< December 01 December 03 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bahare Alavi[edit]

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

Article has been denied multiple times in the Articles for Creation process. However, it had been moved to the mainspace by the creator in disregard of the issues raised. Namely, it is my and previous reviewers' stance that the subject does not meet the general notability guideline. Most of the text and sources are obituary-like and the salvageable content would better fit as a part or section in another article. The article was similarly deleted on the Farsi Wikipedia. Dege31 (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Super (talk) 03:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She lived in a country that was repressive to women. The fact she has a much a she does is proof enough of notability. Super (talk) 15:23, 3 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dhanish Semar[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. No significant coverage. Created by a single purpose editor so possible WP:AUTOBIO. LibStar (talk) 23:00, 2 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 List of songs recorded by the Rolling Stones as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 12:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Potted Shrimp[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG; I can't find any significant coverage of the song, and even the unreliable sources cited in the article are not about the song specifically. There doesn't seem to be a good merge/redirect target as this recording isn't on any notable release (though redirecting to potted shrimps as an alternative spelling/capitalisation of the dish is of course possible). Lennart97 (talk) 23:00, 2 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. And a raspberry for theleekycauldron, because that was terrible :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2028 in sports[edit]

2028 in sports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TOOSOON? Only 3 listed events, versus 6 for the preceding 2027 in sports, and 2 of those are the Summer Olympics and Paralympics. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2032 in sports. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:00, 2 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vicki Brittle[edit]

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

Not seeing any significant coverage in outside sources—a few passing mentions, but none of the stuff that guarantees notability. No special WP:NSINGER requirements are met, either, so I don't see a reason to include. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 22:57, 2 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 Colombia–Ecuador relations. Consensus is to redirect, but obviously no strong consensus on what the best target is. I'll redirect it to Colombia–Ecuador relations for now, but feel free to change the redirect target and/or start a discussion somewhere to find a stronger consensus on where to redirect. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 15:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Colombia, Quito[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The article merely confirms the embassy exists and 1 of the references is google maps. LibStar (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwaiiplayer: Forgive me, but I am somewhat confused. How is your proposed list article target, itself just a list of many countries in a table, "more specific" than the target I proposed which is 'specifically' about relations between the two countries in question (which is pertinent for an embassy)? Bungle (talk • contribs) 08:41, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bungle: The article is about the embassy, and the list has pertinent information about the embassy. People searching for Embassy of Colombia, Quito are more likely to be interested in information about the embassy itself than Colombia-Ecuador relations in general. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:41, 11 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. RL0919 (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brieuc Vourch[edit]

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

Courtesy nomination on behalf of Bvourch1, who claims to be the subject and whose sole edit to date was to tag the article with the edit summary "I am not a public person and do not understand why this is online. I would like my informations to remain private. Please delete this article, which is full of errors and approximations." As for my own view, I have not yet evaluated the provided sources. If kept, article looks like it could use a bit of de-promo-ization. --Finngall talk 22:29, 2 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 as an overly broad list per WP:SALAT. RL0919 (talk) 23:46, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of extinct plants[edit]

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

Not to be confused with List of recently extinct plants, which I think is a valid topic, a single-article list of every extinct plant ever described, including both fossil and recently extinct plants is unmaintainable, the article as is, is hopelessly incomplete. I could maybe see specific sublists like "List of extinct ferns" or "List of extinct conifers" being maintainable, but a single list of every extinct plant ever is just not encyclopedic. The list if close to being comprehensive, would be enormous, and difficult to navigate. We already have organised lists of plants described by year, see 2020 in paleobotany for an example. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Are there any plant species from the Jurassic say that aren't extinct? It would seem rather unlikely that a species could exist unchanged for hundreds of millions of years, I'd have thought. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not as far as I am aware. There are extant genera that have been around since the Jurassic, like Ginkgo, Sequoia, and Amentotaxus, but I don't think there are any extant species. There are some extant species that have been around for tens of millions of years, like Ginkgo biloba (see [4]) but they don't really get any older than the Paleogene. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Having done some further reading, there are reports of the extant fern species Osmundastrum cinnamomeum extending into the Late Cretaceous, around 70 million years ago, [5] that's some extreme longevity, and certainly exceptional. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a list of extinct genera, or extinct species? It seems to include both. Not that it really matters, since it seems to broad either way. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From reading, it's inconsistently both. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Banksia#Evolution and fossil record is another notable example, imo. ~ cygnis insignis 03:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a genus, rather than a species; important distinction in this particular case. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 03:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon the indent level, it was an ad for them at the mention of ancient genera, to which I might add Wollemia and Cephalotus. ~ cygnis insignis 06:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, to an extent, but the total number of extinct plant species that have actually been described is dwarfed by living plant species (which number approximately 320,000), because the vast majority of what once existed is not preserved in the fossil record. The list of extinct plants on their own is still very large, especially if we are counting pollen species. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 22:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"If" it gets too long? I'm not sure you properly understand the scale at play with "every extinct plant". LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 22:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also it might make sense for recently extinct plants, but not for most extinct plants, many of which were extinct before the present land masses existed, let alone the countries. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well Category:Extinct plants divides them by continent, type, and time period. Dream Focus 22:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The earliest 'extinct plant' listed is Eorhynia, from the Late Silurian. Our article says that "Fossils were found in Podolia in modern Ukraine". Which continent would that be listed under? From what I can figure out (I'm no geologist, so may very well be wrong) the answer seems to be Baltica. How many of our readers have even heard of Baltica? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think by this time Baltica had collided with Laurentia to form Laurussia, but your point still stands. It makes very little sense to group the pre-Cenozoic plants of the Indian subcontinent as those of Asia for instance, when it wasn't part of Asia during this time. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:10, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We know where the fossils were found in the modern era, so that's how they should be sorted. We can't accurately sort things by time period since you can't tell when a plant went extinct, only when the ones that left fossils died, others still living for countless years perhaps. Dream Focus 04:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where fossils were found in the modern era is not any kind of defining feature of the fossil, and grouping in this way just tends to encourage pointless nationalism. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've archived the relevant material to User:Hemiauchenia/sandboxExtinctPlants if anybody is interested in using it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:54, 8 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LibStar (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bart Plantenga[edit]

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

Last AfD was no consensus. fails WP:AUTHOR. no indepth coverage, no major awards won, no notable publications LibStar (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just added more reviews and coverage of the subject's works from Rolling Stone, American Book Review, Booklist, Wisconsin State Journal, Review of Contemporary Fiction, The New York Times, and Entertainment Weekly. I think all of this combined proves notability.--SouthernNights (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in light of SouthernNights's contributions. Lead section could still be way improved, though. - Headphase (talk) 01:51, 5 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 merge to Kamchatka earthquakes. There seems to be some agreement that merging 2006 Kamchatka earthquakes into the same article would be appropriate, but we can't necessarily consider this discussion as evidence of consensus for that action as well. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 15:33, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Kamchatka earthquake[edit]

2020 Kamchatka earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia:ITEXISTS, so what? Yes it is a large earthquake (largest since ...), but without any lasting impacts whatsoever, it does not need an article. Also, this event was first published under 2020 Kuril Islands earthquake before being turned to a redirect. --Dora the Axe-plorer (Nopen't) 02:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're not getting the point, Wikipedia is not a catalog for every 7.5+ around the world regardles of if nothing happened. There really isn't anything notable about this event without any impacts or scientific interest. See Wikipedia:Notability (earthquakes) for a guide. --Dora the Axe-plorer (Nopen't) 04:13, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. The opinions shared in the essay seem to mirror my gut instinct: "M 7+ earthquakes are probably notable, but should meet additional criteria." The earthquake seems notable enough based on sources (i.e. [6][7]), notable enough based on magnitude (7.5), well written, and absolutely no pressing need to get rid of it. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 04:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"should meet additional criteria" which it does not. I haven't come across any news reports other than ohh, a 7.5 stuck offshore, watch out for a (damaging) tsunami (that didn't manifest). There are reports of a small tsunami and nothing else so it might as well be included in the List of earthquakes in 2020. This is not something a non-earthquake expert would remember simply because it exists. --Dora the Axe-plorer (Nopen't) 05:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
News reports of the earthquake and resulting tsunami from RS would seem to suffice to establish notability. But on top of that, at minimum, there is one published in-depth scientific analysis:
The 25 March 2020 MW 7.5 Paramushir, northern Kuril Islands earthquake and major (MW ≥ 7.0) near-trench intraplate compressional faulting -- Bob drobbs (talk) 06:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No lasting impact is the point .. which you clearly don't get. A published study and shallow news stories does not establish notability whatsoever; this event was probably notable only on that day it occurred ... there are no extended coverage in the weeks and months after that. I'll just ping @Dawnseeker2000 and Mikenorton: for their thoughts on this. --Dora the Axe-plorer (Nopen't) 12:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also just because it is well written doesn't mean it's notable. There simply should not be an article for this earthquake for its lack of significant coverage. period. --Dora the Axe-plorer (Nopen't) 12:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Being the subject of articles all over the world plus at least one scientific study is significant coverage. In terms of WP:LASTING one major earthquake on a fault changes the nature of the fault and CAN have an impact on the next major earthquake. Do you disagree? -- Bob drobbs (talk)
Coverage of an earthquake without any lasting impact in major news agencies is not notable, neither is one published scientific study. To answer the question, every earthquake makes another likely; either on the same fault or the faults nearby. But no other earthquakes have occurred in the immediate area, even so, this event still fails the basic notability criteria for inclusion. --Dora the Axe-plorer (Nopen't) 13:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dora the Axe-plorer: To me international coverage, national coverage, local coverage, plus multiple in-depth analyses confer basic notability. But let me ask you another question. If there was a M 9.0 earthquake tomorrow on the same fault, would a bunch of people want to refer to this article? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, a bunch of people (the general public, I assume) wouldn't refer to this article. A 7.5 south of the Kamchatka Peninsula isn't going to be remembered by non-earthquake experts, even if a 9.0 follows-up. Dora the Axe-plorer (Nopen't) 22:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to disagree then. I was in a 6.9 earthquake. I have interest in all earthquakes that are ~20x more powerful than that, doubly so if they end up being the precursor to an even larger quake. I'm sure I'm not alone in that. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 01:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Bob drobbs
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/25/russia-kuril-islands-earthquake-tsunami-warning-issued-after-75-magnitude-event Yes Yes Yes International news; subject of article. ✔ Yes
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/03/25/quake-hits-off-russias-kuril-islands-prompting-tsunami-alert-a69744 Yes Yes Yes National news; subject of article ✔ Yes
https://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/tsunami-warnings-after-magnitude-78-quake-off-russias-kuril-islands Yes Yes Yes International news; subject of article. ✔ Yes
https://www.vicnews.com/news/tsunami-not-expected-for-b-c-after-7-5-magnitude-earthquake-hits-near-russia/ Yes Yes Yes International news; subject of article ✔ Yes
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/03/25/quake-hits-off-russias-kuril-islands-prompting-tsunami-alert-a69744 Yes Yes Yes National news; subject of article ✔ Yes
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X20306725 Yes Yes Yes In-depth scientific analysis ✔ Yes
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/at00q7qai7/executive Yes Yes Yes US Government site; significant coverage ✔ Yes
https://ia41.ru/2020/03/25/operativnye-gruppy-obsleduyut-zdaniya-posle-silnogo-zemletryaseniya-na-kamchatke/ Yes ? Yes Local news; subject of article ? Unknown
https://www.znak.com/2020-03-25/zhiteli_petropavlovska_kamchatskogo_snyali_na_video_zemletryasenie Yes ? Yes Local news; subject of article ? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Delete this please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanami-Sakura (talk • contribs) 09:16, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If a concert gets international coverage, we can't predict it will inspire something bigger. With earthquakes, we can predict the future. We know a larger quake will happen along this fault, in part triggered by this quake. The only question is when.
WP:LASTING: "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable ... It may take weeks or months [or years] to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." -- Bob drobbs (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:AfD debates (Science and technology)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 22:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hoping to see some analysis of the source assessment prepared by Bob drobbs
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 22:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's an article for Kamchatka earthquakes which only discusses 3 earthquakes: 1737 (8.3?), 1923 (8.5?), 1952 (9.0). There's a "see also" for another 7.6 earthquake, 2006 Kamchatka earthquakes. The 2006 earthquake is not well sourced, though there were a few dozen injuries. So, if it's to be a merge, I'd suggest merging both the 2006 and 2020 earthquakes into the Kamchatka earthquakes page. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly the most appropriate merge target in terms of title, but it will need to be extensively rewritten and expanded to explain all the different types of "Kamchatka earthquakes". Mikenorton (talk) 11:26, 11 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PixCell Medical[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. The style is also very promotional. There are some press mentions at reliable sources, but they are almost certainly based on press-releases ([8], [9]). -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found the sources to be valid with much more sources than can be found for similar Israeli companies, as for them being based on PR and promotional activities - I have no idea, but I tried to be as objective as possible. I don't write much in the English Wiki, preferring the Hebrew Wiki where much more work is needed, however, I am aware of the guidelines and issues with commercial/promotional tones in Wikipedia - which is why I checked comparable company articles to assess the notability of PixCell, which I found to be on par and sometimes more notable than similar articles.
The article doesn't feel too promotional in tonality (again in comparison to others), but I could try to rephrase to make it less promotional - however, as the main argument here is on PixCell's notability, I'm not sure that could help. As long as it's not deleted beforehand, I will try to revisit my phrasing in the coming days when I have some time.
As for notability, a relatively senior and stable company compared with most Israeli start-ups, it developed a technology based on scientific research at the Technion (Israel Institute of Technology). According to media publications, this is quite a breakthrough in the world of blood testing in remote regions and improving healthcare quality. This could be just blatant promotional material as argued here, but, taken at face value, I believe this to be an interesting and suitable company to write about. Jakednb (talk) 08:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jakednb: Please tell what is your relation to PixCell Medical, Vidisco, SolidRun and Bermad. Is there a possible WP:COI here? --Bbarmadillo (talk) 08:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbarmadillo: as far as I can tell there's no conflict of interest here, as I was not paid or was not employed by these companies. Both Vidisco and Bermad were companies that I had known via my professional life, but again, was not paid to write about. SolidRun and PixCell are both companies I came across and found it lacking they didn't have an article. People who know I edit in Wikipedia do from time to time ask for my help, but this is always done to the highest objectivity and professionalism I can muster (as was the case with Bermad) Jakednb (talk) 15:05, 6 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BrightVolt[edit]

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

Promotional article regarding a non-notable company. Created by a user blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet and heavily edited by a user blocked for COI/promotional edits & username. No significant secondary coverage; what exists is limited to a few articles about a recent funding round. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Paisarepa 19:53, 2 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 23:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Siliguri Boys' High School[edit]

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

Sources have been sought for 11 years. This place may not even exist. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:43, 2 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Baughman[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a businessperson, not reliably sourced as passing our inclusion criteria for businesspeople. The notability claim here is that he's the founder of a record label -- except that the name of the record label he purportedly founded wronglinks to a video game company he wasn't a founder of, with no indication that his record label has a Wikipedia article at all -- and that he "has relationships with many artists, venues, clubs, and record labels in the Virginia/Washington D.C. area", which isn't a notability claim. And as for referencing, the article is completely unsourced except for his own company's self-published website about itself, which is (a) a dead link, and (b) not support for notability in and of itself even if it were still live. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be the subject of a WP:GNG-worthy volume of media coverage to establish his significance. Bearcat (talk) 18:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I considered speedying, but the article's existed since 2011 and there's been a prod attempt in its past. Bearcat (talk) 13:38, 9 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. Consensus is that this index article does not serve as a useful navigational aid, and does not provide any utility beyond that which is already provided by existing categories, outlines, and the search functionality built in to WP. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:48, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Index of Brazil-related articles[edit]

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

An alphabetic list of Brazil-related articles. Effectively unmaintained since not long after its creation in late 2008, it's got fewer than 600 entries. That's a tiny fraction of the more than 35,000 articles currently tracked by the Brazil Wikiproject. Such an incomplete index can mislead readers into believing we don't have the articles when in fact we do.

In principle, such lists don't have much value for readers any more (see for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of India-related articles). In this particular case, if the list were to be made complete, it would be unworkably large. There's also no scope for converting into a more curated list of important Brazil-related topics, because that's alraedy done at Outline of Brazil. – Uanfala (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • One option would be to keep nominating individual articles until there’s an unquestionable consensus to delete the format, then bundle nominate them in batches until they’re gone. That’s how a lot of pointless “list of politicians by [x]” lists were cleared out. Dronebogus (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They are navigational indices per WP:LISTPURP. SailingInABathTub (talk) 11:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That utterly fails to explain what makes it useful. How does this help you navigate? What does this have that the outline doesn't? (okay, the outline's not that long, but it's actually organized and would be more helpful for navigation if merged appropriately!) That categories don't? That the search bar doesn't? This has zero organization or criteria for what is and is not included so I see little use for it or a blanket inclusion for listing any number of links merely because they are links./ Reywas92Talk 14:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LISTPURP explains, "If users have some general idea of what they are looking for but do not know the specific terminology, they could browse the lists of basic topics and more comprehensive lists of topics, which in turn lead to most if not all of Wikipedia's lists, which in turn lead to related articles." SailingInABathTub (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or they can browse an outline that may be more helpful to them since it's organized by "general ideas"! There are millions of topics on Wikipedia (and tens of thousands relating to Brazil), and to list a very, very, very small selection of them on context-free alphabetical lists and pretend that's inherently useful is utterly absurd. "lists of basic topics" in that quote goes to Wikipedia:Contents/Outlines, which provide organization and sometimes descriptions about articles someone may be looking for, much better than indices! Reywas92Talk 02:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find it absurd that an encyclopedia has an index of topics that is in alphabetical order. Different people approach finding information in different ways. SailingInABathTub (talk) 14:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, you're looking for Salvador, Bahia, the fourth largest city in Brazil? Oh too bad, this shitty index doesn't have it, just like it doesn't have the other 30,000 Brazil-related articles. This is pointless and unmanageable, and quoting here, "This index is so incomplete that the harm it does in misleading readers far outweighs any conceivable benefit it might still provide." Reywas92Talk 18:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are proposing the equivalent of ripping the index out of an encyclopedia one page at a time! SailingInABathTub (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a WP:PAPER encyclopedia. The equivalent of an index on WP is the search bar and category system. Dronebogus (talk) 15:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, the equivalent of an index on Wikipedia is the index. Not being a paper encyclopedia allows Wikipedia to have additional context specific indices that aid in finding related topics. SailingInABathTub (talk) 16:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If I had no idea the index existed until now then maybe it’s not actually that useful to readers. Many times I’ve seen keep voters without strong arguments rely on WP:ITSUSEFUL without stating why, or use the increasingly meaningless citation of WP:LISTPURP-“navigational” as a more “professional” sounding substitute. Dronebogus (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm proposing some consistency across the whole site. Either every country has a relative index article, or none should. Ajf773 (talk) 09:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you mean that Either every country should have a relative index article, or none should. Some forms of consistency cannot be forced, or there would be no encyclopedia. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 08:34, 11 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zoey Albert[edit]

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

Total lack of notability, e.g. her role on "La suerte de Loli" was in one episode only, and received no attention. Of the 5 sources, only IMDb (which is user-generated and thus does nothing to establish notability) is about her, the other 4 don't even mention her(!). Looking for better sources produces nothing usable at all. Fram (talk) 15:56, 2 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 merge to 2021 Minneapolis mayoral election. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:14, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sheila June Nezhad[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person whose only stated notability claim is having been a non-winning candidate for mayor of a city. As always, this is not a notability claim that passes WP:NPOL #2 -- the notability test for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one -- but there's no indication here that she had preexisting notability for other reasons that would have gotten her into Wikipedia independently of a political candidacy.
And as for the sourcing, there are four run of the mill hits of local campaign coverage of the type that every candidate for mayor of anywhere can always show, one hit from a local news blog, one from an advocacy organization that isn't a media outlet, and one Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person on a podcast. Which means that three of the seven footnotes aren't WP:GNG-worthy support for notability at all, and the other four aren't nearly enough to establish that her non-winning candidacy was more special than everybody else's non-winning candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 12:36, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:42, 2 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Skin Salveation[edit]

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

Appears to be an unremarkable company, failing WP:NCORP. I could not find any more independent coverage than the cited Northumberland Gazette piece (which reads mostly like a press release, perhaps not entirely independent) and a passing mention in this Guardian article. Lennart97 (talk) 14:50, 2 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 23:47, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ruda Real[edit]

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

Singer who died young. No references and I cant find any trace of what is claimed to be his famous song "Bounce Ya on My Pole". Rathfelder (talk) 14:31, 2 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. ✗plicit 23:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barrio Planta Project[edit]

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

The article is about a non-profit organization that teaches people who to surf and do hip-hop dancing. So it has to pass WP:NORG. Which it clearly doesn't since all the references in the article are either primary, dead links, or extremely coverage. I couldn't find anything in a WP:BEFORE that would help it pass WP:NORG either. Not surprising really considering what it is. Maybe other people can find something workable for notability though. I'm no expert on Nicaraguan surfing/hip-hop "schools." Adamant1 (talk) 14:26, 2 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. ✗plicit 23:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

American International School of Conakry[edit]

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

The article has had a notability template on it since 2016, all the references in it are primary, and I was unable to find anything to help with notability when I looked. Therefore, from what I can tell this fails both WP:GNG and WP:NORG Adamant1 (talk) 14:14, 2 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shawna Elizabeth[edit]

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

The subject appears to have requested deletion [13]. The current references are interviews and blogs. I looked for better ones and didn't find anything useful. Cheers, gnu57 14:13, 2 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mayer DeRoy[edit]

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

Generic police chief of mid-size city arguably falls under WP:NPOL and notability is not shown. Souces are insubstantive and routine local announcements. Reywas92Talk 14:11, 2 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 by HJ Mitchell (non-admin closure) – The Grid (talk) 15:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Go Fish Animation[edit]

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

Empty article, should probably be written in Sandbox before being published. DirkJandeGeer (щи) 13:47, 2 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 by HJ Mitchell. (non-admin closure) – The Grid (talk) 15:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Animals United 2: The Chilldown[edit]

Animals United 2: The Chilldown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

this is an empty article, and the user seems to have created quite a few empty articles DirkJandeGeer (щи) 13:46, 2 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. Consensus is that he's not yet suitable notable. Star Mississippi 03:43, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Laith Alattar[edit]

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

Previously deleted via PROD but subsequently restored. Alattar is a non-notable musician; he fails the WP:MUSICBIO criteria and the GNG. A WP:BEFORE search finds no significant coverage: only trivial mentions of various performances at local festivals, etc. It appears (although I'm not entirely certain) that he's also a psychologist in the employ of the Social Security Administration, but he doesn't seem to have garnered any more notability from that role than from his musical career. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:32, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I tried to find anything truly significant, but there really isn't much. Here is his IMDb page, but it just looks depressing, Here is his Linkedin profile, but again there really isn't anything much that makes him special. He does have a YouTube channel with nearly 11k subscribers, but still 11k subscribers is a miniscule amount, and doesn't really contribute much to notability. Fairfax Times did mention him here however that talks more about the event rather than Alattar's life and playing. He does participate in a couple events, like the SHIN-DC "Comospolitian Journey to Greek" and this, but again those aren't that big of an event. The 2nd event I stated might also explain whatever this is. Finally, he is a contributor of this book, which seems to be pretty significant. However, all of these are either a. Insignificant or contribute little to no notability at all or b. Only passing mentions. So while Alattar seems to be a smart and interesting person, just not notable enough for his own article. Thanks - RandomEditorAAA (talk) 03:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this discussion does result in a keep, then the article needs to expand more on his psychology studies and work, he seems to also be philosophical. Again, still, I think the article should be deleted. Thanks - RandomEditorAAA (talk) 04:00, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:00, 2 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 23:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Punjab Lok Congress[edit]

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

I earlier proposed this article for deletion but the prod tag was deleted by user Curbon7 with a reason that "contesting PROD; party holds a seat in a parliament" which is incorrect because as per this list on the official Punjab Government site Punjab Lok Congress does not hold any seat in the Punjab Legislative Assembly. I tried to reach Curbon7 but they did not reply to my message. The party was founded just 2-3 weeks ago and has not yet participated in any elections. It was in the news due to its founder who is a notable figure otherwise there is no independent coverage. IMO the article should be deleted or merged with its founder's article. Thanks 1.23.212.76 (talk) 11:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NCORP is an inappropriate standard here, WP:NONPROFIT is the correct standard to apply. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:27, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:56, 2 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Major Surender Dahiya[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Appears to fail GNG too Gbawden (talk) 10:39, 2 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 Moot. This is now a disambiguation page and no longer an article. If this change does not stick, the article can be renominated for deletion. Sandstein 17:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Space folding[edit]

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

I've prodded this recently created article (2020 vintage) with " This is basically a poorly referenced fork of Hyperspace which has recently been rewritten. I propose a WP:SOFTDELETE and redirecting this there. While I could be bold and redirect this myself, I dislike stealthy deletions by redirecting; hence the PROD. If the PROD reviewer agrees with me, please just redirect this as proposed. If not, we can discuss this at AfD.". It was deprodded by User:Artw with "Removed prod - is clearly not a fork of Hyperspace. Other grounds may remain but should probably be dealt with at AfD.". I'll also ping User:Mark McWire who has been editing the article. Speaking as the editor who recently wrote GA space travel in science fiction, cleaned up/rewrote hyperspace, and with Mark and User:Daranios also cleaned up Warp drive (not finished yet), I have to say repeat that "space folding" should be just a redirect, preferably to "hyperspace", where this topic is discussed (or maybe to "warp drive", where it is also mentioned). The current "space folding" article is just a WP:SYNTH list of random examples of works that used this term, the old WP:FANCRUFTY bad style that we are now slowly removing from articles, transforming such listicles into the encyclopedic style overviews, as seen in RS like the ones seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science Fiction. In my review of the sources I've noticed that the concept of space folding is mentioned occasionally in passing, but only as an explanation of more popular concepts of hyperspace or warp drive. The concept is not indexed in the Historical Dictionary of Science Fiction nor does it even appear at all in the [15] The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, and other sources mention it in passing (if at all). Given the low quality of referencing currently in the article (ex. this Washington Post article that does not even mention the concept, and most other sources cited also fail this - probably because they were merged from semi-relevant articles like wormholes in fiction, based on edit history and talk page notices I see... although I don't understand why this was merged here at all) I think a redirect without merging is the most SOFTDELETish way of dealing with this I can imagine. PS. If it wasn't clear, the topic also fails WP:GNG. PPS. I should also mention that the topic of "space folding" seems to exist in sciences (math/physics/chemistry?), but the article here has no mention of this. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC) PPS. I double-checked other reference works: Visual Encyclopedia of Science Fiction - not in the index; Encyclopedia Of Science Fiction - not mentioned anywhere in the body; The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy - ditto; The Mammoth Encyclopedia of Science Fiction - still nothing; Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopedia - guess what, nothing. The new Science Fiction Literature through History: An Encyclopedia seems to use the word fold when describing the concept of a warp drive, that's about the most relevant usage I could find.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would put the term together with wormholes in fiction, if we decide to delete the entire article. The existence of hyperspace is not necessary for space folding and there are examples, such as Event Horizon, where hyperspace does not exist in the story, but space folding as an fictional concept. In contrast, almost all fictitious wormholes work via space folding and real Wormholes descripted as connection in space via space-time folding. The example of Event Horizon should be adopted in any new location, as the principle of space folding is clearly explained and shown in the film. --Mark McWire (talk) 10:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why wormholes and not warp drive? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because in for example Star Trek, space folding is a separate concept. While warp drive is an everyday technology, at least in representation in the franchise, space folding is something very rare. A technology that is difficult to achieve and that is superior to warp drive. Physically, both are based on different approaches. If you were to mix the two articles, you would have to explain why space folding is part of the lemma "warp drive". And at the same time, all sources for the Star Trek franchise say that warp drive and space folding are two different things. It would be an internal contradiction. There are some intersections between warp drive, space folding, wormholes and hyperspace. But there remain four basic concepts that are based on different physical and hypothetical approaches. In the case of wormholes, there is at least the folding of space-time. We can argue that space folding is only a synonym for space-time folding. An abbreviated or simplified version of this term, so to speak. If anyone could prove this interpretation with a source, it would even be worth considering redirecting the lemma to the general theory of relativity. --Mark McWire (talk) 09:38, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, these sources link space folding to wormholes: [16], [17], [18], [19]. Daranios (talk) 11:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We could mention something in wormholes in fiction article, sure. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also came upon the concept in science (and science-fiction) which the nominator already mentioned: Here, and more clearly here, p. 236, space folding refers to space curvature due to gravity, which if, as a sci-fi concept, artificially induced, could significantly shorten space travel times, but not make them instantaneous. So if we take that into account, we could keep this as a stand-alone article discussing both concepts and their differences (and possibly more from maths, etc.). Or make this a disambiguation page and adapt what we have into wormholes in fiction, and refer for the other part to, I guess, General relativity. Daranios (talk) 11:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IF someone writes about the real-science concepts, arguably some small 'in fiction' section could exist. But right now we have only the 'in ficition' content, and badly written/referenced at that. WP:TNT case, I am afraid - but if someone is motivated to fix this, go ahead. However, in the current form, a redirect (I am fine with 'wormholes in ficiton' instead of 'hyperspace' as the target) is the best outcome for the read, who should not be served this messy, OR-ish and GNG-failing topic. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If something is called a wrinkle in space or folded space, when the descriptions match, hardly seem original research to me. We have two books (and a very short mention in a magazine article) talking about the concept in A Wrinkle in Time. We have a book about the concept in Dune. That does not seem to fit WP:TNT to me. I've now seen that p. 203 of the Dune source directly links the scientific concept of space folding with the sci-fi concept of instantaneous travel via folded space. And AfD is not clean-up, so I think the fact that we could write a reasonable article fullfilling WP:GNG is enough to neither delete nor redirect without merging this article. Daranios (talk) 11:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As far descriptions matching, thi is an argument for redirecting this to warp drive, which is all about warping/folding space. And considering the current article has not a byte about real science that may be related to this, yes, TNT very much applies. There is nothing valuable or salvageable in the our poorly referenced plot summary that is nothing but a poor listicle of 'this term is used in works A, B and C'. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But the sources still link our kind of space folding here to wormholes, not warp drive. And we do cover fictional concepts, as well as fictional treatments of real concepts, with "Are there secondary sources about it?" being our main criterion. So I don't see what we have as worthless.
Otherwise this topic is getting more and more interesting every time I look: I actually think Science Fiction Literature through History: An Encyclopedia gets it wrong when comparing our "fold space like a paper" to Star Trek's warp drive/the Alcubierre drive, if other sources about the warp drive are to be believed. It seems to me we are dealing with a number of separate ideas, all linked by "the shape of space is changed" (and therefore sometimes all referred to as folded space/space folding), but distinct:
1) General relativity gives us the scientific concept that space can be curved by gravity.
2) Then on the one end of the spectrum of sci-fi concepts we have the warp drive, which creates a comparatively small bubble of space, which is driven through the rest of space by a density gradient of space.
3) Next we have the compression of space as described in That's Weird!, where a real distance remains. And which would impact the whole route, as compared to the localized warp bubble.
4) A more extreme version of that would be wormholes in the style of DS9 and, if I remember correctly, Hawking's Illustrated A Brief History of Time where a corridor of short but still tangible distance branches out from normal space.
5) And lastly the most extreme version, like the tesseract in A Wrinkle in Time or the (somewhat mystifying) technology of Dune, where the distance between two widely separate points in space is reduced to zero. Which is what the article currently talks about. (I think I remember that Foundation also had such instantaneous travel, but with a very brief explanation of the technology which may or may not fit here.)
Plenty to write about, but I am still not completely sure if it were best to cover that all under Space folding with links to more detailed articles where they exist, or make it a pure disambig page and fitting the various concepts sometimes called space folding into other articles. Daranios (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first problem which some folks keep ignoring here is that the majority of reliable sources using this term in academic literature seem to be from the chemistry/physics related to stuff like Folding (chemistry). Which has totally zero in common with the usage in sf literature. The latter - second problem - is inconsistent but more or less a synonym for the concepts of space warp, i.e. warp drive. Which is also related to wormhole travel, and that is not too far from hyperspace. It's all variations on the same 'technobabblish but imaginable way to travel at FTL speeds'. While there seem to be sources that support having separate articles about hyperspace, warp drive and wormholes in fiction, there is still next to zero about space folding, which is a poorly defined synonym for the above. Since space folding and space warping are more or less the same, I still strongly say "redirect". At best, this can be mentioned as a rare, alternate name. If it was something significant, it would be mentioned in one or more of sf encyclopedias, which I've reviewed and which not only don't have a dedicated entry on it, but don't even use the term in passing! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:45, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how these variations are not conceptually different. "the majority of reliable sources using this term in academic literature seem to be from the chemistry/physics": So there are more sources using the term than those that we have discussed. That does not seem to me an argument for deletion, but rather that WP:GNG is not the major problem. But yeah, I see, it's the same term applied to different concepts. So it's one more argument for making this a (somewhat extended, as it probably needs sources to make it clear) disambiguation page. That's a solution I would be fine with, as I've described. Daranios (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The fusion of space folding with hyperspace would be Wikipedia:No original research according to the guidelines of Wikipedia. There is no direct connection. Both are simply speculative scientific concepts that are used in science fiction as drive concepts for faster-than-light-movement. --Mark McWire (talk) 12:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are basically four major concepts in science fiction for flying faster than the speed of light:
All of these concepts have their right to exist in Wikipedia. --Mark McWire (talk)
IMHO D) is just a mix of A and B. Star Trek's warp drive seems to involve creating a hyperspace-bubble and having it interact with our reality in a weird way, kind of like greasing the wheels to make them roll faster. But traditionally space warp, space fold are related. And for some writers hyperspace just means something that allows warping/folding, fo others it's the pace inside the wormholes, etc. It's all variations of technobabble. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's just look at it from a real scientific point of view. Wormholes and warp bubbles are two different possible solutions to the field equations from general relativity. Both concepts exist independently of each other. Space folding is another independent solution, but sometimes referred to wormholes. Hyperspace does not exist in current physics. It is a hypothetical concept that is discussed in real science, but which has no use to solute any theoretical problem. It's a world outside of our universe. That science fiction mixes up these concepts is another problem. The warp drive from Star Trek is not a pure warp bubble concept, as it results from the general theory of relativity. As you said, it's a mixture of subspace (hyperspace) and space warp. When it comes to space folding, things get complicated. It is a concept that exists in real science, namely as a prerequisite for using wormholes. Because without folded space, a wormhole is useless, since the flight through the wormhole would be just as far as the flight through normal space. Only when a wormhole connects two distant points in a folded space-time can it create a shorter path. In science fiction, especially in Star Trek, space folding is treated as a separate entity. Mostly in connection with instant travel methods. While the flight through a wormhole takes finite time, the flight through space folding is timeless. --Mark McWire (talk) 10:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would be no problem for me to accept a redirect to Warp drive. Then in the article warp drive it needs its own subsection for space folding and there it is explained that it is a similar concept to space warp, but that it is used differently in the SF. Then we can cite the examples from Star Trek, in which space folding is presented as a physical concept superior to the warp drive that enables instant journeys that are not possible with the warp drive. For example coaxial warp drive and spatial trajector from Series Voyager. --Mark McWire (talk) 11:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overall I agree, which is why I think redirecting (and possibly adding a section to be mostly written from scratch as I do stand by my view that next to nothing in the current plot summary article has value) to either warp drive or wormholes is superior to hyperspace. Indeed, hyperspace is 100% fiction, whereas warp drive and even more so, wormholes, are grounded in some real sciences. My point is that any discussion of space folding has to go beyond listing a few examples of fictional works that used this term. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:15, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing ?[edit]

Can we closing this nomination, since the article now massivly edited and revamped into a disambiguation? --Mark McWire (talk) 11:18, 10 December 2021 (UTC) Ping Artw, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, Jclemens, Daranios, Super[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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quil Lemons[edit]

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

I do not see how any of this. shows notability, under WP:creative of any other guideline. The first person to photograph a lead image for Vanity Fa r is not necessarily notable, all the more so the first person of any particular group.

All 3 refs are promotional interviews, where he says what he pleases. The similarities between them indicate the same likely PR source--nothing in any one of them is reliable, let alone for ablp.

One of the refs does refer to an item in a show at MOMA--if he isis the permaenent collection, we would be notable. Perhaps that can be shown. DGG ( talk ) 08:35, 2 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Little Green Store, Arkansas[edit]

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

I can find basically nothing about this place - nothing useful in newspapers.com, Google books that I could find, google search is pretty much just autogenerated crap scraped from GNIS, and there's no evidence that WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG is met. Hog Farm Talk 05:22, 2 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 NISA Nation. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deportivo Lake Mary[edit]

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

No WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:GNG. JBchrch talk 05:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete SemiProfessional leagues are not notable. dashiellx (talk) 11:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dashiellx: this is a club, not a league - and anyway your statement is factually incorrect. GiantSnowman 19:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: - In my brevity I was not clear. I do not believe teams that play in semi-professional leagues are notable only when relying upon one section of WP:NFOOTY exclusively. I should have been more clear. Perhaps next time instead of leaving a passive aggressive comment you can link to a policy, etc... showing how I'm misunderstanding notability and/or WP:NFOOTY. dashiellx (talk) 21:02, 2 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Warwick, Washington[edit]

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

A station on a now-abandoned SP&S rail line, and in this case I was fortunate enough to find two older maps, one from 1913 and the other from 1936, which make it clear that there was never a town here, a view ratified by later aerials and topos. There's just no notability here. Mangoe (talk) 05:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not how it worked. Stations without towns were common (and in a sense are even more so now). Mangoe (talk) 15:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would also note that there's no concept of "importance" in our notability guidelines. WP:GEOLAND requires either legal recognition or significant coverage to meet GNG. Which of those criteria is this !vote based on? –dlthewave ☎ 15:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "towns get articles anyway"? –dlthewave ☎ 14:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for the info User:FOARPon post offices. I thought they had to be based in a city or town. Super (talk) 21:29, 2 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 consensus. Except for nominator, all respondents indicate reasons to keep. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 08:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Loved (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable indie movie from 1997. Fails WP:NFILM on all counts. No references. Fred Zepelin (talk) 04:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect on all counts. The notability of the players is not enough, per Wikipedia:NOTINHERITED. There weren't notable "sources" reviewing it - there was one notable source, Variety. Fred Zepelin (talk) 14:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NFILM specifies that a film that fails the other criteria has to win a "major" award. Debatable whether the ISAs are "major" (I doubt it) but it any case, it didn't win. Fred Zepelin (talk) 14:28, 2 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 as a confirmed (and reportedly admitted) hoax. RL0919 (talk) 04:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William Henry Farrow[edit]

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

Hoax article according to admission on Twitter by supposed creator. No reliable sources found. The first source to the Durham book is a real book but a Google Book search inside has no results for "Farrow" or "synesthesia". The second source The Lower Canada Journal of Medicine appears to be a bogus non-existent journal? A full-text search of Internet Archive finds nothing for a William Henry Farrow of this type.

If this is determined to be a hoax, it would be the third oldest hoax in Wikipedia history at 15 years and > 11 months. -- GreenC 04:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested a copy of the book through my library. May take a couple of weeks to get it. Getting my hands on the book would make this an open and shut case, one way or another. -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 05:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An abridged copy and full copy is online with 'search inside'. As a test search for "Durham", it will not show all results but does say how many results (87). The words "farrow" or "synesthesia" have 0 results. Search on "375" shows it to be the first page of a chapter (in the TOC), but the citation is for "374–376" meaning it crosses a chapter boundary which is very odd. You might say 374 is a blank page, but it's not, there is content there according to the index when searching on "374". So we have a citation that includes the last page of a chapter the first two pages of the next chapter. -- GreenC 16:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and I hadn't seen the reference to the tweet. I'm still interested in getting the book, but as I said in my amended comment, this page shouldn't exist, even if it weren't a hoax. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 17:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked CappellsFromSkelmersdale as NOTHERE. Fences&Windows 15:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well sorry you went through all that trouble but glad you went the extra mile to verify the third oldest hoax. If the twitter user had a waited just a few more months to reveal, they could have claimed a gold medal for oldest hoax in history. -- GreenC 19:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm not sorry. I felt like checking it because 1) I was curious, 2) wikipedia tends to be "blind" to written sources, as opposed to on-line sources, so I thought it was appropriate to read it, and 3) before enshrining something as a hoax, I felt it was appropriate to make sure we weren't being fooled by a hoax hoax, as improbable as that may seem. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 20:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A hoax-hoax, the mind reels. Hopefully we don't start seeing those. -- GreenC 20:15, 8 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Coal Mine, Texas[edit]

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

Both sources used are unreliable. It's a bit hard to look for because the article isn't clear if it's in Jeff Davis on Bandera County, and it doesn't seem to have a GNIS entry. Newspapers.com is just giving me results for coal mines in China, and searching in other locations doesn't bring up anything that indicates that this meets WP:GNG or WP:GEOLAND. Hog Farm Talk 04:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This tendency to label all these places "ghost towns" has led to counties, particularly in California (e.g., Nevada county), which there are more "ghost town" articles for on Wikipedia than there are articles for inhabited locations. A quick review shows nearly all of these were likely mines, camps, fords, bridges, farms, ranches, stations etc. etc. etc.
In reality, even in places that saw a gold rush or whatever, there should not be more than a few "ghost town" articles for each US county since very few places with legal recognition totally disappeared, and the ones that weren't legally recognised rarely pass WP:GNG. FOARP (talk) 19:53, 2 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. ✗plicit 03:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Central African Republic–Turkey relations[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No state visits, embassies nor agreements. Trade is miniscule at less than USD6 million a year. The fact that Turkey donated some computers says little of notable relations. LibStar (talk) 02:49, 2 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 Revert to page on BBC series since no one else wants to do the legwork. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Science[edit]

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

Page is a total mess. It refers to two different unrelated shows of the same name, neither of which seems notable on its own per Wikipedia:Notability (television). At some point it also got hijacked to be about the concept of fake science in the media. Suggest some WP:TNT here if any of this is to be kept. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:26, 2 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. There are valid sourcing concerns, but there also appears to be consensus that those concerns have been addressed, at least as far as being BLP sufficient. While there are concerns about improving the article, there is a consensus that the subject is notable and issues can be addressed editorially. Star Mississippi 17:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ove von Spaeth[edit]

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

Apparently recreated after the first deletion. All of the references are simply works by the author; I can't find any reliable sources with significant coverage about the subject. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 14:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1) ditch the title "independent scholar"
2) chuck out all primary sources (use it to make a Selected bibliography section instead).
3) rewrite to focus on the reception. What do they write about Spaeth? No anonymous critics please, state the outlet they wrote for and how they assessed his work. Summarize in the lead which one of his books caused a media ruckus.
4) also focus on sources that are about Ove von Spaeth. Geschichte (talk) 18:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:38, 2 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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 21:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chipokota Mwanawasa[edit]

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

Apart from being daughter to Zambian third President, I don’t see any sign of notability per WP:GNG to warrant a standalone article Megan B.... It’s all coming to me till the end of time 17:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:37, 2 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. Somewhere between keep and a no consensus, to be fully open. There is merit behind the keep and merge opinions, cited in policy. Which of those comes out ahead is slightly unclear, but that can be handled editorially. I imagine a possible merger and if so, how much, may change as we get further from this game, but there definitely is not a consensus to delete the content. Star Mississippi 19:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Tampa Bay Buccaneers–New England Patriots game[edit]

2021 Tampa Bay Buccaneers–New England Patriots game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT as it's not the final series (or single game when there is not a series) determining the champion of a top league, it isn't a college bowl game, it's not an all-star game, and it is not a game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable. Most coverage is routine and mentions of it being Tom Brady's return to New England before the game. A month and a half later, it doesn't seem to satisfy WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Rockchalk717 22:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think you might want to look at WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. The majority of articles about it were from the week leading up to the game, and a few immediately after the game, but there hasn't been very much continued coverage about it since indicating (using that policy's words) a "spike in coverage". If Wikipedia existed when Joe Montana returned to San Francisco when he played for the Chiefs, that probably wouldn't qualify for an article either. This seems pretty similar to when Brett Favre returned to Green Bay or when Peyton Manning returned to Indianapolis, lots of build up the week or two leading up then the game was largely forgotten by history. And I have to pretty strongly disagree about it being "among the most notable regular season games over the last several years". Outside of Tom Brady, there wasn't very much notable about it. In regards to the record comment, records are broken and tied more often than most people realize. Hell, Patrick Mahomes tied (another) record Sunday night and there wasn't much coverage about it, now I'll admit career passing yards is more notable then things like "fastest to (milestone)" "most (stat) after ___ career games". The 2018 Rams/Chiefs game is by a large margin the most notable regular season game recently and look at everything about that game.--Rockchalk717 02:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would re-read the article and many of the above comments. There are clearly other things this game was notable for. That is all.--WuTang94 (talk) 14:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
People still talk about The Catch or the Miracle in Motown. Does anybody, less than two month later, fondly reminisce about "the Return"? There's no WP:LASTING coverage. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Posted notice at WikiProject National Football League. Natg 19 (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What do folks think about redirect? (And even merging anything of use)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 19:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • This discussion should have been closed as Keep by Missvain without this relisting, per comments before the relist. Please have another reading of everyone's comments and reasoning, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • And no, the page is relevant beyond Belichick and really has little to do with him. It's about Brady and his return to play his former team (and, importantly, his former owner Robert Kraft, whose decisions were relevant in Brady leaving the Patriots) and what he accomplished while doing so. It's not about what Brady accomplished while quarterbacking the Patriots, but about the game, the fans, and the overall drama resulting in the "second most-watched broadcast of NBC Sunday Night Football in its history". Belichick is New Engand's coach and not a rival to Brady, and he is more or less tangential to the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is only the second relisting. Many AfDs are relisted multiple times, especially in close calls such as this. I don't need to be told to read anything for a third time, thanks. And based on your recent edits, I must ask you to stop replying to me in order to make a WP:POINT about closers reading discussions. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 14:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoops, my apology, my comment was more for Missvain than you, this seems an obvious Keep from early on and could use a close reading from the closer. p.s. the last sentence of Dan's ghost was added after this comment. My answer to you above was also meant for you and for other editors who want to make an inappropriate-target merge. This is not a topic about Brady and Belichick, although they both were active participants in the game (as were many others). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's odd to say it's obvious when the discretion is on the closing admin. There are legit points presented here with the discussion for either keeping the article or/and merging. – The Grid (talk) 15:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Brady-Belichick era ended in 2019 and is defined in the first sentence of the Brady-Belichick era. This game was played in 2021, and has nothing whatsoever to do with their mutually shared success (which is what their article is about but. again, not what this one covers). Randy Kryn (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a footnote (or a postscript) to the Brady-Belichick era. If it weren't for the extraordinary success of the B-B era, nobody would care about this game. The notability of this game flows directly and exclusively from the former. Cbl62 (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it should have a note, or maybe a 'See also' entrant, but that page is about something that ended, per the page lead sentence, in 2019. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how you can say that this game has nothing whatsoever to do with their mutually shared success. If not for the mutual connection between Brady and Belichick, this would just be a run of the mill regular season game, and this article would be speedily deleted and we would not be having this discussion. Natg 19 (talk) 17:58, 3 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 Kennewick, Washington. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vista, Washington[edit]

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

Another case where actually reading the sources would have given a different article. Once again, the Washington Place Names database calls this a "railroad station", and yes, going back through the topos and aerials shows an isolated siding and a grain elevator, which still stands in the middle of the urban sprawl that has surrounded it. It's been closed for something two decades, and is now bedecked with cell phone antennae. It's not even clear that anyone considers this a neighborhood in the city. Mangoe (talk) 19:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:33, 2 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. As indicated in the discussion, scientific claims do not need to be considered proven (or even validly scientific) to be appropriate article subjects, as long as they meet our notability guidelines. If the article does not accurately represent the scientific consensus on the subject, this should be resolved by editing the article content rather than deletion. RL0919 (talk) 04:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

North Andes Plate[edit]

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

It is original research. There is no scientific consensus on the existence of this plate. Appears to be a fringe view (WP:FRINGE) based on a 2003 paper by Bird. The references does not mention the microplate. I propose part of the content is moved and merged into Geology of Colombia. The concern is similar to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Altiplano Plate. Mamayuco (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having been cited thousands of time does not mean that everthing in the article is correct or accepted. Geophysics have had much advance since 2003, so if the North Andes Plates would be an usefull construct it should have been noter so by other geologist working with plate tectonics. Just like Stephen Hawkings books and articles have been cites thousands of times some of his works are known to have been in error in some subjects. So, where is the validation that the North Andean Plate is indeed accepted among the plate tectonics community of Earth scientists? Mamayuco (talk) 13:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again - "Correct" and "Accepted" are NOT the metrics for inclusion in Wikipedia. "Notable" is the metric. We have an article on Phlogiston, after all. It took me ten seconds to find this article that refers to it, which has itself been cited 23 times. On the interaction of the North Andean Plate PianoDan (talk) 15:40, 3 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America1000 07:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Batteroo Boost[edit]

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

Indigogo project that garnered some controversy on YouTube for a brief period around 2015. The only in-depth coverage is from this time, most of which is from blogs closely associated with the YouTube channels that covered it, with the majority of coverage before and after being paid coverage or other consumer reports, so by my assessment fails GNG by way of WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NOTADVOCACY. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:18, 2 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 03:21, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Towal, Washington[edit]

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

Another station along the Columbia, and like several of the others it was relocated when the old roadbed was inundated by damming. In neither case, though, does it seem to have any place for a town. In its first incarnation it was a passing siding on a ledge carved out beside the river; in its current form it is a much longer passing siding carved out on a new ledge along the river, and the "town" name has been moved on the topos to a second siding which branches off the first to service a small quarry, whose buildings are the only structures at the site. In the 1950s a house or such was built south of the track a bit east of the siding, but that's not a town. The place names DB calls it a station; I find nothing indicating a town. Mangoe (talk) 00:54, 2 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:44, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Girl's Guide to Life[edit]

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

Non-notable television series. No significant coverage and unreferenced. SL93 (talk) 23:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil and truthful. I vote delete, make comments, and vote to merge often. Why do you feel the need to use language that implies a threat. That's not in line with our objectives here on Wikipedia! Remember to shelve your personal feelings when it comes to afd's and remember to allow the democratic process to play out. This is a show that is hosted by a best selling author, has aired for 6 years, has had numerous notable guest hosts.Voting Keep seems more than reasonable.Super (talk) 15:35, 3 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 03:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth Locke[edit]

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

I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources, although I do see a lot of coverage in tabloid journalism like Hello! and the Daily Mail. So, I'm not seeing a WP:GNG pass on this one. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 00:46, 2 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) 00:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sundale, Washington[edit]

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

On the banks of the Columbia River we take a break from the grain elevators and consider this rail station, for as best I can determine, that's all it was. The station siding is still there, and is southwest of the point marked by GNIS, because for some reason the topo people seized upon a loose spread of buildings as the "town". As far as I can determine, these were farm buildings: the aerials show this area covered by a sizable orchard. At any rate, references addressing the matter directly uniformly refer to this as a station. Mangoe (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pretty good nom being both funny and to the point. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 13:46, 3 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.
More