, and if satisfied that the sources you find contribute significant coverage to the subjects (as opposed to the refbombing that all too often crown such efforts), I'll change my vote. As far as you finding this unconstructive, well: had you done any work improving these articles before this AfD? (That being said, the nomination was scarcely more knee-jerk than the speed with which Lugnuts created these sub-stubs, something for which he's been admonished at ANI already [22]. Ravenswing 15:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously don't know every Turkish village out of the top of my head, so I see this stuff only when they land on WP:DSTURKEY. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 15:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect - to the parent district. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to the parent district, per above. Nigej (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here comes the mass ping: Dlthewave, FOARP, Reywas92, Wjemather, Elemimele, Ravenswing, GoodDay and Nigej! All have been expanded, some obviously less than others (as I expected). Akuşağı, Aladikme, Altunuşağı, Beşbölük, Doğancık, Kadıköy and Karaali have clear legal recognition (expanded with text showing government projects). Bilaluşağı is also reasonably expanded with the university source and 2000 census of the governement (though I was told you can't use a census to establish legal recognition, which I find stupid, but policy is policy). All of the articles now have at least 3 sources. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 08:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally I'd still rather see them as redirects to the parent district. Per WP:N, even if a topic passes GNG (which is still not 100% clear to me) "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." and I'm of that view, that many of these stub-type articles would be more useful to users if they were covered at Baskil, which is still, itself, very bare, with the villages as redirects there. Not everything needs an article and such articles with little prospect of useful expansion are good examples IMO. Nigej (talk) 09:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but I agree with Nigej; the encyclopedic info can be better presented in the district article. In addition, much of the expansion is filler content/trivia which creates some undue recentism issues. As such, there is not enough for me to change my !vote. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nowhere close to agreeing with the above. At least 7 of these meet GEOLAND. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 12:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, passing the ultra low-bar of GEOLAND in and of itself is not sufficient justification for having a standalone article. If the available (non-trivia) information can be better presented in an article on a wider topic or a list article, then we should do that. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, WP:GEOLAND says that "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable" but one of the purposes of AfDs such as this is to decide whether the "typically presumed" applies and, as I noted above, it's quite clear from WP:N that, even if a "populated, legally recognized place" is notable, then editors can use "their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article", which I'm assuming we're deciding by consensus here. Nigej (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The articles on the villages I mention above include pretty reliable sources and have reasonably been expanded. All of them have a population in three digits, and I see no reason for them to not have their own article. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 17:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Apart from the fact that I'm not at all convinced that these articles pass GNG, my view is that our readers will find it much more useful to have a good article at Baskil rather than 50 of these stubs with little or no in-depth content. The tribe information is already there, the population can readily be added, and the rest of the content is largely trivia, but some could be added to the Baskil article, with individual villages having a short section. The whole article would still not be overly long. Nigej (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that there's little to no content, and to fix that, more content should be cut and merged, and that would make it have more content? I don't understand your logic. One article being bigger size-wise does not mean there is more content. Dege31 (talk) 20:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Styyx: Make that two reliable sources for most of them, since they still cite Koyumuz which is the reason they were redirected in the first place. –dlthewave ☎ 16:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I think the info on Koyumuz is pretty accurate. I've swapped the 2012 population on Koyumuz with the official census of 2000 in many articles since you asked me to on my talk page, and I'm not seeing unbelievable things/changes related. The only time it was off by some margin was here, which still doesn't seem unbelievable to me since I've seen the exact thing happen in my hometown (5000+ to 3000). ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 17:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be okay with keeping ones with substantive information and sources addressing the place, but they can also be covered within the main article. Those articles made in bulk should be redirected in bulk – anyone can recreate with further content without an AFD driving it. Reywas92^Talk 19:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gritting my teeth saying it, @Styyx:, because it's plain you put some effort into finding sources and to save the articles. But I'm just not looking at WP:SIGCOV, IMHO; I'm looking at trivia. That a village has a primary school, that snowfalls make winter travel hard, that elliptical eggplants are grown near one, that a building in honor of a local policeman was halted through lack of funds, that there are old graves near one (heck, I live in an area that's been settled a twentieth as long as Turkey has, and you can hardly take a stroll without tripping over an old cemetery) ... these are all bits of trivia that would be deleted out of the average town article. I'd want to see more substantial information before independent articles could be sustained, and at least a redirect preserves the article in the event that happens. Ravenswing 19:51, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I never aimed for SIGCOV, the objective has always been GEOLAND#1. Having a schoo regulated by the ministry is supposed to mean it's legally recognized. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 16:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all, then any articles that actually have substantial coverage can be recreated from there. I agree with Ravenswing et al that coverage for some exists, but if it's not encyclopedic then how can it genuinely count towards notability? JoelleJay (talk)
Merge Styyx's information, where encyclopaedic, into the district article, and then redirect to the district. It's not okay simply to redirect without merging. Although I sympathise with Ravenswing's position, I wouldn't go so far. Yup, snow in winter is trivial, but the ancient graves are definitely relevant to readers, who may legitimately be interested in the region's prehistory. Even the primary school counts, if the other villages don't have primary schools. The district has an area of 516 square miles, which means in my country it would expect to have about 170 primary schools. If, in fact, it has only one, this says quite a lot about the distances travelled by kids to get to school, the social challenges of education, and the social situation of the area, and is therefore of encyclopaedic interest. If there are 30 other primary schools in the district, less so... Styyx, what's the situation? Is this school especially unusual? I still believe there's a huge discrepancy between how we're treating settlements in the US, and how we treat them elsewhere, which is extremely unhelpful. Elemimele (talk) 13:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The total number of schools in the whole district according to the ministry is 4 high, 6 middle and 7 primary schools. The school in Aladikme was "Kerik", but now is closed. The current one is "Mustafa Bilbay", but I don't feel the need to specifically mention the name. Also made a mistake as it's both a primary and a middle school. Also Kadıköy appearently has a high school I didn't notice. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 16:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly share Styyx’s sentiment about this. We’ve had over a decade of experience working on Turkish geostubs over on Turkish Wikipedia. I’ll be happy to share some of those insights and look at these articles individually if it actually helps, but I find it very telling that people who don’t speak a word of Turkish think it’s a good idea to mass nominate these articles, regardless of how they were created, or make broad comments about content not being encyclopaedic, with the said content including details about the geographical area surrounding the village or the village having a school (which anyone with an inkling of insight on Turkish countryside would agree constitutes encyclopaedic knowledge). This speaks volumes about the level of systemic bias at play here and is frankly very disheartening. —GGT (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, no. That's a card played all too often by people on Wikipedia unhappy at seeing their pet projects disturbed. There are, in fact, no separate set of notability guidelines pertaining to the Turkish countryside (other than what may prevail on the Turkish WP, which has zero bearing on practices and standards on any other national WP, this one included), nor are participants in a particular Wikiproject granted vetoes over their "own" articles. Villages have schools and cemeteries all over the world, and the mere existence of the same does not confer notability. Ravenswing 03:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This comment is so full of straw men. What pet project? Where am I claiming that editors should have a veto over “their own” articles? WP:NOTINHERITED bears literally no relation to what we’re talking about (no one is claiming that notability is inherited by being associated with… what, a non-notable school?), peppering comments with random links does not make them stronger. Part of the crux of the argument to delete rests upon the presumption that even if there is content about these villages, it’s not encyclopaedic (I’ll address the whole GEOLAND/MERGEREASONS issue in another comment). That’s simply untrue. I don’t care that lots of villages around the world have schools, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument to delete. The topic here is whether there’s any encyclopaedic value to mentioning the fact that villages in Turkey have schools, and the answer is yes because many villages in Turkey don’t have schools and this is actually a major issue there. The village with the cemetery has one that is dated to the Seljuk times, that means it’s at least from the 13th century. Lots of villages in Turkey have Ottoman cemeteries, such that a national newspaper wouldn’t usually care about reporting on them, yet Seljuk cemeteries are rare (and encyclopaedic) and thus this village made it to national news. People here are making broad statements based on their own experiences (such as the fact that their area has lots of cemeteries!). Well, I’m sorry but the all-seeing eye of the Anglophone editor doesn’t suffice here, context matters and you will miss the nuances unless you have the cultural literacy to comment on this in context or take the time to do the necessary reading around these issues. —GGT (talk) 06:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All we are really interested in is whether there is sufficient significant coverage with which to build a standalone article; if not there is a more than adequate parent article to list basic details. Name-drops of villages in news stories because something happens to occur in, or be located in, the vicinity (and sometimes that could be a dozens of miles/kms away, so not actually anywhere near the place) do nothing more than confirm existence; adding those stories to the articles tells us nothing about the villages themselves and in some cases is undue. Some of this stuff may be encyclopedic, but it's often not actually about the village concerned, so would actually be better covered within the district article. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:39, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wjemather: That’s a very reasonable concern. I’m planning to choose one of these articles to work on and then address this point in my !vote. Regards. —GGT (talk) 14:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where am you claiming that editors should have a veto over “their own” articles? When you state outright that you think speaking the Turkish language should be a prerequisite for both nominating Turkish-related articles for deletion (which, by the bye, has not actually happened here) or commenting on the same. And never mind the absurdity of your inference that Anatolia lacks cemeteries in profusion -- what, are you alleging that neither Turks nor Greeks bury their dead? Own your own statements. Ravenswing 13:36, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per Lugnuts. --Victor Trevor (talk) 10:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts didn't actually make any argument to keep these articles. He merely referenced an AFD discussion where sufficient sourcing had been found to keep the specific article that was nominated, which is a very common outcome at AFD. Regardless of whether he put an "(!)" into his comment, this means nothing for the present discussion. FOARP (talk) 14:06, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. All current and historical villages (i.e. all places that are currently or have historically been recognised as a köy) in Turkey should be regarded as notable as per WP:GEOLAND, for reasons I'll explain below. If there is no consensus on this, in the light of my work on Akuşağı, that article should be kept and the rest should be procedurally kept without prejudice to any future nomination. This will be a long post so I apologise, but it is a nuanced subject and we are potentially setting a precedent for thousands of villages.
As far as I can see, the arguments for redirection/merging have two bases in guidelines:
- WP:MERGEREASON per the #3 "shortness" criterion. Note that this isn't actually a guideline and thus holds less weight. Despite what has been argued above, this criterion cannot be applied regardless of notability. As stated right underneath this in WP:NOTMERGE, merging should be avoided for three reasons, and all three are met in this case. These topics can be expanded into longer stand-alone articles, as demonstrated by Akuşağı (#2); the topics may well warrant their own articles per the GNG/SNGs (#3). Concerns have been raised that content about sites that are not located in the village itself but in the area may be undue in village articles and may be better handled in district articles. I disagree with this line of argument on two grounds: 1) Merging all encyclopaedic information from the village articles (irrespective of the subjective, culturally insensitive comments about the material) would render the Baskil district article too clunky (see NOTMERGE #1) and give undue weight to the villages rather than the actual town. 2) Historical sites found within the bounds of a settlement are often handled in that settlement's article regardless of a lack of continuity (see History of Milton Keynes for a good example) and can be well-integrated into these articles with due editorial care, as I have done in the case of Akuşağı.
- Overturning the presumption of notability provided by WP:GEOLAND as these villages are argued to fail WP:GNG. This is a puzzling argument; the language used in GEOLAND#1 ("Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low."), which covers these articles, is the same as the language used on GNG (i.e. presumption but no guarantee of notability). There is nothing to indicate that one essentially overrides the other.
- At any rate, the guideline presumes the notability of these places and thus places the burden of proof to presume otherwise on the delete/redirect/merge !voters. I would be inclined to accept this line of argument if all practicable steps to investigate an article's notability were taken and failed. That simply isn't the case here. It's clear that WP:BEFORE hasn't been met for any of these articles, indeed, I doubt any of the merge/redirect !voters have bothered to run a Google search on them. Many of the sources I found for Akuşağı are national Turkish newspapers, I would expect any decent Google News search to identify these sources. This is the bare minimum, but in order to overturn a presumption of notability, I would expect more. Turkish village geostubs are a perennial issue on tr.wiki, and in our experience it is almost always possible for the dedicated editor to find sources on them (I'll refer to this article as an example), but allow me to detail some of the issues:
  - There are few Turkish villages that haven't had changes to their names in the past century, and this has to be accounted for in the search strategy.
  - A lot of Turkish villages are covered in sources that are not written in Turkish but in other languages (I haven't carried out a Kurdish-language seach for Akuşağı, which is a Kurdish village). These languages often use different alphabets, e.g. Armenian, Georgian (see the example I provided), Greek, Russian or Arabic.
  - Even if you are purely looking at Turkish-language sources, Turkey had an alphabet reform in the 1920s so you have to account for that.
  - Turkish newspapers are crap at digitising their historical archives. There are only two national newspapers with fully digitised archives. Local papers? Don't even think about them, some of the currently published ones aren't online anyway, and there are a lot of historical, short-lived ones.
  - There are a lot of offline sources that discuss these villages (e.g. village reports of the Interior Ministry in the 1960s, Ottoman publications, ethnographic works, local history books - see the example article above) that haven't been digitised at all - you wouldn't be able to see even snippets on Google Books.
- So a sufficiently detailed search to establish non-notability would require a detailed search using various names/languages and probably a visit to a Turkish library. You don't have the resources to do that? Then presume that it's notable per GEOLAND#1 and please mind your bias.
If there is no consensus on the points above, it's clear based on my work on Akuşağı that 1) that article meets GNG, 2) WP:BEFORE hasn't been met and 3) all the other articles need to be individually scrutinised as it's clearly impossible to do a proper GNG check on 12 articles at the same time.
--GGT (talk) 22:06, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that I've now nominated Akuşağı, Baskil for DYK. --GGT (talk) 00:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all based on superb work by User:Styx and a definitive analysis by User:GGT. I'm hoping this may see the end of these futile / point-y nominations. Ingratis (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per pretty much all of my above comments and per GGT. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 19:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I'd love to simply close this as "keep all", I'm not going to cause a row. But I will remove the AfD template from Akuşağı, Baskil, which obviously passes the GNG and is on its way to the front page, thanks to GGT. Drmies (talk) 01:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Drmies. I must note that Cyberbot seems to be very insistent on reinstating that AfD template. :) --GGT (talk) 13:47, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Despite the work, I'm still of the view that readers would be better served by having a good article at the Baskil level. As I noted above, even if some of the villages might pass GNG we can still decide to have one good article rather than a lot of bad ones. Demirlibahçe, Baskil still says nothing. Even Akuşağı, Baskil is largely full of padding, there's little real content. Sadly the much more important article about Baskil, the town and the district, is still just a list of the villages. Effort has gone into all the wrong articles. Better 1 good article than 50 poor ones. Nigej (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it not possible to expand information on the district article without removing additional information? Dege31 (talk) 21:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The total useful content in all the village articles would easily fit into the district article. I'm not talking about removing it. I'm talking about consolidating it into one article which would be much more useful for our readers. This obsession with creating large numbers of articles with little or no content is not what an encyclopedia is about. Nigej (talk) 21:16, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What rationale, guideline or policy are you using to determine what's useful content here? I can't tell why you consider eg. Akuşağı, Baskil "largely full of padding". Dege31 (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The very highest, ie WP:N. As I noted above "Per WP:N, even if a topic passes GNG (which is still not 100% clear to me) "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." and I'm of that view". Per padding eg "Some inhabitants attempted to sell their apricot orchards to no success" This is simply not encyclopedic content. Read the local paper if you want this sort of stuff. Nigej (talk) 21:47, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all: Per Lugnuts. In addition, I think that Kadıköy, Baskil especially needs to be kept given that it has a substantial amount of sources and citations. All these articles, at least, have a little useful information in them that qualifies them as notable. Sincerely, Dunutubble (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nigej:: 'Per padding eg "Some inhabitants attempted to sell their apricot orchards to no success" This is simply not encyclopedic content. Read the local paper if you want this sort of stuff.' That's funny. It's actually from a national newspaper... Do you have any policy justification at all for this type of comment? --GGT (talk) 01:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A point of reference for the "ideal" village article might help, and yes, I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a thing, but surely there must be an established way in which articles on villages are written. Navenby is an English village with FA status. The article talks about a local baker with his Lincolnshire plum pudding, a butchers' shop, the local Stagecoach service only running once on a Sunday, the village primary school, a phone box, the local juniors' football team... It also happens to contain fewer references to national press than Akuşağı. Don't get me wrong, I actually quite like that area of England and enjoyed reading that article. The only problem is, equivalent material cannot be FA material in England and "padding" in Turkey. What people here call "padding", "not encyclopaedic" is just how articles on villages are and should be written on Wikipedia. Sorry for badgering on, that's my final comment. --GGT (talk) 01:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many UK inhabited places (and uninhabited ones too) should be consolidated, removing much of the non-encyclopedic content. What some of us find unsavoury is that the only reason there's been any editing of these articles is that they've been nominated for deletion, in some desperate attempt to keep them. The plain truth is that if these articles had been anything like Navenby they'd never have been nominated for deletion. Let's consolidate them into the parent for now and if someone in the future creates so much content on a specific village that the parent article becomes unwealdy then that content can be moved into a separate article. IMO that is a better approach for our readers than creating meaningless stubs for every village in the world. Nigej (talk) 07:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The point of AfD isn't to just delete everything nominated. Articles improving instead of being deleted is positive. Dege31 (talk) 14:24, 28 December 2021 (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/2021 December 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. I think it's a good start, I'd like to expansion, but that may not be possible given the size of the place. However, there are enough references now to establish notability and I think that and the first part of the GEOLAND criteria are enough. No opinion on anything below Aladikme, Baskil on that list. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 23:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND are settlements with population figures and some have sources beyond that which doesn't seem to be required by GEOLAND if the place is legally recognized. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per GEOLAND. Weather they were historical settlements or current, there is an inherent notability to population centers.Oakshade (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the above 3 keeps We all know that they pass GEOLAND. That is not the issue at hand. Nigej (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have expanded Kadıköy, Baskil a bit, and I think it can be kept as a separate article. No opinion about the others — I couldn't find anything substantial about Alangören or Düğüntepe on Google Scholar, but I didn't check anywhere else, and I didn't try any of the others. 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2021 (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HBG Holdings[edit]

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

After doing WP:BEFORE this does not seem to meet WP:NCORP. While there is some news coverage of HBG Holdings most are either WP:ROUTINE investments expected from PE firm or news related to the Panama Papers as they affect Pakistan, but it does not seem that the firm itself was notable from that, but more that the firm was just a firm in which money was invested offshore from Pakistan. snood1205 14:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. snood1205 14:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. snood1205 14:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. snood1205 14:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. snood1205 14:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. snood1205 14:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. snood1205 14:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. snood1205 14:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. snood1205 14:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm struggling to find any useful information about the company at all. Its current "stub" comment says it's a venture capital firm based in the UK, which is definitely wrong. I think it might be based in the British Virgin Islands with a UAE presence?? The website link in the article works, but goes to a site that's just a picture. Elemimele (talk) 19:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots of basic free company reports, but it's all non RS material and doesn't particularly establish notability... very basic business news, I think fails WP:NCORP. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since zero sourcing can be found to help establish why HBG Holdings is notable.TH1980 (talk) 03:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kolaghat Thermal Power Plant High School[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG per WP:NSCHOOL and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. I had PRODed after someone used this as "Other stuff exists" argument from AfC/Draft submission. PROD removed without reason or improvement. References just show existence not notability KylieTastic (talk) 14:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. KylieTastic (talk) 14:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. KylieTastic (talk) 14:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A cursory search in English found many attestations of this School's existence, but no noteable reference (in a News story, for instance). May there are Hindi language sources about this school, but if this is the case, it should be covered on Hindi Wikipedia. Av = λv (talk) 15:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find RSs that provide more than passing mentions, does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Justi yaya 16:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All I could find was some extremely trivial information about how students of the school rank on national exams or something. The article wouldn't load, but I doubt it's enough for notability, especially on it's own, and from what I call tell there isn't anything else out there that would help make this notable. It's also telling that there isn't even a Hindu language article about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:55, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. - Hatchens (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1, why would there be an article of this school in hindi language? Hindi is not taught here at all. English and Bengali are the medium of instruction, with the former being the first language.--Michri michri (talk) 09:06, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, but it doesn't really matter what language the school teaches in does it? Like just because there's an English speaking school in Hong Kong doesn't mean there won't be a Cantonese language article for it since that's the main language spoken there. So I don't really get what your point is. In the meantime the official language of India is Hindu. So more then likely that's the language the article would be in. Especially since there's only like 100,000 articles in Bengali currently. It's a moot point anyway though since there is no non-English language article, Bengali, Hindu, or otherwise. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1 There is no specific official language of India. Hindi may be the most-spoken language in our country, but that does not mean that it is our official language. Assamese, Bengali, Bodo ,Dogri, English, Gujarati, Hindi, Kannada, Kashmiri, Konkani, Maithili, Malayalam, Marathi, Meitei, Nepali, Odia, Punjabi, Sanskrit, Santali, Sindhi, Tamil, Telugu, Urdu- all these 23 languages are our official languages. Anyway, excluding all these facts, I agree in deleting this stub article.Michri michri (talk) 11:03, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not to bludgeon the discussion, but Languages of India says "Article 343 of the Indian Constitution stated that the official language of the Union is Hindi in Devanagari script, with official use of English to continue for 15 years from 1947. Later, a constitutional amendment, The Official Languages Act, 1963, allowed for the continuation of English alongside Hindi in the Indian government indefinitely until legislation decides to change it." Like I said though, it's a moot point anyway since there is no article for this in any language besides English anyway. Hindu or otherwise. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:29, 1 January 2022 (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 13:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Femina George[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON: The actress has appeared in only one notable film so far. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 12:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 12:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 12:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 12:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 12:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A bold redirect by TheBirdsShedTears was reverted by the article creator. -- Ab207 (talk) 12:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 12:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indeed WP:TOOSOON. Capitals00 (talk) 13:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply echoing what others said. Nothing new to add. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom Onmyway22 talk 16:24, 30 December 2021 (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 13:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Denzil Porter[edit]

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

Non-notable singer. Google returns nothing usable (string: "denzil porter"), and the sources on the article itself are both dead, with one redirecting and the other outright 404'd. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 12:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No effective sources at the moment and while he has been noticed, it is far WP:TOOSOON. scope_creep^Talk 13:22, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any reliable sources about him. NatalieRci (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2021 (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 13:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbere Forte[edit]

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

Non-notable singer. Only sources are to his music videos and stuff he's otherwise created, and Google finds nothing better (string: "gilbere forte"). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 11:34, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 11:36, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, He is most definitely a non-notable topic, fails WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG. NatalieRci (talk) 00:10, 31 December 2021 (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. Per WP:SNOW. Consensus that the topic is notable. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 03:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clop (erotic fan art)[edit]

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

Non-notable subject. There's nothing else to say. 晚安 09:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article contains a number of reliable sources, and while I do not have time to analyze them right now, some of the titles suggest that they cover the topic of the article. Mlb96 (talk) 12:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to bad argument there’s reliable sources, even scholarly research. Please explain in depth why you think they’re inadequate, and why a merger isn’t preferable under WP:PRESERVE, WP:BEFORE. Dronebogus (talk) 14:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a thing and there are WP:RS. Easily meets WP:GNG. Deviancy, disgust, and WP:I don't like it, to name some arguments that were not made by the nominator — butter no parsnips here. WP:Not censored. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:13, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dronebogus and 13. The article contains plenty of reliable sources showing significant coverage, qualifying it for WP:GNG. Isabelle ^🔔 16:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep https://www.dailydot.com/irl/bronies-react-my-little-pony-porn/ talks about the cloppers. The article already has other reliable sources. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/mar/12/what-a-masculinity-conference-taught-me-about-the-state-of-men Dream Focus 17:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I never thought I’d hear “clopper” used without irony on Wikipedia. Dronebogus (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nomination makes no proper argument for deletion. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep Per everyone else. The topic seems to be notable enough to warrant an article. Although I must admit I didn't look into it all that much, but there's still enough out there about it to justify the article IMO. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per obvious coverage detailed by others. Pamzeis (talk) 08:54, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. References already in the article before nomination show non-trivial interest by multiple independent reliable sources, thus passing GNG without even reaching WP:BEFORE. • Gene93k (talk)
Comment Article and sourcing is not what it was when nominated for deletion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost none of the sources have clop art as the specific subject, it is just a collection of incidental, one-off references and do not meet the notability criteria WP:N. Some of the sources do not mention the word "clop" once, such as the ProQuest paper. Also, the image it includes I do not believe meets the criteria for acceptable fan art in the commons as it is a realization of a specific character. JAYFAX (talk) 20:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I see three sources that have some variation on “sexualization/porn” and “my little pony/brony”, which is the default standard. The article could be renamed if “clop” is too obscure of a term, but sexualization of MLP:FIM characters is notable enough for at minimum a section in a larger article. The copyright status of the pic is irrelevant, and an issue for commons to deal with. An alternative exists anyway: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:My_Little_Pony_fan_art_-_Copy.jpg Dronebogus (talk) 05:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that this article could at best be titled as something as lofty as "Sexualization of My Little Pony characters", per the fact that "clop" doesn't meet WP:COMMONNAME as it's a word that don't commonly enough appear in the sources or used to primarily define subject, exposes the fact this article is not notable. JAYFAX (talk) 13:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really get of your reasoning, as it wrote on more favoring for a weak deletion, rename, or merged it with either Yiffing or Animation porn, as a subsection/variant. Which turns into unnecessary nitpicking to justified for a full-on deletion. Than a actually "full-on" deletion, that you want? Chad The Goatman (talk) 02:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Full-on delete. It doesn't meet significant coverage. I'm deeply concerned people think this has "scholarly" coverage just because a couple of the cites have DOI numbers. This source for example doesn't even mention ponies. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1097184X15613831 JAYFAX (talk) 09:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You’re still just using nitpicking as a justification for nuking the article when the sourcing is perfectly adequate for at least a section in a larger article. Dronebogus (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
JAYFAX, the coverage is not required to be "scholarly". MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it is important some kind of article that defines the term, that explains these types of images and what they mean. They are so weird. scope_creep^Talk 20:45, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The whole reason to deleting the article, sounds either cringeworthy on it's own nor justified enough of warned for its own deletion nomination page. While the Fursona page feels incomplete (i.e., lack of more notable articles) and needs to expanded more, as that fandom focus only on anthropomorphic animals for other IP properties (including this incarnation of the show for the My Little Pony franchise). Chad The Goatman (talk) 07:17, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Non-existent rationale for deletion, especially considering the nominator doesn't contest why the multiple sources that give WP:SIGCOV don't give a WP:GNG pass. That said, per JAYFAX, a rename may be in order. Also, TROUT the nominator for making me vote keep on an article about brony porn. Curbon7 (talk) 11:11, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "brony porn" unless you're trying to imply the porn is based on the fans of My Little Pony. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 19:25, 3 January 2022 (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. G4: this is exactly the same article as the one from the AfD that was closed 8 days ago. Salting as well. Black Kite (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karishma Sawant[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Karishma Sawant

Actress who does not satisfy acting notability or general notability. Acting notability requires multiple major roles, but only one role is listed. Nothing in this article amounts to significant coverage by independent reliable sources. The one reference is an announcement of her role, which is not independent or secondary. Many of the statements are not substantiated by the footnotes that are required in a biography of a living person.

This article was submitted to Articles for Creation, and was declined by User:Dan arndt as failing acting notability, and then pushed to article space anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karishma Sawant two weeks ago. Nothing has changed, except that the re-creation is tendentious. A G4 might be in order, but we are already here. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G4. Mccapra (talk) 09:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NACTOR. Dan arndt (talk) 09:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not sufficiently notable. Possibly G4. Pikavoom ^Talk 10:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. ManaliJain (talk) 12:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - please can an admin move the article back to mainspace so that the AfD can resume? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:56, 28 December 2021 (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Psychic (film)[edit]

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

Russian film with no real coverage in reliable sources. VolnyiLev (talk) 06:16, 28 December 2021 (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/2021 December 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:36, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:37, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 06:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Demers[edit]

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

Very run of the mill local weatherman in a small television market. Some hyper local coverage found, such as a local news article proclaiming him the 2019 Sioux-lebrity of the year, but none of that puts him over the WP:NJOURNALIST hump. schetm (talk) 05:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. schetm (talk) 05:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. schetm (talk) 05:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. schetm (talk) 05:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clearly does not meet the WP:GNG. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find any news that actually is WP:SIGCOV about him instead of just by him. snood1205 23:50, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just local coverage. Pikavoom ^Talk 10:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus (WP:NPASR). Ineligible for soft deletion due to past declined PROD. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Film Music Society[edit]

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

No significant coverage and unreferenced. Fails WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 23:44, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I feel like there should be sourcing for this, but like nom I'm unable to find independent, significant sourcing. They're producers of content, but what's not from them is mostly name dropping. I'm going to see if I can find any more during this run, but at the moment it feels like it's delete/draft. I'm also fairly sure this is an offline copyvio, but that and the G11 elements could be handled editorially if sourcing is found. Star Mississippi 02:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:57, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 04:10, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shez[edit]

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

May have sources offline, but just failed a BEFORE search. I don't expect an article to be finished, but we all need to expect biographies of living people to be immediately referenced with reliable references. I tried to draftify, but was reverted. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 03:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 03:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 03:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 03:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are no unreferenced/unverifiable facts. Multiple award winning poet, wikilinjked in wikppedia. Plenty of sources in Hebrew. The article is in progress. P.S. IMO it is a bad attitude to nominate minutes after the article started. One could have started at least with "notability" tag Loew Galitz (talk) 03:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Loew Galitz Unfortunately, we literally don't time any time with regards to references with biographies of living people. I tried to draftify the article so you'd have additional time to put in sources (including non-English ones), but you reverted me. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 04:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please indicate the statements which need references. Please cite the policy about "any time". Loew Galitz (talk) 04:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Loew Galitz The policy about "any time" is here. We have no time to have sources.

As for the statements needing references: being gay would need a reference, as would being a victim of incest. Just off the top of my head. Anything that could be defamatory if untrue would need to be sourced; it's better to err on the side of sourcing said statements. Also the fact that she's notable (that is, she has been noted by others) would need to be sourced. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 04:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please specifically indicate WP:BLP violations. Loew Galitz (talk) 04:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, everything is referenced. Loew Galitz (talk) 04:13, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the fact that she's notable (that is, she has been noted by others) would need to be sourced - Huh? Never heard of such rule. What about WP:GNG and state awards? She was noted by Israel Prime Minister. Is that not enough for you? Loew Galitz (talk)
Keep. If the nominator is concerned about WP:BLPSOURCES, there are plenty of tags they could have used instead. There are sufficient sources already in the article (hewiki has more) such that we don't need to delete per WP:BLP. As far as notability goes, the subject won a notable literary award: Prime Minister's Prize for Hebrew Literary Works. That very likely indicates NAUTHOR #3 or #4. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: article appears well sourced, and even before being brought to AfD had a source for the key facts. Was the nominator challenging that source? Not clear otherwise why an article should be brought to AfD so fast, given that there is a source and that the Hebrew wiki article appears to have several sources. That said, perhaps the creating editor should have used ((in use)) to indicate that they had not finished their initial burst of editing (yes, I rarely remember it either, but it does seem a useful precaution). PamD 19:22, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Since nomination, the article has been substantially improved, meeting notability requirements.--Ipigott (talk) 11:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:ANYBIO and WP:NAUTHOR as brought out by above editors (no need to rehash what they have said:), i know the following may appear to be condescending but what the heck.... if/when editors have concerns about a foreign-language person in this WP might be a good idea to have a look at their country/culture/language WP ie. with Shez, a quick scoot over to the Hebrew WP and we find a well developed article with plenty that can be brought back to their English WP page, if an editor is not confident to do so (who can wholly trust gtranslate anyway:)) an improve from foreign-language tag can be added to the top of the wikiarticle, oh look one such tag has been added. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable subject. Well sourced. Meets the professional guideline and WP:ANYBIO. Should never have been nominated or moved to the draft space. gidonb (talk) 02:47, 4 January 2022 (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 closing this as delete and redirect--there is no consensus for keeping the content--or which content to keep. Obviously the user is blocked as a sock, and there's another good reason to do away with this and not leave it hanging around. Drmies (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Ages (Europe)[edit]

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

Delete or Redirect to Dark Ages (historiography). Merge content/ideas there and/or Early Middle Ages. Dark Ages (historiography) is already about the term. Early Middle Ages is about the period. We don't have multiple articles for the same period of history. Page is a WP:CSPLIT (content split) of Early Middle Ages and WP:POVSPLIT of Dark Ages (historiography). The term "Dark Ages" is non-neutral and pejorative and abandoned by professional medieval historians. Wikipedia follows the lead of academic historians. The term "Dark Ages" has been disparaged by academics and is now relevant as historiography, not as a neutral term of history. GreenC 02:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article was rated "GA" by SDZeroBot. See User:SDZeroBot/NPP sorting/History and Society/History. That's two levels higher than the proposed redirect target. A historiography is a "history of the history." The existence of a historiography article should not preclude the creation of a conventional history article on the same subject. ThuDauMot (talk) 02:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Perhaps I should explain why I wrote this article. Currently, if you look up "Dark Ages" you get "Dark Ages (historiography)." This article focuses on the terminology of lightness and darkness. It was once GA, but was later delisted to C-Class. Any reader who is looking for information about the actual historical period will go away unsatisfied. There are complaints along these lines on the talk page by @Shenqijing: @MadScientistX11: @Dudley Miles: @Florian Blaschke: @Mike Christie: @Deedman22: and @Dimadick:. ThuDauMot (talk) 12:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Ages (historiography) begins "The "Dark Ages" is a term for the Early Middle Ages or Middle Ages in Western Europe ....". Clear enough. Johnbod (talk) 12:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ThuDauMot, the article was never a Good Article. You have been told that multiple times (here and in the talk page), provided links and explanations of what happened, continue to say it was a GA anyway. If it was a GA, link to the GA consensus discussion. You can't because it doesn't exist. It is indicative of reckless, incompetent and combative behavior, using the n-word below is another example. -- GreenC 15:59, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GreenC, to be fair, ThuDauMot said Dark Ages (historiography) used to be GA but is no longer, and there is a box on the talk page that seems to indicate this is true, although this may have been before formalization of GA processes. older ≠ wiser 16:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, I thought they were continuing the maintain Dark Ages (Europe) is a GA. I misread. They have said it repeatedly. The status of Dark Ages (historiography) has nothing to do with this AfD and honestly I don't normally care what the status of articles are, just that when someone says something that is so plainly false, then sticks by it over and over, it's indicative. -- GreenC 17:13, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See this 2006 talk section - it used be a GA back in ahem Wikipedia's Dark Age, but has not been for 15 years. As you say, this has nothing to do with this discussion. Nor does what some bot rates this article now. Johnbod (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a laughable defense. No bot on Wikipedia rates articles GA; an article has to pass the Good article nomination process. Honestly this is such a fundamental component of ratings on Wikipedia, it seriously doubts my beliefs in the nominators competence if that is what they first present as a rationale. The second comments has been thoroughly debunked by GreenC below. Aza24 (talk) 05:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an explanation of what the bot is doing. It is part of a process to select articles for Wikipedia:Version 1.0. In "88 unreviewed articles as of 28 December 2021," "Dark Ages (Europe)" is one of four articles rated as GA. According the information page, "many of the structural characteristics of articles seem to correlate strongly with good writing and tone, so the models work very well in practice."

I ran the relevant articles through the bot. The scale it uses goes FA-GA-B-C-Start-Stub. So it's slightly different than what the projects are doing. This article ranks as a "GA". "Dark Ages (historiography)" is a "B," and Early Middle Ages is a "C." ThuDauMot (talk) 22:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out on the article's talk page, ORES scores are a prediction of article quality. The article falls short of GA quality and the ORES scores has little bearing on the point of this discussion. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support redirect of title to Early Middle Ages, and probably merging some new content to Dark Ages (historiography) (there's a discussion on my talk page). Johnbod (talk) 03:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect (as OP). Prejudiced Original Research article that cherry picks negatives and ignores positives then coatracks it under the term Dark Ages. It creates a major fork in our Medieval history articles that is not justifiable by sources. Modern scholars do not like this term it has been replaced by the neutral Early Middle Ages. We have lots of coverage of the term Dark Ages in the historiography article. It is not a neutral historical descriptor, professional academics reject it:

"modern scholars cringe at any reference to the term 'Dark Ages'". New York Times (2021)
"A popular if uninformed manner of speaking refers to the medieval period as 'the dark ages'". Dunphy, Graeme (2007). "Literary Transitions, 1300–1500: From Late Mediaeval to Early Modern" in: The Camden House History of German Literature vol IV: "Early Modern German Literature".
Dark Ages is "shunned and deemed inappropriate.. preferring instead early medieval". "Introduction: Dark Ages"
"The term “Dark Ages” is now rarely used by historians because of the value judgment it implies." Encyclopedia Britannica (2021)
Dark Ages "has mostly been abandoned as a name for a historiographical epoch" in Late Antiquity sourced to Late Antiquity: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford 2011), pp. 1–2.
"In the course of recent decades, the very expression 'Dark Ages' has fallen into disrepute among historians." Joseph Gies (1994). Cathedral, Forge, and Waterwheel: Technology and Invention in the Middle Ages. HarperCollins Publishers. p. 2.
"Historians and archaeologists have never liked the label Dark Ages". Snyder, Christopher A. (1998). An Age of Tyrants: Britain and the Britons A.D. 400–600. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. pp. xiii–xiv. ISBN 0-271-01780-5.
"The stereotype of the Middle Ages as 'the Dark Ages' fostered by Renaissance humanists and Enlightenment philosophes has, of course, long since been abandoned by scholars." Raico, Ralph. "The European Miracle". Retrieved 14 August 2011.
"These used to be called the Dark Ages. That label is best set aside. It is hopelessly redolent of Renaissance and Enlightenment prejudices." Kyle Harper (2017). The Fate of Rome: Climate, Disease, and the End of an Empire (The Princeton History of the Ancient World). Princeton University Press. p. 12.
"Just as astronomers no longer call Pluto a planet and paleontologists no longer recognize the Brontosaurus, historians have stopped referring to the European era from A.D. 400 to 1000 as the Dark Ages." New Yorker book review (2009)
"In the twenty-first century, medievalists of all stripes continue to find themselves countering the misnomer of the "Dark Ages" and all that mentality implies". Jennifer Awes Freeman (Winter 2018). "Medieval Europe by Chris Wickham (review)". Lutheran Quarterly. 32 (4). Johns Hopkins University Press: 488–490.
"The Myth of Dark Ages". Rabia Umar Ali (Summer 2012). "Medieval Europe: The Myth of Dark Ages and the Impact of Islam". Islamic Studies . 51 (2): 155–168.

-- GreenC 03:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to argue that "Dark Ages" is history's version of the N-word, then we need to delete Dark Ages (historiography) as well. Every major dictionary has a listing for Dark Ages and none of them feature a label discouraging you from using it. Here is the entry for "dark ages" in Oxford English Dictionary: "a term sometimes applied to the period of the Middle Ages to mark the intellectual darkness characteristic of the time; often restricted to the early period of the Middle Ages, between the time of the fall of Rome and the appearance of vernacular written documents." I can't believe I have to do this, but, yes, dictionaries are recommended in the Manual of Style: "if unsure, check a dictionary." "see notable entries at...Dictionary § Major English dictionaries." ThuDauMot (talk) 10:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you tone down your usage of the N-word? There are no sources from reliable secondary sources that unambiguously argue for the use of the term, and countless sources saying it has/should be abandoned. Non-specialist general dictionaries are not appropriate for determining things like this, it is not their purpose or place to proscribe usage of a historical concept, they provide definitions. Wikipedia is a secondary-source encyclopedia, not a dictionary. WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, Wikipedia:Dictionaries as sources and Wikipedia:Tertiary-source fallacy. -- GreenC 15:59, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I find the New Yorker example you just added you just added to be a telling one. Merriam-Webster has usage labels for "brontosaurus" and "Pluto, but nothing equivalent for "Dark Ages." ThuDauMot (talk) 19:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Webster is a general purpose non-specialist tertiary source comprising a single sentence. They don't even have an entry for Early, High or Late Middle Ages or Late Antiquity or Migration period, to show how outdated and non-specialist it is. -- GreenC 20:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How about Oxford's A Dictionary of World History? Their entry on "Dark Ages" is about a page and a half long. Google books shows only part of it, but I access to the whole thing. There is no disclaimer to discourage use of the word. ThuDauMot (talk) 22:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a secondary source (tertiary), not a specialist medieval source (world history). The front matter says the dictionary is derived from the Oxford Illustrated Encyclopedia (Volumes 3 & 4) which dates to 1988, 34 years ago (out-dated). Oxford University Press lists each volume that contains "Dark Ages" and says it is an "old fashioned term" ie. out of fashion. -- GreenC 02:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're going with the definition from The Oxford Dictionary of Local and Family History? If you type "Dark Ages" on Oxford Reference, you get 614 results, including World Encyclopedia and The Oxford Dictionary of the Middle Ages. ThuDauMot (talk) 02:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to unpack all that without seeing full text and context including when the text was written, Oxford appears to recycle old text in new titles. Look no one denies that a minority of historians have used the term to refer to a limited number of years, which is why Early Middle Ages says "sometimes referred to as the Dark Ages" and why everyone in the AfD says redirect to EMA. There is no separate school of history/thought for the Dark Ages, it is synonymous with Early Middle Ages, the same thing. Compare with Late Antiquity which is a distinct school, it can't be replaced with Early Middle Ages or Migration Period because of it's inherent assumptions ie. gradual cultural transition vs. sharp political change. Likewise Migration Period (an old term itself) emphasizes history as seen from the perspective of the tribes, not Rome, since historians used to only tell history from a Roman perspective (eg. Gibbon). For historians Dark Ages is nothing more than an old biased term that has been mostly replaced by Early Middle Ages. There is no school of thought or POV around Dark Ages, but there is historiographical interest over usage of term. I think you conflate these things. You see historians rejecting the term and believe they are also rejecting the history, and therefore you see a split in the history POV, but that is not the case. -- GreenC 05:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this solves the problem: "The so called "Dark Ages" was a period of alleged decline in European history that ran from AD 476 to roughly 1000."[23] I am also partial to "The "Dark Ages," a term which has fallen into disrepute among historians, was a period of alleged decline in European history that ran from AD 476 to roughly 1000." ThuDauMot (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We already have an article for the historical period which goes by multiple names. We already have an article that discusses the term and it's disrepute. -- GreenC 17:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Early Middle Ages, merging probably very little content. Any distinction between Early Middle Ages and Dark Ages (historiography) with Dark Ages (Europe) is either nonexistent, or so unbelievably minuscule that it is not important enough for an article and possibly warrants a section on some other article. The creator's evidence is non existent, relying on dictionaries for words over actual academic sources. Aza24 (talk) 05:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a FORK of existing articles. Srnec (talk) 05:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No point in maintaining this PoV pushing article. Borsoka (talk) 06:10, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect: as WP:POVFORK. ––FormalDude ^talk 11:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect to Early Middle Ages (although Dark Ages (historiography) would also be OK. Editors familiar with the topic can determine if there is any salvageable non-duplicated material that is worth merging. older ≠ wiser 11:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thank you to GreenC for putting this together. I appreciate that ThuDauMot has put a lot of time into preparing their article, but as a content fork the starting premise for the article was shaky. Richard Nevell (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively. There may be somehting in etymology worth merging to Dark Ages (historiography). The merge (and redirect) target for the rest would be Early Middle Ages, but I doubt there is much worth merging. Alternatively, it might just be possible to turn this into a brief overview article, with Early Middle Ages as a main article, but that would require a very skilled editor. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- A historiography is a history of the history. There is very little discussion of historiography in this article -- or, for that matter, in Dark Ages (historiography). This article is a history of the actual period focusing on the issue of decline. "Dark Ages (historiography)" is about various terminology issues including the use of the lightness and darkness analogies. The title of the historiography article should correspond to the title of the main article, in this case something like Historiography of the Early Middle Ages.

Talk:Dark Ages (historiography) is full of editors complaining about the current setup, so I wasn't expecting a reaction like this when I wrote the article. After all, "Dark Ages" was moved to "Dark Ages (historiography)" to make way for a history article on the subject, which I have now written. ThuDauMot (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect - Early Middle Ages, under that name, has been the main account of the period forever. For example this is what it looked like in June 2006. It co-existed with "Dark Ages" under that name, as an article about the term, this is what that looked like in 2005.Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict with Johnbod]. ThuDauMot, don't make things up. Dark Ages was moved to make way for a dab page *not* a history article. And that was 10 years ago, before you had an account on Wikipedia: your first edit to Wikipedia is November 22, 2021. An amazing in-depth knowledge of Wikipedia in a few weeks BTW. The other problem is the term Dark Ages has been usurped by nationalists, racists, colonialists, and others who promote a reactionary agenda. (Sourced in Dark Ages (historiography) non-scholary use section first paragraph). -- GreenC 18:42, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In addition to all of the above, this is bordering on WP:OWNERSHIP. Talk:Dark Ages (Europe), created just a few days ago, already has 100 edits, of which 64 edits are from ThuDauMot. Curbon7 (talk) 11:06, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit unfair - it's just that no one else wants to touch it with a bargepole. Johnbod (talk) 12:49, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the article in my user space. I moved it to article space on December 23. It got PRODed on December 26. So there wasn't much time for anyone else to edit it. But I can't take all the credit. My starting point was User:Crotalus horridus/Dark Ages. ThuDauMot (talk) 17:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Early Middle Ages- I would have said this could be merged to the Dark_Ages_(historiography) article, but as people have pointed out, that's not actually an article on the dark ages, its * an article on the history(historiography) of the concept of the Dark ages*. My assumption here is that Dark Ages and the Early Medieval Period are synonyms. If that's actually not the case, then a dark ages article should be created. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:26, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article emphasizes the issue of societal collapse whereas Early Middle Ages prepares the reader for the High Middle Ages. We already have several articles covering this period that differ only in terms of subject viewpoint, including Late Antiquity and Migration Period. See “Articles whose subject is a point of view (POV).” Dark Ages (Europe) gets a higher quality rates than either Dark Ages (historiography) or Early Middle Ages. The talk page of the "historiography" article is full of editors complaining about it. ThuDauMot (talk) 13:26, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ThuDauMot, stop it with the quality ratings. It has been explained by several editors that the bot ratings cannot be directly compared to human evaluations. They are apples and oranges. Your repeatedly coming back to that false comparison only serves to undermine your arguments. There is NOTHING in this article that is not already covered in other articles. older ≠ wiser 13:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is deleted, I assume there will be a redirect to the historiography article. No aspect of this article duplicates anything in that article. As for EMA, a few paragraphs of material is duplicated. After all, Wikipedia is not paper and all. ThuDauMot (talk) 16:42, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ThuDauMot is blocked. They are a puppet of long-term master User:Kauffner see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner. Kauffner's history with Dark Ages (historiography) goes back to 2006. They are known for promoting alt-right and reactionary positions, among other things. There are likely other Kauffner socks in the talk archives including some IPs, none thought to be currently active. Expect new Kauffner socks in the future related to Dark Ages. -- GreenC 21:48, 2 January 2022 (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 04:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gucci Tanga[edit]

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

BLP (written by a blocked sockpuppet) does not seem to meet WP:NBIO. Coverage is mostly interview-based pieces and WP:ROUTINE events. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:40, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:39, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This clearly fails WP:NBIO. The sources given do not fulfill the criteria. "Staisfashion" seems more of a blog than a reliable source. "IGIHE.COM" seems like a decently reliable source, but the purpose of the article is to cover drama. Sourcing basic facts about someone from a instance of drama in a moderately reliable source isn't the best work. "The New Times" definitely is reliable and trusted, but the two instances are each interviews, and are not significant coverage. "Missnews.com.br" is a website written by one person, which I don't belive qualifies it as a trusted source. "Fashionghana.com" is a blog/routine article. The article from "allafrica.com" is a routine piece. The latter articles are the best we are going to get from my preliminary research on the subject. Because of failing WP:NBIO I vote delete. Lectrician2 (talk) 20:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficient coverage for notability.--Chuka Chief_talk 15:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources is required to demonstrate notability. Brayan ocaner (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dog bakery[edit]

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

The article seems to outline a broad business design, but I just don't see any sources that back up what a dog bakery is. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 01:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 01:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a difficult one, but I'm inclined towards a weak keep. We have articles on all common trades, largely because they're "obviously" common trades, and deemed notable merely by the fact you can find them in every high-street (analogous to how we permit articles on certain exceptional people and geographical features/places because of their public nature, rather than specifically because anyone's written about them). Frankly our existing articles on professions often have weak referencing. Roofers have 8 references, but three are for falling off roofs (which is hardly a core part of the job) and three are for materials used in roofing, not the job. But we're right to have an article on it, because everyone's got a roof on their house, it's part of everyday life, and people expect to be able to find such things in an encyclopaedia. Same with Haberdashers, whose references are dictionary definitions and a lot of stuff about their patron saint; Dressmaker has only two references in total, and even Hairdresser has few references, more on hair than on the cutter. I appreciate that "other stuff exists" is a phenomenally pointless argument, but I'm using these professions as an indication of the standard of referencing that we expect. The problem with professions is that they don't attract much secondary writing, while generating a huge amount of primary stuff that we can't use. My feeling is that the referencing in dog-bakery, taking in consideration how short a time they've existed, compared to plumbers and hairdressers, is within the bracket of what we'd expect. A brief Google search reveals that the public now expect dog-bakeries, and there is a plethora of businesses with "dogbakery" in their name. If this has become a standard profession and business, then we ought to have a place for it. But I do sympathise with the nominator that the sourcing isn't great, and it's not likely to improve dramatically in the next few months. Elemimele (talk) 12:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:40, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I managed to find quite a few sources attesting the existence of dog bakeries. I also checked, partially though the magic of Google translate, in Hebrew, Arabic, Russian and Serbocroatian, and it appears that this profession has spread throughout the world. As Elemimele wrote, we are unlikely to find descriptive or theoretical sources about a profession like baking for dogs. But it is nevertheless attested in many sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ido66667 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It's a popular and well known business model, and through some preliminary research, is used throughout the world. I think it's definitely notable to keep a article. As Elemimele said, we don't have a lot of sources now, and if we do, they aren't secondary sources. But with the continuing rise and popularity of dog bakeries, I think it would be a waste to delete the article, and in the meantime we can rely on majority primary sources to hold up the significant coverage section of WP:GNG. Lectrician2 (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Significant coverage
  1. Hochberg, Ilene (2008). Posh Pups: Dogs Who Live Better Than You Do. New York: Sterling Publishing. pp. 88–89. ISBN 978-1-4027-5079-3. Retrieved 2021-12-31.
    The book notes: "A birthday cake is usually ordered from a dog bakery, because these businesses understand dog nutrition and know what ingredients may be harmful to pets. If you think that dog bakeries are a marginal notion, think again. At last count, there were more than 800 dog bakeries located in the United States, so it is likely that there is one close to you. Google alone shows fifty pages of dog-bakery entries in America and abroad. The concept of the dog bakery began in 1989 in Kansas City, Missouri."
  2. Devantier, Alecia T.; Turkington, Carol A. (2006). Extraordinary Jobs in the Food Industry. New York: Ferguson Publishing. p. 40. ISBN 0-8160-5856-3. Retrieved 2021-12-31.
    The book notes: "More and more pooch lovers have decided to take advantage of this concern by starting their own dog bakeries, offering healthy treats to lucky canines. They point out that commercial dog biscuits are filled with additives and chemicals, and that home-baked goodies sidestep all that unnecessary stuff. What's more, dogs seem to love them. Dog biscuit chefs typically start their companies right in their own homes, using ingredients from the corner grocery store to whip up dog treats on their own stoves. This translates into lower production costs and a healthier bottom line. Once the goodies are baked, the biscuit chef packages them in a variety of attractive ways (anything from Brown Paper Bag Basic to fancy shrink-wrapped biscuit-filled tins, dog bowls, or baskets)."
  3. Svete, Margaret (2001). 116 Ways to Spoil Your Dog. New York: Hyperion. pp. 13, 16, 246. ISBN 978-0-7868-8642-5. Retrieved 2021-12-31.
    The book notes: "Howlin ' Times at the Dog Bakery: Did you know that many dog bakeries offer more than just treats? Many bakeries have fun-filled activities for you and your dog. Most bakeries love to host canine birthday parties, weddings, and other celebrations. Many bakeries arrange for visits from Santa Paws and the Easter Bunny. I even encountered a bakery that hosts a Yappy Hour complete with biscuits and water for the dogs and wine and cheese for the dog owners. Some even host singles' nights for dogs and owners looking for 'puppy love'.""
  4. von Perfall, Manuela [de] (2007). Luxury for Dogs. Kempen: teNeues. p. 148. ISBN 978-3-8327-9174-2. Retrieved 2021-12-31. ((cite book)): Check |author= value (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
    The book notes: "More and more dog bakeries are offering rewards for a job well done and for labors of love among the like-minded. The "Three Dog Bakery" has now spread its chain of stores over the whole of the USA, Japan and South Korea. Or you might visit 'Snobbish Babies' in Tokyo to "see and be seen" while your pet enjoys dog-tempting delicacies. A dog in a restaurant is de facto no longer taboo. Doggy dining has recently been officially allowed in Orlando, Florida, and in Germany, the first dog restaurant, 'Frizzis,' exclusively serves four-footed gourmands."
  5. Scattergood, Amy (2017-08-27). "Four great dog bakeries in and around L.A." Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2021-12-31. Retrieved 2021-12-31.
    The article notes: "Some pet shops have taken this even further, opening dog bakeries inside their stores, with elaborate pastry cases, even dedicated pastry chefs. ... These baked goods are specifically calibrated for your pet, it should be said, with carob instead of chocolate, little or no sugar, salt or artificial coloring, and ingredients that dogs tend to love and that are suited to their nutritional needs (lots of peanut butter and yogurt). And they’re human-grade quality, so that if your kid happens to share your pet’s hamburger-shaped pastry or Dodger-decorated cookie, there’s no problem."
  6. "More Dogs Living in High Style". News for You. Vol. 53, no. 36. New Readers Press. 2005-09-07. ISSN 0884-3910. EBSCOhost 18180815.
    The abstract notes: "Reports on the popularity of dog grooming salons and boutiques in the U.S. citing American spending on their pets. Use of accessories, jeweled collars and leashes for their dogs; Dog bakeries and pet boutiques; Painting shops specializing in dog paintings."
  7. Lofland, Glennis (2012-07-09). "Posh Nosh". Virginia Living. Vol. 10, no. 4. p. 25. EBSCOhost 76352871. Archived from the original on 2021-12-31. Retrieved 2021-12-31.
    The article notes: "Gourmet dog bakeries are turning out homemade snacks that even the most discerning doggie diner won't be able to refuse!" The article lists Working Dog Bakery in Suffolk, Barkley Square Bakery in Alexandria, Marley’s Barkery in Richmond, Three Dog Bakery in Richmond, and Dogma Bakery in Arlington.
2. Less significant coverage
  1. Hennes, Rebecca (2018-10-02). "The most extra dog shops and bakeries in Houston to spoil your dog at". Houston Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2021-12-31. Retrieved 2021-12-31.
    The article notes: "Stores like Three Dog Bakery, which opened in Rice Village this fall, offers dogs plenty of treats with its in-house 'bone bar' and 'chew wall.' Woof Gang Bakery and Grooming is another Houston area store offering a wide selection of doggie cakes perfect for your four-legged friend's birthday."
  2. Griggs, Kristy (2013-04-15). "When nothing is too fancy for Fido". CNN. Archived from the original on 2021-12-31. Retrieved 2021-12-31.
    The article notes: "There are hundreds of dog bakeries around the country selling cakes, cookies and other specialty goods for man’s best friend."
  3. Wright, Sue Owens (2007). 150 Activities For Bored Dogs: Surefire Ways to Keep Your Dog Active and Happy. Avon, Massachusetts: Adams Media. ISBN 978-1-59337-688-8. Retrieved 2021-12-31.
    The book notes: "With so many dog bakeries around these days, you can order a wide variety of treats the dogs will enjoy, such as barkday cakes and pupcakes. Or you can make your own goodies, if you prefer."
  4. Adamson, Eve (2007). Shih Tzu For Dummies. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. p. 74. ISBN 978-0-470-08945-3. Retrieved 2021-12-31.
    The book notes: "Even more fun are dog bakeries that are popping up all over the country and offering healthy and even gorgeous pet treats for pets who only snack on the very best. Some of my favorite places include: [list]." The book lists Three Dog Bakery; Good Dog Express; Canine Confections, Inc.; and Central Bark Bakery.
  5. Thornton, Kim Campbell (2004). The Everything Labrador Retriever Book: A Complete Guide to Raising, Training, and Caring for Your Lab. Avon, Massachusetts: F+W Publications. ISBN 978-1-59337-048-0. Retrieved 2021-12-31.
    The book notes, "Numerous dog bakeries offer cookies and cakes made just for dogs, with none of the sugar or chocolate that would be harmful to them."
  6. Adamson, Eve (2008). Dachshunds For Dummies. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. p. 100. ISBN 978-0-470-22968-2. Retrieved 2021-12-31.
    The book notes: "Fancy gourmet dog treats from dedicated dog bakeries are now widely available. If you live in a big city, you may live near a dog bakery. Here in Iowa, we have three different dog treat bakers at the local farmer's market!"
  7. Goodspeed, Diane (2006). Happy Tails Across New Jersey: Things to See and Do with Your Dog. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press. ISBN 978-0-8135-3848-8. Retrieved 2021-12-31.
    The book notes: "The book also functions as a convenient handbook for shops, covering everything from high-end pet stores and large chains to independently run dog bakeries."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow dog bakery to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied those sources and the comments to the article talk to make sure they don't get buried in the AfD after it ends. —valereee (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've rewritten to add many of the sources listed by Cunard. —valereee (talk) 13:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unbearable lightness of trivia (closer may wish to discount this non-policy argument). Xxanthippe (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

What is this even supposed to mean?★Trekker (talk) 14:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretation is left to the reader. On a more serious level (is anything else allowed?) Wikpedia is not supposed to be used as a link farm or a trade directory for commercial interests. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2022 (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. A good case was made that the lab meets WP:GNG, and that merging to University of Toronto would not be a better outcome. Concerns about promotional editing definitely should be addressed, but deletion is not required to achieve that. RL0919 (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citizen Lab[edit]

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

This is a laboratory, within a school/department, within a university. With this article we are going down a granularity router that is, at best, unusual. There needs to be a very good WP:GNG reason for even a school/department to exist as a separate article from the university.

The Munk School of Global Affairs is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Munk School of Global Affairs with a potential outcome of merge to University of Toronto and I propose that this article be treated in the same manner. It is far to late to add it to that deletion discussion, and, because of that discussion, AfD but suggesting a merge as the outcome is appropriate, though perhaps a little WP:IAR.

Note that the article subject of this discussion suffers from one major example of WP:CITEKILL, and that its research being featured on the front page (etc) or media does not mean that there is necessarily independent coverage about it Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 07:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - First instinct was to vote merge, but then I looked at the article. It's very well sourced. It's also quite extensive. We don't remove well sourced information from wikipedia, and we shouldn't merge such a huge amount of information into another article, as that would create WP:UNDUE weight. A separate article for the amount of reliably sourced information we seem to have is fine. Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER after all. Fieari (talk) 07:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are numerous articles that can be found that discuss Citizen Lab as the principal subject. For example:
There are many more. Mind matrix 13:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Mindmatrix says, there are many, many more. Not to mention that University of Toronto is already over 150kb, so it would be sensible to break Citizen Lab right back out of it as soon as it was merged in. -- asilvering (talk) 13:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Either delete or rewrite. They probably are notable, but this article is a PR piece indistinguishable from what they would write t themselves It's also essentially advocacy for the causes the lab supports, something they could send to people when they are trying to raise money. This seems not to have been noticed because probably every person active at Wikipedia does support their purposes; I had never heard of them, but now thatI have, I certainly think they are doing an excellent job. The promotionalism is shown by the usual techniques: focusing on their successes, highlighting the difficulties they face (to hte point of putting one threat they received in a boxed quote), using adjectives and phrases of praise, repeating at every opportunity their lofty goals, emphasizing the names of the important organizations they work with, repeating their full name at least once in almost every paragraph, using current jargon and the conventional bureaucratic triplets the Citizen Lab contributes to field building by supporting networks of researchers, advocates, and practitioners around the world, particularly from the Global South, citing dozens of their own publications, and repeating a great deal of the content in an article on the director, Ronald Deibert. About 75% of it has been written by a succession of single-purpose editors and ips. Anything that reads like a promotional web page is not an encyclopedia article. I think it needs almost total rewriting. DGG ( talk ) 20:18, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ample coverage per many of the others. Their coverage of NSO Group alone has been amply documented. If there are content issues in the article, beyond notability like promo language, that should be addressed with article tags and or edits. WP:AfD is not cleanup and this is far from a WP:TNT situation. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons given by other editors above. It's obviously a notable subject and it would be awkward (and counterproductive) to merge it. It can always be edited or cleaned up if need be. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:02, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage, especially of its history with uncovering the NSO group easily meets WP:GNG. Definitely some tone issues, but nothing that can't be fixed by regular editing and would require deletion. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:29, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I nowadays never say "rewrite" in an afd unless I am prepared to do it. Otherwise, it's putting the burden on other people. DGG ( talk ) 07:13, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or rewrite same arguments as DGG Yleventa2 (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rewrite In agreement with DGG and Yleventa2.-Hatchens (talk) 05:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In agreement with Mindmatrix. I'd like to point out that the MIT Media Lab is similarly a laboratory, within a school/department, within a university. I think the Citizen Lab qualifies for a standalone article under WP:GNG for the same reason as the Media Lab does - it has many, many articles about it independent of the University of Toronto. I also agree with Patar knight that some editing could be done to remove PR-heavy parts, but it doesn't constitute a full rewrite (most of the article has a good tone and is well-sourced). 204.239.251.6 (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Widespread sustained international coverage: Ooni (Zambia) EFF 2015 EFF 2014 NYT 2013 NYT 2019 Al Jazeera BBC Jakarta Post CBC Brown University Seattle Times Toronto Star. The current state of the article does tend to mostly source to Citizen Lab's own reports, and there is quite a bit of advocacy (including the jargon quoted by DGG), but the sources are clearly available for doing a rewrite that would establish a reasonable secondary-to-primary source ratio and remove the advocacy. Notability of individual sections and reports could be sorted out either directly with edits/edit summaries or on the talk page when/if it's unclear or controversial. Boud (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hacksaw. I'm going to !vote this because I don't want to see everything deleted and there's too much good stuff for stubbifying. Nor do I want to put the burden of rewriting on anyone. But I would like to see an editor (such as myself) go at this article with a proverbial hacksaw and just delete entire sections that are badly sourced. No rewriting or trying to find sources (although of someone wants to do that they can). Just a massive section blanking of all the crap sourced only to Citizen Lab. I'll also note I was the original nom of the Munk School for deletion. WP:INHERITORG is somewhat clear. Parent organizations don't inherit notability from child organizations and vice versa. Just because Citizen Lab is notable doesn't mean the Munk School is. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 09:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:37, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rewrite Because of the sources presented by MindMatrix, this is obviously notable enough per WP:GNG... but it needs a lot of editing. Not stubifying it, just a rewrite. Lectrician2 (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I started cleaning up this article, which I wish more people voting to delete or rewrite did, as it doesn't relate to the core question of notable or not. Happy editing and improving! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The comparison with MIT is inaccurate. The MIT lab is universally acknowledged as the leading laboratory in its field in the world, and qualifies as famous,; this lab is important, but not remotely to the same extent. DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 30 December 2021 (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. Geschichte (talk) 10:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Homer Nearing[edit]

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

The article itself has no sources. I was able to the listing of him getting his Ph.D. here [24], and I found a few citations to hius work in google scholar, but not nearly enough to pass the number 1 prong in academic notability. I was able to find that his listed work does exist from worldcat, although you have to be careful because his father with the same name was also a published writer, but in the field of music. I was able to find no secondary sources that actually discussed Nearing, just primary sources that showed that he existed, or that someone with this name existed who seems to maybe be the same person. John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- As best I can tell this article has never had any sources since it was created in July of 2006.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Best review of his SF series I could find online, may not be RS (not sure if site has editorial control) but a starting point if anyone else wants to look further: Scide Splitters: The Sinister Researches of C. P. Ransom by H. Nearing, Jr.. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 16:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This subject's work was published by major publishers of the day including F&SF and Doubleday. In addition, I found a number of current scholarly works referencing his own academic papers including Poetry, Politics and Promises of Empire, Dire Straits: The Perils of Writing the Early Modern English Coastline from Leland to Milton, and Rethinking Shakespeare Source Study: Audiences, Authors, and Digital Technologies. Check out this Google Books search for more. To me this indicates he also meets the notability guidelines as an academic. I think the problem is he published in the mid 20th century so he's not mentioned online as much as more recent authors.--SouthernNights (talk) 20:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I updated the article with more info and citations to show his notability as a SF author, including his obituary in Locus Magazine and reviews of his work. Also worth noting this subject has an entry in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, which is an excellent indicator of notability.--SouthernNights (talk) 15:26, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as satisfying WP:BASIC per the added citations, and WP:HEY for SouthernNights's work. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 17:19, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I appreciate the work of SouthernNights to provide sourcing for the article. In looking at the sources, it does not appear the subject passes WP:AUTHOR and the citation count does not appear to lead to a pass of WP:ACADEMIC per the nomination. --Enos733 (talk) 20:32, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:36, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Academic notability is not there (the distinguished professorship doesn't count; it was a bequest from his estate, not an honor given to him). But I think there is a case for author notability through major publisher attention, reviews, and inclusion in reference works. And the improvement from the stubby unsourced state of the article to its current version with considerable sourced detail about both his fiction and his life makes this worth keeping. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons given above. But also merely for encyclopaedic interest of our readers: although I agree with David Eppstein's comment about the distinguished professorship, presumably future holders of the Homer C. Nearing, Jr. Distinguished Professorship will be eligible for Wikipedia articles themselves, and to be described as such in their own articles, in which case some of our readers are going to wonder who Homer C. Nearing, Jr., actually was. We owe it to them to tell them. (to clarify: endowing a chair shouldn't automatically confer notability, but if someone's half-way notable and teetering on the brink, to my mind endowing a chair could tip the balance based on the needs of our readers' curiosity). Elemimele (talk) 12:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NAUTHOR and WP:HEY. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:22, 28 December 2021 (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.