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

The result was no consensus. The majority of this discussion surrounds the best way to organize all of this information (i.e. separate articles vs. including it all in one table). There was some minimal discussion about whether or not the individual subjects of each list are notable enough for a standalone list, but no strong agreement on that. Overall, there are slightly more delete votes than keep votes (10-8), but I don't think that there is strong enough agreement in the discussion to justify deleting four articles.

My personal opinion would be to discuss this further as part of a merge discussion rather than an AfD (where the stakes are higher), and perhaps investigate whether all of these various list articles about New Zealand PM birth/death statistics could be combined into a single List of prime ministers of New Zealand by birth/death statistics, or something along those lines. That might assuage the concerns about the main New Zealand PM list article becoming too bloated if this information were all included in it. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 22:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of prime ministers of New Zealand by date of birth[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows. Suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)), suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)), accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username))

List of prime ministers of New Zealand by date of birth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

List of prime ministers of New Zealand by age (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of prime ministers of New Zealand by place of birth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of burial places of New Zealand prime ministers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Batch nomination: This is all information which could without difficulty be included in the List of prime ministers of New Zealand (via a sortable table or something); without the need for all of these single-issue content forks (for most of which the information is already included in the main list anyway; the rest might as well be trivia). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 03:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 03:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 03:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nom. All non-trivial content could be included on the List of prime ministers of New Zealand article. Ajf773 (talk) 04:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Adding the information in these articles to List of prime ministers of New Zealand is possible, but the table in that article is already quite wide, and in particular the images of burial places would be unbalancing. I am no great expert on tables, but given that the table contains sections for Colonial Secretaries, Premiers and Prime Ministers, and the Government column in many cases spans more than one prime minister, I don't think adding the ability to sort by column is going to work. If my misgivings are justified, then this is effectively a proposal to delete this content rather than merge it.-gadfium 04:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm curious why these would be considered trivial while the same such articles about UK Prime Ministers are not. And US Presidents have a million different list articles about them, there's an article about their facial hair for goodness sake. --Pokelova (talk) 04:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• There is research about the connection between hirsuteness and electability. It's America! Clarityfiend (talk) 06:03, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm with Pokelova on this one; it's hard to know what people consider trivial, or whether people may have a genuine interest in the burial places of former prime-ministers. gadfium is right that the existing table will get very wide with the extra information added. It's also clumsy inserting personal information about the prime ministers in that table, because it has multiple rows for the same people, when they formed multiple governments. We shouldn't be biased against New Zealand simply because it's a little island state on the far side of the universe; it's still a major English-speaking country and has the right to proper coverage in Wikipedia. For this reason, I'm leaning towards keep, or at least deal with this lot one by one rather than batch-delete, so only the truly pointless get deleted. Elemimele (talk) 07:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Some, at least, of these are arguably trivial, but (as previous commenters suggest) if they are trivial for NZ then the same sort of articles for other countries are probably trivial too. Rather than this batch nomination by country, it would be better have batch nominations by type of list, such as burial places: List of burial places of New Zealand prime ministers, List of burial places of prime ministers of the United Kingdom, List of burial places of justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, List of burial places of presidents and vice presidents of the United States. Nurg (talk) 02:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nurg: The solution to the WP:ALLORNOTHING (which is not a convincing argument why this shouldn't be deleted) is maybe to do a batch nomination of these too; the problem is there are apparently so many of this kind of lists I'm not even aware of the existence of most of them... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. It is stated below that List of burial places of New Zealand prime ministers does not really meet WP:LISTN – this is part of Wikipedia:Notability, which takes no account of WP's systemic biases. Avoiding a lengthy explanation, I'll just say that I think there is country-based systemic bias that favours some large countries over small countries. (As is the case with systemic biases generally, this is no reflection on any individual.) Nurg (talk) 08:25, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not totally convinced that all of these articles can be merged into the List of prime ministers of New Zealand article without making it look like a complete mess. I certainly think that the List of prime ministers of New Zealand by age deserves to remain intact as it is, but I'm still on the fence about the other ones. Just simply merging all of them into one isn't the right solution here though, as I'm sure that's the reason why most of these articles were created in the first place, because it adds way too much clutter to just one article. Green Hook 1224 (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as no one has been able to reassure me that a merge into List of prime ministers of New Zealand would be possible without making that list a huge mess. The List of burial places of New Zealand prime ministers in particular would unbalance the target. List of prime ministers of New Zealand by place of birth has a completely different structure to the target. List of prime ministers of New Zealand by age has already had List of prime ministers of New Zealand by time in office merged into it, and it would be possible to consider merging part of List of prime ministers of New Zealand by date of birth into that. That should be a separate proposal as much of the content of the date of birth list would be lost.-gadfium 19:55, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • List_of_prime_ministers_of_New_Zealand#List_of_officeholders already includes birth and death year (this could be expanded to the full date if one so wishes); and "by age" is not a significant categorisation (it's statistical trivia; and it's easily deducible from the birth/death dates). That leaves "burial place", which is not really a subject meeting LISTN (there's no reliable sources which discuss former NZ PM's as a function of their burial place); nor is it something that is important to the notability of the lists figures. So basically you have three of these which could be merged, but which don't need to because there is not much content to merge (simply expanding the dates is not particularly difficult nor would it pose problems with history and attribution, since a date is simple data). So all titles really should be deleted, as I was saying. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. For the reasons given by Nurg above. Fabio 7654 23:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)— Fabio 7654 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete - There's way too many of these types of list articles. There's truck loads of'em related to US presidents & US vice presidents. GoodDay (talk) 01:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete These are arbitrary statistics and I have been unable to find enough reliable sources that focus on the burial places of NZ Prime ministers etc as per general notability. We do not need to keep all the info and I do not think the argument that a combined list will be large justifies overturning notability and other Wiki rules. As long as who was governor general when the PM was born makes the finial list I would have thought we would all be happy? Dushan Jugum (talk) 04:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per nom. WP:LISTCRUFT. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all These pages were created so that people can't flood the main articles of these politicians nor the List of prime ministers of New Zealand article by writing about each and all of these subjects. It is still just fine to keep them as they are. 2001:8003:24A4:4700:74DF:850F:FE8B:A6C3 (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)— 2001:8003:24A4:4700:74DF:850F:FE8B:A6C3 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete. Relevant information can be moved elsewhere.2601:241:300:B610:9D6F:CC58:F488:4CEC (talk) 02:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all for failing WP:NLIST. None of these are lists in the real world. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:HTRIVIA-- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 23:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep passes WP:NLIST and WP:GNG. 2001:8003:24AF:6E00:242B:FC1:449A:FDFD (talk) 08:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)— 2001:8003:24AF:6E00:242B:FC1:449A:FDFD (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Struck as duplicate vote by editor logging in with a different IP. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 11:13, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Others have given strong reasons; the largest factor to me is the overall purpose of Wikipedia. I sought out this information specifically as I was curious if Ardern is the youngest ever PM to be in office. Without these pages, finding that information would have been a lot more difficult. The main purpose of Wikipedia is easily accessible information. It is clear that this information is sought out, that it meets Wikipedia's guidelines to remain, and is a generally useful page which should definitely not be removed and is best exhibited independently. Poida 0122 (talk) 10:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)— Poida 0122 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 02:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - these highly overlapping articles would all be made redundant by a simple sortable table. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep List of prime ministers of New Zealand by age, Delete others. Date of Birth is included in the Age article, which also contains various other statistics which are useful but which would clutter the primary List of Prime Ministers of New Zealand article. The remaining two articles are fairly small, with little benefit to having the information all on one page as opposed to the articles of the individual PMs, especially when compared to the Age article. Turnagra (talk) 07:44, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Mostly agree with Nurg and feel these pass WP:NLIST and WP:GNG. Kiwichris (talk) 05:21, 20 September 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, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sulagna Chatterjee[edit]

Sulagna Chatterjee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG. FII, Makers, Women'sRepublic etc are not reliable. Even if they were reliable, they are all interviews. There is not a single non-interview source meeting WP:SIGCOV. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 15:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Wrote prominent part of a major series with global distribution, plenty of decent-quality sources. Not sure why this was nominated. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Starred? Decent quality sources like? TrangaBellam (talk) 05:41, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The ET article is brand-promotion/advertisement. See Brand equity and WP:TOI. Ditto for the collaboration between Yahoo and Makers. Women's Republic has no editorial policy or mention of who's who, failing WP:NEWSORG. Filmibeat is typical entertainment promo-spam and community does not accept use in BLPs; see these two RSN threads: 1, 2. FII is a glorified community-blog.
• This article shall be redirected to Feels Like Ishq. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm afraid that you don't decide what "shall" happen here. A consensus of editors does, and you seem to be making a habit of mischaracterising sources to try to achieve your desired result. The Wikipedia article you cited is completely unrelated to whatever point you thought you were making. The marketing (industry, not advertising) section of the India Times is not an "advertisement". The Yahoo articles are perfectly valid content, and you've completely mischaracterised the organisation involved in the "collaboration". Feminism in India which seems to be a well-established digital media website on par with others we use all the time, and labelling it a "glorified community-blog" just seems to be a baseless attempt to dismiss it. It's also plainly evident that there is more material in WP:RS that is easily available for further expansion, including regarding aspects of her career not even mentioned here. There is some sort of weird attempt here to hold this woman to a higher standard than would generally be the case for any other screenwriter of a major Netflix series, and I can only speculate given the subject matter of said series. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• FII is going to WP:RSN. As is the ET article. In case you have missed, it is advised in policy that particular sources are provided than generic search results. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• For the nth time, she wrote the screenplay of a part. segment which occupied a sixth of a Netflix series. She did NOT star in it. Maybe, I can get you a dictionary? TrangaBellam (talk) 08:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• User:TrangaBellam's endeavour to get FII declared as RS has been contested on the noticeboard. Ashwin Baindur (User:AshLin) (talk) 08:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep, bad AfD. This is a discussion about the validity of sources, but no discussion has occurred on the article's talk page, which would be the correct first step prior to nomination for deletion. A discussion has started regarding this on the reliable sources noticeboard, so two parallel discussions are occurring which are essentially the same. This would not prevent for any future deletion discussion resulting from a consensus that the sources were not reliable. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if they were reliable, they are all interviews.
    Also, WP:ARTIST: for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series.TrangaBellam (talk) 09:51, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any policy that states interviews do not constitute significant coverage, might be wrong though. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Boynamedsue, check out this comment. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe let Tayi Arajakate know you are including their comment here, TrangaBellam? Boynamedsue, when WP:SECONDARY commentary/coverage is also available, an interview can support WP:BASIC notability. Beccaynr (talk) 20:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given there isn't going to be a speedy keep, my view is keep, the sources questioned by TrangaBellam seem valid and provide enough coverage to satisfy the requirement for significant coverage. --Boynamedsue (talk) 06:32, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete per WP:BASIC, e.g. her role in the #MeToo movement: TV actor Sulagna Chatterjee speaks up against casting couch; posts chat with agent on social media (The Indian Express, 2017), This is what TV actress Sulagna Chatterjee did when she received a casting couch offer (India Today, 2017), A Bengali actor just proved casting couch is a reality (The Week/PTI, 2017), her writing on Twitter: This Viral Romantic Saga of Two Childhood Sweethearts Will Strengthen Your Belief in True Love (The Better India, 2017), multiple independent and reliable reviews of her work as a screenwriter: Review: Feels Like Ishq is Inconsistent but Pushes the Idea of Love Further (The Quint, 2021), Feels Like Ishq Review: Netflix Anthology Might Not Sweep You Off Your Feet But Is Easy To Love (NDTV, 2021), Feels Like Ishq Review: Netflix's Anthology Series is an Endearing Take on Love (News18, 2021), and a brief, but nontrivial overview of her career: Women Behind The Screen In The Upcoming Show Feels Like Ishq (SheThePeople, 2021). These sources provide ample information to further develop the article and but do not appear to sufficiently support notability per the guidelines. Beccaynr (talk) 19:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC) (edit conflict) Additional sources: ‘Feels Like Ishq’ review: All you need is (not too much) love (The Hindu, 2021), Feels Like Ishq review (Rediff, 2021, per WP:ICTFSOURCES), Feels Like Ishq: A few shorts stand out in this Netflix anthology about love (Sify, 2021, per WP:ICTFSOURCES) Beccaynr (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC) comment and !vote updated per DEFCON5 Beccaynr (talk) 18:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC) update !vote and comment Beccaynr (talk) 02:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Which are the multiple sources covering them (not sure about pronoun) in a significant fashion? WP:GNG
  The India Today and Indian Express articles about casting couch? Or the one-paragraph reviews of the episode, she screen-wrote? Or the reproduction of IMDB summary by SheThePeople? The entire series already has a separate entry at our encyc. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Multiple independent and reliable sources indicate her pronoun is "she." All of the sources listed in my comment above support WP:BASIC notability, which states, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Beccaynr (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability is the part that follows.
• It is strange to argue that reviews of her episode adds to her notability; otherwise for every Netflix series, the entire cast will deserve articles. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• There is more coverage of Chatterjee than the coverage of her work on the Netflix series, including several articles noted above that focus entirely on her; the reviews are also clearly nontrivial and add to her notability because they each provide WP:SECONDARY commentary that is specifically about her and her work. Beccaynr (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, she has done notable directing and acting.--Hippeus (talk) 11:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hippeus, she has acted in which movie? And directed which notable movie? TrangaBellam (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I’m sure she is being confused with an actress of the same name.defcon5 (talk) 06:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Might be. Too far away from Indian entertainment scene to know all these details. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Not a significant writer. Yet. No significant coverage of the said person except about her being a writer of a Netflix show. Few brand-promo interview articles. Someone pointed out about her casting couch incident though no mention of it in her Wikipedia article. Someone credited her as an actor and director, though no mention of it in the Wikipedia article. It’s because they are confusing her with the TV actress Sulagna Chatterjee. Completely different person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DEFCON5 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem to be an argument based on wikipedia's policies. A person can have done absolutely nothing of any value in their lives and satisfy wikipedia's guidelines on notability. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Point 3 of WP:ARTIST. According to me her body of work is not very significant yet. Her only notable credit is being writer of one episode of a Netflix show.defcon5 (talk) 06:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Above the guidelines you cite it states "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." She satisfies WP:GNG, and that's that. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per DEFCON5. The subject is potentially notable, being a pioneering LGBT screenwriter of India. But I agree that the body of work is not substantial. Neither do I see significant coverage in mainstream news sources to warrant a Wikipedia page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete concur with others above that the significance threshold is not met. While I respect the Indian Films task force has their own opinions on sourcing... I just don't agree with them (and I note that the page itself admits their own valuation of sources is outside the mainstream WP:RSN-derived consensus.) It just can't be used as defense of sourcing without more rigorous consensus. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 22:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete One episode of six short films, stated in an interview, one month ago. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Probably early days. scope_creep^Talk 09:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete or Draftify. There is some RS here, but not enough to meet WP:CREATIVE or WP:SIGCOV. The nominator is correct that interviews are not counted towards RS as they are not independent. With the exclusion of the interviews, there really isn't enough to justify an article... at least not yet. This is a clear case of WP:TOOSOON. I think draftify may be the best option for now, as it's possible more quality RS will emerge later as she continues in her career which will allow the subject to pass GNG.4meter4 (talk) 02:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Thayer (author)[edit]

Samuel Thayer (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

self published author. 3 meaningless awards by a book distributor. DGG ( talk ) 08:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:00, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, lacks independent coverage to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The Midwest Book Awards, for which Thayer won first and second places in 2006 and 2010, is not a "meaningless" organization and only a "book distributor": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midwest_Independent_Publishers_Association. Further, the Independent Book Publisher's Association, who gives out the Benjamin Franklin Award, is also not a "book distributor": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Book_Publishers_Association.If these are "meaningless" awards, then why were they given by organizations for whom there are Wikipedia pages? Is DGG saying that Wikipedia is creating meaningless pages?Steven C. Price 19:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• Keep "self-published" or not, this nomination implicitly assumes lack of coverage in reliable third party sources. There may not be enough material to write a John Muir length biography, but there appears to be enough coverage in reliable third-party sources to make a brief but complete and policy-compliant encyclopedic entry. Nationally broadcast NPR program Morning Edition calls Thayer "a leader in efforts to revive the ancient art of foraging"^[1] and Mountain Home magazine calls him "one of the nation's leading experts on foraging for wild edibles".^[2] Additional biographical coverage is found in outlets such as Duluth News Tribune,^[3] PBS Wisconsin,^[4] Isthmus alternative newspaper,^[5] Civil Eats,^[6] The Salt (NPR),^[7] Wisconsin Natural Resources Magazine,^[8] and Wisconsin Life.^[9] Several other sources simply include Thayer's books as recommended resources, such as The Atlantic,^[10] The Austin Chronicle,^[11] and The Herald Journal,^[12]

Since there are multiple reliable sources, spanning well over a decade, that give non-trivial overage of Thayer's accomplishments and biography, invoking no original research, Thayer meets basic notability criteria for biographies as well as the general notability guideline. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

8'd say out of aour 5 + million articles, ant least a few percent are meaningless, or have no sigificance except fo the subject.The MIPC is appropriate for an article, and has one. The article gives no indi=cation thqta its awards are 1notable or erecognized. It's awards , however, are paid promotionalism for mostly self-published authors. There's one evieww in a national souce, but its one of 1 in a group review..`.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep seems notable in his niche. Johnbod (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:NAUTHOR per sources provided by Animalparty.4meter4 (talk) 02:45, 15 September 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

S8UL Esports[edit]

S8UL Esports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No indication of notability; they do not appear to have won any major tournaments. ... discospinster _talk 15:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 15:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. 2A01:4C8:A1:F08E:69AA:AD25:80F8:B9C5 (talk) 13:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• S8UL Esports is arguably India's biggest and most popular eSports organization. It was one of the first big Esports organization that got very popular. It's fanbase is the biggest in Indian eSports scenario.

The combined subscribers count (on YouTube) of its content-creators is far more than any other eSports organization in the country, with several of them having a subscriber count of more than a million.

Team 8-Bit, of the two founding members of the S8UL, is the first Indian team to win a international tournament.

Team SouL too has competed in several international tournaments.

As for team S8UL, the game PUBG Mobile was banned for the period September 2020-July 2021 and then was relaunched back as a different game (Battlegrounds Mobile India), so there hasn't been any official tournament, not domestic neither international, for the game. Aaditya.abh (talk) 16:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of that has any real bearing on notability in the Wikipedia sense. You need to explain how they meet the WP:GNG - that's the general standard as to if something should have its own article. Sergecross73 msg me 13:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Arguments supporting notability:
  
  

"Significant Coverage:" The page includes a wide range of information, such as hitsory as to formation, it's current eSports division, former Division, it's content creation information as this organisation is very prominent in content creation. The page also includes information for its management.

"Reliable Sources:" The sources provided on the page are reliable. All of the sources provided are reputed websites providing Esports and wide variety of general news.

"Independent of the subject:" Every piece of information seen on page are independent of the subject matter, i.e., S8UL Esports. No info on the page includes anything advertised by or affiliated to s8ul eSports.

"Presumed:" Everything provided here is information not presumed facts. Also, for each section of the page, there is not much detailed information available to have it's own separate page.

Aaditya.abh (talk) 13:41, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• One more thing, the india professional eSports organization, Stalwart Esports, which is a much smaller and lesser-known, and also lesser successful than S8UL, still that organization has a notable page on Wikipedia.
  S8UL is a very big thing in India. This organization is credited with practically making Esports popular in the country.

Aaditya.abh (talk) 13:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, you'll have to be more specific than that with the sourcing. A five second glance is all it takes to counter the argument that all the sources are reliable. "Call of Duty Wiki" is absolutely not a reliable source per WP:USERG. I'm going to do my own research and wait for some more experienced editors to weigh in before I do. I'm not particularly convinced yet. I've never heard of any of these sources... Sergecross73 msg me 15:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• So, against Liqupedia wiki of the respective games, better - more reliable sources are needed? On it.

Aaditya.abh (talk) 15:44, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Aaditya.abh, Hey Aaditya, Wikipedia doesn't run on popularity. It required secondary reliable sources and, At this point all the references in the article aren't Reliable at all. I Don't think this page at this version is eligible for a wikipedia article. Moreover, you seem to have a COI with S8ul and need to disclose the COI with S8UL on your page, go through the relevant WP Policies. Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 15:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. I was providing reliable citations/sources on the page as you sent this message.

2. I don't have any COI with S8UL. I was just scrolling through different eSports related pages on Wikipedia and then I discovered that there wasn't any Esports page of S8UL.

I have interests in Esports and tech, and that is probably the reason I may sound so passionate.

Aaditya.abh (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, i have removed the Call of Duty wiki sources and added more reliable sources. As to said, no sources are reliable, I believe a large proportion of sources link to Sportskeeda, a very reliable (that's for you to determine) source that provides news regarding a lot of sports, including Esports, news.

Aaditya.abh (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Aaditya.abh, Again aaditya, Sportskeeda isn;t considered as a reliable source here on wikipedia and that's the problem, i understand your situation. But you need to have Reliable & Independent Sources. Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 19:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Abhayesports, first of all thank you sir for understanding my situation here. Secondly, reliable sources as in news by prominent news outlets? Please provide some information as to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaditya.abh (talk • contribs)

• Until you understand how to identify reliable sources yourself, you can look at WP:VG/S for a large list of video game industry-related sources that are considered reliable or unreliable. Sergecross73 msg me 12:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you User:Sergecross73. I am sure going to look it up. Aaditya.abh (talk) 14:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a response to "Arguments supporting notability" above. "Significant coverage" is not about how well the Wikipedia article covers the subject. It is a requirement that the sources have provided significant coverage of the topic. Have another look at WP:GNG which explains "significant", as well as "presumed" which you also seem to have misunderstood. --bonadea contributions talk 11:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make sure to go through it. Aaditya.abh (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I have initiated a discussion regarding having "AFK Gaming" as a reliable source for video games. I believe that website to be reliable.

You can check the discussion and my arguments on the talk page.

Link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources

Aaditya.abh (talk) 04:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - a review of the sources make be believe that the sourcing is either unreliable, not significant coverage of the subject itself, or both. Sergecross73 msg me 18:28, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The article author is currently attempting canvassing and sneaking AFK Gaming into the list of reliable VG sources despite the discussion leaning unreliable. IceWelder [✉] 06:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for catching that. I've warned the editor that it was inappropriate for them to be doing that. They removed my comment without responding. I'm getting the vibe they're getting desperate and trying more underhanded methods since they seem to be failing to garner a legitimate consensus in their favor, both here and there. Sergecross73 msg me 12:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Sergecross's comments. IceWelder [✉] 06:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:GNG | No reliable seondary sources are found for now. All sources are closely connected either with the sujcet or the industry. May be, in future it will reach the mark like Team SoloMid--Iamrajdeepdas (talk) 09:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @IceWelder: AFK Gaming is a good and independent source in my point of view and it's already being used in multiple Wikipedia articles for stats counter,[1] fact checking, [2] date checking [3] etc purposes. Iamrajdeepdas (talk) 09:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see WP:OSE. Just because it's used in other articles doesn't make it reliable. That's not a valid reason, nor is it even a plausible method even conceptually. If we allowed that sort of reasoning, people could rationalize using any source just by adding it in other article and then saying "look it's being used there, so we can use it here now too". Sergecross73 msg me 12:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Sergecross73: I totally got your point already. Iamrajdeepdas (talk) 13:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • @Sergecross73: Completely understood. Aaditya.abh (talk) 14:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied the page to my 3rd Sandbox to finalize it with all correct sources and everything. Is there any problem with that?

No, that's fine, as long as you don't attempt to to publish it prematurely again. Sergecross73 msg me 02:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sergecross73 Thank you. I have no further arguments. And I will only publish the page again if and when I have sufficient "reliable" sources to back the facts. Aaditya.abh (talk) 04:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 02:46, 15 September 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. I don't see a clear consensus on whether the sources are sufficiently independent and significant enough to meet WP:GNG. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Widom–Larsen theory[edit]

Widom–Larsen theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:FRINGE theory that has barely made a blip in low-quality journals and has not received the independent notice required to justify inclusion as a stand-alone article. Cold fusion true believers tend to think this is serious science but it has not received the marquee notice that we would expect for such an amazing breakthrough. WP:CBALL means that Wikipedia's promotion of this harebrained scheme is not warranted and it is exactly why we have WP:FRINGE in the first place. jps (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning keep for now. It's fringe yes, but the main paper has about 46 citations (EJPC site) to 109 (Google Scholar). This isn't nothing. Might revisit later. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have access to the full list from Web of Science that Springer uses, but the crossref citations are not particularly remarkable: [4]. Note that there is a lot of churn and self-citation within the walled garden of cold fusion believers. They still put on conferences and seem to write a review article about the amazing new opportunities in cold fusion about every five minutes or so. The key here is that essentially no independent notice (from those who aren't in the cold fusion orbit) is found. jps (talk) 13:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Citations don't count for notability. Citations that come from papers in Physica Scripta or unpublished count even less. This was a stupid idea when it was proposed, and now, 16 years later, it's clear it went nowhere. Tercer (talk) 09:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Fringe or not, there is adequate coverage of the theory in multiple third-party sources to meet WP:GNG and WP:NFRINGE, and it is entirely okay to discuss fringe theories in articles exclusively about the fringe theory (whereas mention may be undue in other articles). Coverage includes: --Animalparty! (talk) 18:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Koziol, Michael (28 November 2018). "Scientists in the U.S. and Japan Get Serious About Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions". IEEE Spectrum.
• Krivit, Steven B.; Ravnitzky, Michael J. (December 7, 2016). "It's Not Cold Fusion... But It's Something". Scientific American Blog Network.
• Ullrich, George; Toton, Edward (31 March 2010). "Applications of Quantum Mechanics: Black Light Power and the Widom-Larsen Theory of LENR". Defense Threat Reduction Agency, Advanced Systems and Concepts Office.
• Koziarski, Ed M. (29 July 2010). "A Nuclear Reactor in Every Home?". Chicago Reader.
• Silberg, Bob (February 19, 2013). "The nuclear reactor in your basement". phys.org.
• Krivit, Steven B. (2008). "Low energy nuclear reaction research – Global scenario". Current Science. 94 (7): 854–857. JSTOR 24101730.
• Brooks, Michael (September 2016). "In from the cold". New Scientist. 231 (3091): 34–37. doi:10.1016/S0262-4079(16)31703-1.

These are sources written mostly by cold fusion advocates. This does not indicate broad coverage that we look for according to WP:FRIND. jps (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do we prohibit articles on beetles written by beetle enthusiasts or entomology advocates? Nothing in WP:FRINGE nor Wikipedia:Independent sources prohibits content written by people with specialized knowledge on a fringe subject. Why are editors afraid of the bare existence fringe topics, even when they can be labeled as fringe? Describing a fringe theory or even a discredited theory is not the same as promoting or advocating said theory. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

is not the same as promoting or advocating said theory only when you have enough reliable sources that cover it critically to achieve a non-fringe article (it seems that here at least some people have discussed it). But notability is also another matter, independently (with the Beetles obviously universally notable)... —PaleoNeonate – 06:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I just added a New Scientist article that discusses it in context with other theories. Exactly how many of these sources will satisfy you? ::::::--Animalparty! (talk) 07:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And are you asserting that the goal is to "achieve a non-fringe article"? What does this mean? Per the holy writ of WP:FRINGE: "Just because an idea is not accepted by most experts does not mean it should be removed from Wikipedia." --Animalparty! (talk) 07:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right, doesn't mean that it should be removed, but means that it should be described as not accepted by most experts (sources are needed for this of course). I think this is achieved already with this article despite the few sources. The remaining issue and main argument here appears to be notability, an important criterion to determine if an article should be in the encyclopedia (quote: [...] has barely made a blip in low-quality journals and has not received the independent notice required [...]). —PaleoNeonate – 17:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the entirety of that disucssion:

Another idea was the work of Allan Widom, a theoretical physicist at Northeastern University in Boston, and Lewis Larsen, a theoretical physicist and now CEO of Lattice Energy, a company aiming to create a functioning LENR device. Widom-Larsen theory, as it is known, makes an interesting statement about cold fusion: it isn't fusion.

Instead, the anomalous heat generation comes about because, when infused with deuterium and possibly other contaminants, a palladium surface generates a varying electromagnetic field that shifts electrons about, in turn releasing neutrons. These are absorbed by other nearby atoms, transmuting them and causing them to release gamma-ray photons that are absorbed by other electrons, which radiate the extra energy as heat. Joseph Zawodny at NASA's Langley Research Center in Virginia thinks the theory is a "rich concept" that could prove extremely fruitful. "LENR is only one of its applications," he says. It doesn't rely on new physics, and makes some very specific predictions -- not that those predictions have been properly tested yet. Zawodny made his own attempts, but they were "brief and low budget", he admits. The ongoing controversy surrounding Rossi's E-Cat has made getting funding for further experiments difficult, he says.

Besides Zawodny's inconclusive results, Widom and Larsen have graphs that purport to show a match between their theoretical predictions and experimental observations of how quickly various transmutation products are created. But this isn't terribly convincing to critics, because it is "after-the-fact" fitting to data from controversial experiments carried out years ago.

I do not see this as indicating enough independent coverage of the theory to warrant a standalone article. This could easily be inclued at the main cold fusion page in a sentence or two. jps (talk) 11:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, most people with a passing familiarity in nuclear physics who bothered to read the theory article from 15 years ago would find some discussion points absent. Eq. 31 in their paper predicts beta radiation (and a LOT of it), but I see no one discussing that anywhere. Novel theories that gain interest have their entire idea considered by others rather than ignored outright. That's the essence of the problem here. No one thinks it noteworthy enough to even make a passing mention of its details. jps (talk) 11:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, are we really taking New Scientist as a reliable source about anything on the fringes of physics? Really? XOR'easter (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability does not imply endorsement. Something can be complete bunk and yet notable for receiving coverage from reliable, independent sources. New Scientist has been deemed a reliable source as per WP:RSP, and per WP:NFRINGE the coverage there is independent, substantial and not of a "silly news" nature. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You consider that treatment above "substantial" coverage? I'm a little concerned about that judgement call. I know some writers who have published in New Scientist. If I call them up and tell them about my latest paper and they put three paragraphs about it in their next article, will that mean we should have an article about that paper in Wikipedia? Maybe you're referring to other coverage as well. I will admit that there are certain cold fusion acolytes who have been fawning over this theory for more than a decade (Krivit, in particular, comes to mind), but considering the moribund state of the topic and the lack of mainstream interest in it beyond noting various scams, I am worried that we are pandering to the grift here by pretending that this is an article on par with any number of other articles we have about ostensibly scientific hypotheses that have been essentially ignored by the relevant community. jps (talk) 12:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An entire article would be "substantial"; I find it hard to argue that three short paragraphs are so. As for WP:RSP, it says to use New Scientist with caution to verify contentious claims. The fringes of science are contentious by nature, so caution is amply warranted here. XOR'easter (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between verifying the truth of a contentious claim and verifying the existence and notability of one. The fact that you might not approve of a topic covered by a reliable source does not nullify its coverage; if New Scientist's editors found your latest paper newsworthy, then would that most likely qualify as coverage in a reliable source as well. There is deliberately no minimum word count on "substantial," but clearly these are more than offhand mentions.

Once again, coverage is not endorsement, nor is it "pandering to the grift." We have articles on anti-vaxers, racist conspiracy theories, famous hoaxes, newsworthy scammers, etc., not because we approve of them, but because they have been deemed notable through substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources -- whether we like it or not. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between having an article on a subject and mentioning a subject in related articles. I do not see that there is enough material to justify a standalone article and the reason we might not want such a thing is there simply are not enough critical sources that can provide context. This has nothing to do with liking or not liking a topic. This has to do with writing the actual article in a way that readers can get the full picture. The problem with three paragraphs in New Scientist is that while it hints at some of the issues with reception (or lack thereof) of this particular idea, it doesn't give us nearly enough information to write an entire article in proper context, and the remainder of the sources are rather too insulated within the walled garden to provide a means to write a neutral article on the subject. If you can see a way to write an article on this subject, it would be great if you would describe what it is including which sources should be used for which sections (or just work on the article yourself). As it is, I think you are arguing about a principle that cannot be backed up with actual practice and having spent a lot of time working on WP:FRINGE articles at this website, I see this as being a likely dead end. New sources are not forthcoming and by keeping problematic content like this at WP, we are acting more like an advertisement for what cold fusion WP:ADVOCATEs think the world should be paying attention to rather than what is actually being paid attention to in regards to the subject of cold fusion. jps (talk) 12:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly so. I've argued to keep articles on pseudo/fringe science when the documentation existed to show that the topic was significant and that we could write about it in a reasonable way. (I worked to save Pseudomathematics during its AfD, for example.) The trouble in this case is that the documentation is either superficial, published in a venue that encourages sensationalism, or outright advocacy. If New Scientist found any paper of mine newsworthy, I'd resign myself to a surge of crank email, and I'd probably urge Wikipedia editors not to use their story for anything significant. That's never happened to me, but it has happened to physicists I know, so I'm pretty sure of how it would all play out. XOR'easter (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Interest does not seem to have spread beyond the bubble of cold-fusion enthusiasts. Churnalism-level coverage in phys.org is what we expect for something unremarkable, not a sign of significance. XOR'easter (talk) 03:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The sources above are more than sufficient to pass the GNG. Many of the delete arguments strike me as lightly gussied-up WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Gnomingstuff (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Some of the peer-reviewed journals with the subject or co-subject in the byline are self-published works. Other journal articles do not demonstrate significant coverage. Multi7001 (talk) 18:49, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you mean the works that cite the paper? Of course, self-published works are not peer reviewed. jps (talk) 08:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete I am not convinced that the sources given above are good enough for a contentious topic, they are mostly journalistic takes and these tend to sensationalize minority viewpoints and often have insufficient expertise to properly weigh the reliability of contestable claims; ergo, they are not good sources for WP:NPOV-challenged topics. I would be wary of using the US government-linked report, as I have no idea how much vetting they make. Headbomb's Google Scholar link has a moderate amount of papers citing the original paper, but most if not all of them are about articles that have similar extraordinary claims of low-energy nuclear reactions - feels like we are falling for a "walled garden" of advocacy sources, there. If this was a viewpoint with any degree of acceptance, I'd expect some mentions in very mainstream publications. And I am not sure that the amount of sources is a lot, anyway. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:GNG per Animalparty. It's fringe but perfectly within the guidelines of Wikipedia:Fringe theories. I second that the delete votes essentially boil down WP:IDONTLIKEIT bias.4meter4 (talk) 02:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but ... how? I don't think anybody has argued that the page should be deleted just because "it's annoying" or "the 'theory' is so wrong that having an article is shameful". The problem is that the "scientific" citations are coming from a walled garden of fringe enthusiasts, and the "news" sources are press releases (phys.org), superficial mentions in sensationalist venues (New Scientist), and the like. That's not the kind of coverage we need if we want to write an article that's compliant with WP:FRINGE. XOR'easter (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - I agree that Animalparty has provided evidence of coverage to establish WP:GNG. However, to provide better context for the claims, it might be preferable to merge it into an article such as weak interaction or cold fusion. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:21, 19 September 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 there has been no assertation that the sources provided in this discussion (as opposed to those in the article) demonstrate reliable, independent, in-depth coverage, consensus is "keep" by strength of argument. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naum Koen[edit]

Naum Koen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article was drawn to my attention by an administrator on Hebrew Wikipedia, who told me that an article on the same subject had been deleted there, and described the English Wikipedia article as "completely marketing", and said that information about Koen's position as a businessman and about the companies he owns is "unclear". I therefore looked into it. The article was deleted at AfD over two years ago. It was restored and userfied at the request of an editor who siad that "it's a matter of time until someone like this person get more news coverage". That editor then returned the page to article space without, in my opinion, making substantial enough changes to justify recreating a deleted article. However, the following is what I found regarding the current version of the article.

There are 20 references, some of which are in Englsih, but many are in either Hebrew, which I don't know, or Russian, of which I have a rudimentary knowledge, but not enough to make a good assessment of the sources, so I was largely dependent on Google translation. Submitting substantial amounts of text to Google translate is slow and tedious, so I looked at only a sample of the cited references, but unless by very bad luck I chose a grossly unrepresentative sample, the results are clear enough. The article tells us that he is a businessman, and the founder of a Jewish community centre. There is precious little to be found about either of those aspects of his life in anything which could be regarded as a reliable independent source. Here is an indication of what is to be found in the cited sources.

• There are references which don't give significant coverage of Koen, such as a page at The Times Of Israel, which only briefly mentions him, and one on the web site forward.com, which as far as I can see doesn't even mention him at all.
• There are pages which are clearly not independent sources, such as belev-echad.org/en/about/, which is the "about us" page on the website of an organisation founded by Koen.
• There are pages such as one at passportnews.co.il and one at bloomberg.com, which are both reports relating to a business deal which Koen was hoping to do. They consist largely of quotes from Koen about his intended deal. It isn't clear to me whether it's an interview, write up of a press release, or what, but it is clear that it is essentially material by Koen, not about him. It is therefore neither substantial coverage of him nor an independent source. (Incidentally, I found from other sources that the business deal never went through, and the news was all about him saying' that he was going to do the deal.)
• There are references such as kp.ua/life/598561-v-sele-pod-kyevom-lva-derzhat-vmesto-sobaky, and ru.slovoidilo.ua/amp/2018/05/04/novost/obshhestvo/lev-simba-ostalsya-svoim-xozyainom-kozine-obeshhanie-nemirovskogo-zabrat-zhivotnoe, both of which refer to concerns expressed by various people about the conditions in which Koen keeps lions. They are mainly about the lions, and only briefly mention Koen, and by no stretch of the imagination is either of them substantial coverage of him.
• I did find just one reference which is independent coverage substantially about Koen. It is 13news.co.il/item/news/domestic/articles/questions-around-the-mediator-1175538/. It tells us about a law suit brought against him by his parents, another brought by his uncle, police concerns about him, etc. It is, however, only substantial coverage of a small part of his life, and on its own comes nowhere near to showing notability. There must be vast numbers of people who have been sued on one or more occasions, but who come nowhere near Wikipedia's notability standards. JBW (talk) 22:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Nomination is lengthy but unconvincing. This is a well-known Israeli businessman with some affairs in his past. Easily meets the WP:GNG. Nominator provided one good source, here is another https://www.mako.co.il/tv-exposure/articles/Article-b030c49ce902771026.htm There is much more. gidonb (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. Which is the one good source which I mentioned? I thought I had provided reasons why none of them is a good source.
2. Did you read the page you linked to? Can you tell me which bit of the Wikipedia article it supports? It supports none. It is all about people who question whether Koen is a "legitimate businessman", who claim that he has abandonned his daughter and her mother, and so on. It is all "someone has claimed that..." from start to finish. It does not support any of the article's existing content, and it is questionable whether it could ever be a suitable source for supporting anything in a BLP.
3. Saying "There is much more" without telling us what and where is of no value at all, and the administrator who closes this discussion should give it no weight at all. Sources which are not verifiable are of no use; otherwise anyone could say "I've seen lots of good sources", and we would have no way of knowing whether that was true. This is essentially similar to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#There must be sources. JBW (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of that holds any water. As I said before your intro is way too long and unconvincing. Now you're WP:BLUDGEONING under all the opinions that disagree with the nomination. That is thus far... EVERYONE! This is bad practice and behavior you will need to work on. My claim is NOT as you suggest but all and only WP:NEXIST, i.e. the essential and correct way to approach notability. Articles that establish the notability of this person include: [5][6][7][8][9]. Some of these articles also exist in English. You are mixing up the establishment of notability with referencing. Referencing is NOT the purpose of a notability discussion. It is an art that takes place in the article space and can be discussed on an article's talk page. References can and usually will include sources that do not count toward notability. Likewise it is irrelevant if every item in an article will be used in ours. These are just two VERY different processes! gidonb (talk) 03:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I'm assuming good faith but the opening line of this nomination makes me super-leery. Beyond that, 1. We have no idea what standards might have been applied elsewhere, including other-language Wikipedias, and they might well have set a higher bar for inclusion. 2. The quality of the article is rarely a justification for deletion; the notability of the subject is the issue, not the quality of the article about them. It would seem the subject meets WP:GNG. Any reason to think otherwise? I will say that the nominator's commitment to WP:BEFORE is commendable and their extensive nomination statement is commendable also, which is why I remain solidly in the AGF camp on this one. But I don't think it should be deleted. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Stalwart111: I am puzzled by your statement that you are assuming good faith. You wouldn't say that unless there were some reason why my good faith might be doubted. Can you please tell me what about what I have said causes the question of whether I am acting in good faith to arise?

Sorry, I evidently failed to make my meaning clear. Not for a moment did I intend my comments about what happened on Hebrew Wikipedia to be a reason for deletion here. Hebrew Wikipedia has very different standards from English Wikipedia, including the fact that their deletion discussions are not discussions at all, but just votes, and I wouldn't rely on them at all. I just thought that knowing that I had been led to investigate the article by an administrator from another Wikipedia who had concerns about the article might be of interest, but probably I was wrong and it would have been better to leave that out,

I don't understand your point number 2. My argument was entirely about the quality of the sources, not the "quality of the article"; the quality of sources is precisely what determines "the notability of the subject".

The reasons you give for keeping are "It would seem the subject meets WP:GNG" and "I don't think it should be deleted". You give no justification or evidence for those statements at all. Simply stating that a topic is notable, without providing sources to substantiate that claim, is of no value. See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Just notable/Just not notable. JBW (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"This article was drawn to my attention by an administrator on Hebrew Wikipedia" ...who is unable to edit the encyclopedia that anyone can edit? And needed someone to nominate the article for deletion? ...who told me that an article on the same subject had been deleted there ...which is irrelevant, as you acknowledge. ...and described the English Wikipedia article as "completely marketing", and said that information about Koen's position as a businessman and about the companies he owns is "unclear" ...which are very much fixable problems and is about the quality of the article, not the quality of the sources. I believe you should have left those bits out, but have no reason to think you weren't acting in good faith when you included them, and you acknowledge you should have left those bits out anyway. So let's leave that at that.

Expressing an opinion about whether or not we think an article should be deleted is exactly why we're here at AFD, so I'm not sure why my expressing an opinion is confusing. But to make it clearer; "being unconvinced by the nomination statement, and taking into account the sources included in the article and highlighted by other editors here, I have come to the conclusion that the subject meets our inclusion criteria and the article should not be deleted". If other editors disagree, they will express their opinion thusly and consensus will form contrary to my view (which is what is weighed up by the closer). St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd made this clear, but evidently I failed to do so. The stuff about the Hebrew administrator is irrelevant. I regret having mentioned it. As for saying "And needed someone to nominate the article for deletion?", linking to "meatpuppetry", that is absurd. I never suggested that the nomination was anything other than my own decision, based on my own assessment of the article and its subject. I never dreamt that my casual mention of how I came to look into it would be made such a big deal, or that what I said would be so misinterpreted. JBW (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and it seemed strange. And the question I posed was rhetorical; it wasn't an accusation. I was trying to give an insight into my confusion at what was being presented. But you were equally as confused by my confusion. As I said, let's leave that at that. Just the fact that you're engaging in good faith discussion is more than enough to allay any initial concerns, and then you struck that bit anyway. No hard feelings, I hope. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If we ignore the totally irrelevant stuff, such as complaints about the length of the nomination (which may be valid or not, but which have no bearing on whether the file should be deleted), ad hominem comments about the nominator (e.g. innuendo about lack of good faith without any explanation, and the ridiculous accusation of meatpuppetry) and "I just think it's notable" type comments, we are left with the aources in the article us the additional links given above. They aren't reliable independent sources giving substantial coverage of what the article is about. The king of the sun (talk) 08:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, not an accusation; more an explanation of what made me leery. For the record, a lot of "what the article is about" should probably go, but that's a matter of editing. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I checked all the sources and found that 3 of them may qualify for notability: Bloomberg, KP.UA and zman. However, Bloomberg and KP are only talking about future plans. I don't think that people get notable for making plans. Assuming that zman is independent, there is only one good source left. Of course, all those articles about the subject's pet-lion are too local. The others are too short, too promo or not focused on the subject. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 00:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I provided 5 long, independent, and in-depth sources in Hebrew, all signed by respectable journalists in important Israeli media. We do not have a rule against sources in Hebrew or other languages. NONE of these sources is promotional. On the contrary. They are critical and independent of the subject. I suggest that both users above take a deeper look at the sources and follow our policies. Per WP:NEXIST, this person easily passes the WP:GNG. Opinions solely based on references in the article, that dodge points made by others in this discussion, should be discounted for a lack of depth and inconsistency with policies and guidelines. There is no value to "I just think this is not notable" arguments in AfD discussions, after the references establing the notability of a subject were provided. gidonb (talk) 11:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say that your 5 sources are promotional? Did I say that sources in Hebrew are less valuable than sources in English? Actually I did mention that one of your source in Hebrew is good. It's good because it really covers the subject in depth. Sorry, but the other sources are too shallow, IMO. They are about the subject's business, friends, legal issues, pets and so on. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 19:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My writing was a comment, not a direct reaction, after several contributions beforehand and includes also other important points. Sure, if you strip in-depth, independent, and verifiable sources off their biographic content, you could be left with nothing. Depends only on how extreme you want to take such a cancel process. There is no clear basis in our policies and guidelines, however, for doing this. Opinions that mold a virtual reality into being, instead of following the facts and policies, should not be taken all that serious. These only confirm that one has placed a "I just think this is not notable" argument. gidonb (talk) 00:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly true. In fact, the notability criteria for living people are too extreme, IMO. Anyway, my vote is a weak keep. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 14:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per gidonb. I'm not seeing a well argued deletion rationale in this discussion from the nominator or the delete voters. In looking at the sources myself, many of them appear to be respected independent publications with named authors. While some of the articles are about future projects or are only tangentially connected to the subject and don't count as RS, others are about past achievements and Naum Koen is the primary subject (such as those highlighted by gidonb above). Ultimately the subject appears to meet WP:GNG with multiple independent sources containing in depth coverage. Unless the delete voters are able to provide a detailed source analysis as to why they think this isn't the case, I don't see a good policy based reason to delete.4meter4 (talk) 03:04, 15 September 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) 04:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zumwalt, Washington[edit]

Zumwalt, Washington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Disputed PROD. Subject is an unpopulated place with few indirect mentions in local newspapers, let alone the rest of the web. Unclear if it even exists anymore. SounderBruce 22:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. SounderBruce 22:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This sounds like a ghost town. Washington state has lots of ghost towns, and Wikipedia has lots of articles about individual ghost towns. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I can find no evidence that this ghost town. Topographic maps go back to the 1930s and show a rail siding with some circles labeled "storage bins". Per some 1950s newspapers results, these storage bins are a grain elevator. Can find some passing mentions in 1920s sources to a warehouse being here. Appears in an 1896 gazetter with a population of "X" (and no, the other entries don't use Roman numerals, so this is a way of saying that the site did not have a population). A source from 1919 references shipping wheat and barley on the railroad at Zumwalt. Claim above that this is a ghost town does not seem to be supported by sources. Instead, I can find no evidence of a permanent population here; between the siding, warehouse, and grain elevator this is probably a point for onloading grain onto the railroad. As a rail feature instead of a present or former community, it fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG is not met. Hog Farm _Talk 00:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I don't see any houses either. Agreed that this is not a ghost town, but I think there are enough references to make Zumwalt notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this was a rail station, according to the Washington (State) Division of Mines and Geology, and there's no evidence I can find that there was a community, here: not even four houses at a crossroads. Washington Public Documents (1921) also names this a rail location. Aside from the rail station ruins, Google Maps shows a grain elevator. There are a few farms to the north and west. Liss's Atlas shows no residents, indicating a rail station only. Cram's 1902 Atlas says the same thing: Population: X. PostalHistory.com shows no records for Zumwalt in Washington, but does list a Zumwalt, Oregon, and Zumwalt, Texas. NewspaperArchive shows Zumwalt was a surprisingly popular last name in Washington State (over 1,000 results), but filtering to Garfield County, I'm finding no mention of a community. A 1959 article calls Zumwalt a siding, and there are articles talking about repairing a bridge there. If someone finds something, feel free to ping me, but I'm finding no evidence of a community, no evidence of a ghost town, no evidence of a post office, school, businesses, a cemetery, a church, or houses. When it's possible to salvage an article, we should, for the sake of the reader. There's nothing to salvage, here. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence whatsoever of a community here. After removing two references that don't mention Zumwalt at all, we're left with a map and two warehouse registration listings. This doesn't amount to significant coverage, and it should be noted that WP:NGEO specifically excludes maps and tables from consideration in establishing notability. –dlthewave ☎ 01:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, of all of the similar "town" articles Spokane Ball yt has created, this one appears to be a legitimate community, since there are residences and ranches visible in satellite imagery and streetview. Waddles 🗩 🖉 15:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Existence of residences doesn't mean that people there or in the past considered it a cohesive community by this name though. The buildings are scattered along the length of the highway, not in any way centralized. Without and sources of substance in corroboration, there's no basis to keep. Delete Reywas92^Talk 16:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can't use a map to establish notability. –dlthewave ☎ 01:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a non-notable railroad siding and grain elevator, and thanks to Hog Farm and Firsfron for their very thorough analyses. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:08, 10 September 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, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richmond Spiders football, 1900–1909[edit]

Richmond Spiders football, 1900–1909 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Well-cited individual season articles, e.g. 1900 Richmond Spiders football team, have been created these ten seasons, rendering this article moot; see recent related AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William & Mary Tribe football, 1910–1919 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louisiana Tech Bulldogs football, 1901–1909 Jweiss11 (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Dmoore5556 (talk) 01:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Richmond Spiders football seasons: Suitable WP:ATD. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 01:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• delete seems non-controversial to me and basic housekeeping. Good work.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and prior AfD precedent. Agree that this article no longer serves any purpose. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. We need to get rid of these decade football articles. A redirect would not serve a purpose. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 12:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Patriarca12 (talk) 13:44, 8 September 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 Angerme. Relevant content can be merged from article history. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saki Ogawa[edit]

Saki Ogawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Part of a notable group, but not enough coverage to suggest she meets WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO as an individual. Possible ATD is merge/redirect to band. Boleyn (talk) 20:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The article on her in Japanese Wikipedia seems to have a substantial amount of referencing, as seen here. It would be great if an editor fluent in Japanese could check the quality and depth of those sources. Netherzone (talk) 21:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - That article, Netherzone, is a combination of mere lists and the inane. Sample: 食べることが大好きな食いしん坊[16][17]。好きな食べ物はメロン。特技はモノマネ、バトン、早食い。 I.e. "She loves eating [with two sources, one of which is her Twitter account]; the food she likes is melon. Her special skills are doing impersonations, baton-twirling, and eating quickly." (And, as is entirely normal in ja:WP, whose editors are seemingly keen to satisfy the credulous, we are twice told what her blood group is claimed to be; not even a tweet is cited for this.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for this Hoary. I get it. Netherzone (talk) 01:30, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Angerme which is what became of the band she was in (which seems to have been notable in each of its forms). If there's nothing to merge, Redirect. I have no reason to question Hoary's translation / assessment above. St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Passing mentions in refs is sufficient for a redirect. scope_creep^Talk 09:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to Angerme.4meter4 (talk) 03:13, 15 September 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. The "keep" !voters do not provide a policy-based argument on why notability is met. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talysh Public Council of Azerbaijan[edit]

Talysh Public Council of Azerbaijan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:ORGCRIT. There are no sources about their work/activities. (except its creation) NMW03 (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. NMW03 (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Examination of references indicates (one of) the functions of the council is preservation of the Talysh language. --Whiteguru (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article reflects the intention of the organisation Talish Public Council of Azerbaijan. The concern was raised regarding the absence of sources of its activities, which is not correct. The author of the article includes the statement issued by the Talysh Public Council, which is an activity and the source of that activity is also provided.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Renat717 (talk • contribs)

NMWO3, your comments and baseless accusation against the article in the Azerbaijani version of Wikipedia makes me believe that you represent the interest of the ruling regime in Azerbaijan. Repeating the same manner in the English version is very surprising and "impressive". 3 days ago, Wikipedia confirmed the connection of the page Talish Public Council of Azerbaijan to the Wikipedia item.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Renat717 (talk • contribs)

Renat717, welcome to Wikipedia (you registered 2 hours ago). No, I'm not representative of anyone. I'm editing Wikipedia since 2017 and I'm volunteer just like everyone. There is no "confirmation" of anything in Wikipedia. You cannot present it as an argument. I doubt you are a sockpuppet of Cuxar (the user who said I am racist against Talysh people in azwiki). Please note that this is prohibited per WP:SOCK. If I created AfD discussion for articles you created, that doesn't mean I'm racist against you or article's topic. It means I doubt this article doesn't meet notability criteria(s). So please avoid saying such things. Regards. --NMW03 (talk) 23:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom, also I fail to see the notability of the subject. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 21:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't see any indication that this organization meets WP:NORG required notability standard for organizations. Sources don't appear to be high-quality / independent. (t · c) buidhe 11:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 03:18, 15 September 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. Sandstein 12:20, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Laserfiche[edit]

Laserfiche (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. References 9 through 12 and the first three external links seem to be in-depth coverage from reliable sources. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eastmain, "in-depth coverage from reliable sources" omits the ORGIND requirement for "Independent Content". Anyway, not sure if you're just pulling our legs but reference 9 has no information whatsoever about the company (has a little about the product but that's not the topic of this article) and relies entirely on an interview with Nien-Ling Wayman, president of Compulink Management Center Inc., who are resellers so not "Independent Content", fails ORGIND. So, can you describe for me the content of any of the other two which isn't a quote (from either the company or from Compulink the reseller) or a standard boilerplate company description (which has no in-depth information)? Perhaps you can reconsider your !vote? HighKing⁺⁺ 21:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Eastmain. Can't access the books, but the Network Computing and GCN articles look like WP:SIGCOV. NemesisAT (talk) 16:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NemesisAT, the appropriate guideline is NCORP so both WP:CORPDEPTH *and* WP:ORGIND must be satisfied by each reference used to establish notability. Your first reference from Netword Computing doesn't say anything at all about the company as its a review of three products so fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The second reference, similarly, says nothing about the company at all as it is an article about a customer's experience with the product, also fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Can you reconsider your !vote? HighKing⁺⁺ 21:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - having seen the "WP:NCORP is Alpha and Omega" argument elsewhere, I'm entirely unconvinced. We're talking about a company whose name is common parlance in particular industries because integration and alignment with their products is the standard for that industry. End users talk about "creating Laserfiche documents" and "converting from Laserfiche" in a manner that suggests that its not just notable among those industries, but well known. Comprehensive coverage of the subject's products, by way of reviews, is an obvious indication of notability and the shortsightedness of WP:NCORP, and the rigid application of that guideline (yes, guideline, not suicide pact), is disingenuous. Let the bludgeoning begin. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic discussion about user conduct
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Note to closer This user is making their !vote in bad faith and has only made this !vote because they disagree with the interpretation of NCORP and are trying to make a point. See the following debate. HighKing++ 18:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] Nope, it was in the AFD log and I contribute to AFD all the time. Check the time-stamps; I made my comment here before that discussion started. You should probably address your disruptive behaviour before trying to bludgeon more discussions. St★lwart111 05:59, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] This edit was at the start of your campaign of personalised attacks. Your history of edits gives the game away. HighKing++ 13:25, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] And a detailed discussion of sources (back in 2006) is available here. Consensus seemed to be that the company met notability guidelines even then but sock-puppetry from company-affiliated editors muddied the waters. St★lwart111 11:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] And did we have ORGIND and CORPDEPTH back in 2006? Yeah .. didn't think so. HighKing++ 19:57, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I couldn't find in-depth coverage of the company itself and [10], [11], [12] are not enough to pass WP:NCORP. Even though LaserFiche software passes WP:PRODUCT with [13] and [14], that doesn't pertain to WP:NCORP for the company. Heartmusic678 (talk) 14:47, 7 September 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 Clone Saga. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Judas Traveller[edit]

Judas Traveller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Minor villain who only appeared in one (quite bad, so I'm told) story arc. No secondary coverage, article is an extensive plot summary. I propose a redirect to Clone Saga, where the character is a signficiant plot element. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. Pure plot summary, no evidence of notability required to have stand-alone entry. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Piotrus; no real-world notability. – DarkGlow • 09:33, 8 September 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. BusterD (talk) 01:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Postal village[edit]

Postal village (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I started a discussion on the article talk page concerning the veracity of its content, and after pinging it to a couple of projects, what little discussion there was echoed my concerns, to wit: I cannot source the definition given. The two citations given merely use the phrase, but neither defines it, nor did any other source I could find. There is is ample reason to doubt its claims, based upon what we've found in a lengthy review of American place name articles. Given the many errors in categorization we've come across, I personally wouldn't conclude that a place labelled a "postal village" was a village at all. There's also no reason to think that a post office contributes to a town's continued survival. Even if someone can come up with a citation for a definition, I just don't think there's going to be enough substance for an article. Mangoe (talk) 04:01, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - could possibly be included as a section in Township (United States), however a standalone article results in WP:FORK issues. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, there's nothing in this bare WP:DICDEF to justify an article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but improve so that it's clear what it means (or meant) in which national postal system. For example, it was clearly an official term in Australia at one stage - see here - as well as being common in the US, Britain and Ireland. The present wording is a little vague and poorly referenced. But a quick search has already revealed numerous other references - certainly enough to justify an article. It wouldn't make sense to include it as a section in Township (United States), since the term was clearly used elsewhere. Bermicourt (talk) 09:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:31, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning delete - this feels like a subject about which I would think there would be stuff, but I performed in-depth searching for the accuracy concerns raised on the article talk page. I could find nothing significant, and I'm not convinced that this ever had a set or formal meaning. It's a term that appears a lot but is never discussed. Hog Farm _Talk 21:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I was able to expand this article with references. I didn't experience problems finding a definition, as there are several sources for that (now cited in the article). I did see User:Hog Farm's comment on the article's talk page about the article being US-centric and including content which is unreferenced; the unreferenced material has now been culled and I've added some historic examples of the term's use in about a half a dozen English-speaking countries. More can certainly be added.

I don't see the benefit of deleting this article, as I found over 3,000 newspaper articles using the term "post village" or "postal village" between 1818 and 2020, and Webster's Dictionary, gazetteers, and other reference works have clearly been using the term since the 1800s. Since Wikipedia is supposed to be a gazetteer, there's no reason to delete an article on a term in common use in period gazetteers and other reference works, as long as there are citations backing up the content. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess I'll just give a comment here, rather than a !vote. I don't really know what to do with this. I agree that this is a very heavily-used term, but I also am not sure that this actually has a set meaning. From the searching I've done, I really get the impression that this was a term thrown around a lot, but not used to have a specific meaning at any point, with each of those old gazetteers using it with their own meanings. The set meaning for India Firfson added is good, but at least from what I've seen, all that's really sayable about this is that specific places have been referred to as post villages. This looks like a term that is used a lot, but rarely discussed, and I'm not entirely sure how to handle it. This may be a wiktionary candidate, as all we can really provide is examples of use and a handful of brief definitions, unless there's stuff I missed when searching. Hog Farm _Talk 16:41, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable subject. Article has been improved by Firsfon. Seems to be a common enough term. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:52, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• comment What I'm seeing in the revamped article is a great deal of original research into usage of the phrase, along the lines of what one might find in the OED. That isn't within our scope, and if it were stripped from the article we would be back down to a definition again. Mangoe (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wiktionary - I'm still struggling with the fact that it's difficult to get more than definition and examples on this topic. Transwiking to Wiktionary preserves the content, but also allows it to remain in the definition and examples of usage state. A soft redirect should then be retained so that users searching for this term are then directed to the Wiktionary entry. Hog Farm _Talk 01:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Bermicourt and Firsfron.4meter4 (talk) 03:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above comments. jp×g 19:43, 16 September 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 23:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mém[edit]

Mém (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The article does not show the notability of the subject. Épine (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Épine (talk) 19:18, 7 September 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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Asti Spumante Code[edit]

The Asti Spumante Code (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Can't find significant coverage that demonstrates notability per WP:GNG or WP:NBOOKS. There's a brief article in USA Today (06/16/2005), though I don't think it really fits NBOOKS criterion 1, but I can't find any further significant reviews or signs of its performance or any plaudits. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the additional sources found in Scholar, such as this. Looks like enough coverage for a parody, but I would not be opposed to a merge (with others) to Parodies of The DaVinci Code or somesuch. Jclemens (talk) 03:16, 26 August 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. Feel free to create a redirect if desired. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 22:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of living life peers[edit]

List of living life peers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Redundant with List of members of the House of Lords (since this is a subset of that). This information could all be nicely included there (if in the form of individual footnotes or something). Is thus a content-fork and also fails WP:LISTN. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia is not an almanac nor a collection of trivia. pburka (talk) 17:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:5 says explicitly that "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers". Andrew🐉(talk) 18:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair point. I still believe this type of list is inappropriate in the spirit of WP:NOTTEMPORARY. If life peerages were abolished the list would slowly evaporate away into nothing. pburka (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/merge The worst case would be merger to List_of_members_of_the_House_of_Lords#Lords_Temporal per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Deletion is not appropriate per WP:PRESERVE as there may be good reasons to break this out and there's no reason to suppress it. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no good reasons to break out a subset of a list when that other list already includes all of the encyclopedically relevant information (there's nothing to merge to it; the 'Lords Temporal' section already identifies which members are life peers, which are hereditary peers, ...; and under which Act of Parliament they were created, while not particularly relevant, is obvious from that too, since the Life Peerages Act 1958 covers everything except the law life peers, which are identified as such). Since there's nothing to merge, "List of living life peers" becomes an unhelpful redirect (WP:PANDORA), misleading users into thinking there will be other lists of "living [x]"... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of members of the House of Lords -GorgonaJS (talk) 00:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Living life peers are already listed on List of barons in the peerages of Britain and Ireland.67.173.23.66 (talk) 23:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:HTRIVIA-- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 23:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect to List of members of the House of Lords.4meter4 (talk) 03:49, 15 September 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 due to lack of in-depth sources about the company. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VotarePA[edit]

VotarePA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not appear to pass WP:GNG after going through WP:BEFORE to look for sources. No itwiki page to draw sources from, and no luck from journal sources in WP:TWL either. There may be more sources in Italian out there if anybody has luck finding them, but otherwise this does not appear to be notable. ASUKITE 15:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ASUKITE 15:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ASUKITE 15:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ASUKITE 15:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ASUKITE 15:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I found additional references and added translations for titles. One of them is tricky: The blog of Beppe Grillo, a politician, that seems to have reasonably high production values. Even without the politician's blog, I think notability has been demonstrated. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:06, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Promotional creation without enough sources to pass GNG. There are two reliable sources, but they are just passing mentions. MarioGom (talk) 17:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree, none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability *of the company* which is the topic of this article. The Corrieri.it reference discusses eVoting and situations in which the topic company's product was used but there is no in-depth information about the company itself which is required as per WP:CORPDEPTH. The cronachemaceratesi.it reference is just a mention in passing. The blog of Beppe Grillo is not a reliable source and the reference itself is a mere mention in passing. Topic fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per MarioGom and HighKing.4meter4 (talk) 17:11, 15 September 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 23:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of former Steel City Wrestling personnel[edit]

List of former Steel City Wrestling personnel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former Assault Championship Wrestling personnel and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former World Xtreme Wrestling personnel. No notable alumni for a very small promotion. Several werestlers are no notable and several of them have no sources. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:48, 31 August 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, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of former Xtreme Pro Wrestling personnel[edit]

List of former Xtreme Pro Wrestling personnel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former Assault Championship Wrestling personnel and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former World Xtreme Wrestling personnel. No notable alumni for a very small promotion. Several werestlers are no notable and several of them have no sources. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:47, 31 August 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. Consensus is that the topic meets WP:GNG, if the standalone article proves unexpandable, it can still be later merged as proposed by two participants. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:02, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

China Forestry Group Corporation[edit]

China Forestry Group Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This was moved from drafts to main space with a comment "obviously notable", but I think it's far from it. The article contains no real encyclopaedic content (it was created by a paid editor, clearly at the behest of the company, probably their NZ arm specifically). Half the sources don't work, and the ones that do are primary. And a search finds nothing even approaching sigcov (there are some hits, but they are passing mentions). Fails WP:GNG / WP:CORP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Redirect Not notable suggest merge with National Forestry and Grassland Administration. By that I mean add a sentence saying what it is. Dushan Jugum (talk) 07:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the line between the two a little more blurry than that. But it is not my area. Have no thoughts either way on notability with new refs. Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I added some references. National Forestry and Grassland Administration is a regulator and is not the same as China Forestry Group Corporation, an operating company. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:59, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the article needs a lot of work, but there is enough information on the internet to suggst that with some work it will easily meet the notability requirement. NealeWellington (talk) 23:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - agree the article still needs work, but the sources seem to be enough for this to meet our inclusion threshold fairly easily now. St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The information about the NZ forests and the added references are all entirely based on this press release from the topic company. The rest of the references just report on basic company publically-available details. There's not a single reference here that meets NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There appears to be enough news to meet wp:GNG. Webmaster862 (talk) 08:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The Keep !voters are being very vague in identifying the precise references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Perhaps can one of them post a link or two to which particular references they believe are doing that job? I'm puzzled as to which references because I can see the ones based on the company announcement and the ones which are Primary sources or business listings but I'm not seeing anything else. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep or merge/redirect to National Forestry and Grassland Administration. Passes GNG if not NCORP based on sources in the article. The problem with applying NCORP so strictly to Chinese organizations like this is that NCORP was created to evaluate businesses in Western free markets where there are clear boundaries between corporate for-profit businesses and government institutions, and where there is freedom of the press that generates independent coverage of both businesses and government agencies. That doesn't happen in China where there is no real freedom of the press and the government and business are intimately merged. I would argue that the China Forestry Group Corporation should be treated more like a National government agency (which it essentially is as it manages all of China's forrests and is owned and operated by the government) as opposed to a corporate business (even though it does sell products). When we actually look at the scope of what this agency is responsible for and its impact on the environment across China (i.e. land management concerns, climate change, environmental initiatives, etc.); I can't see how the encyclopedia benefits from deleting the article. The content we have in the article is reasonably well sourced, and ultimately I don't see any benefit to deleting an article on an organization with that amount of responsibility/influence within the government structure of a major world power. 4meter4 (talk) 19:56, 15 September 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saty Narayan Ji Mandir, Nabha[edit]

Saty Narayan Ji Mandir, Nabha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable temple in Nabha. Could not find third party RS for wide coverage. The references in the article are about generic Hindu facts, not the temple. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Many more references are listed in an earlier version of the article at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saty_Narayan_Ji_Mandir,_Nabha&oldid=663778039 Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Eastmain, the earlier version of the article has WP:UNDUE unrelated text copy-pasted as a WP:CFORK of Jagannath Temple article. The many RS in the version are about the deity Jagannath temple of Puri, not the Nabha temple. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 21:39, 31 August 2021 (IST)

• Delete Agree with nomination and their reply to Eastmain. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete:as per nomination.defcon5 (talk) 05:18, 15 September 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— 16:10, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Landenberg Junction, Delaware[edit]

Landenberg Junction, Delaware (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is a rail junction, and it was never anything but a rail junction. There are numerous references to it as such, and none whatsoever to it as a town/settlement/whatever. Mangoe (talk) 04:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 05:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 05:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect>Wilmington and Western Railroad, where the line begins or alternatively recast as Landenberg Junction, which could merit its own article. 05:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs) 15:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Historical settlements tend to have poor Google documentation and require an alternate source-type of digging. I was able to find nearly 50 mentions of "Landenberg Junction" in historical Delaware newspapers, just from a quick search on Newspapers.com. These range from the 1910s to the 2000s. It is my impression, from reading these newspaper reports, that the location does indeed exist and is typical of other historical communities that develop around rail road stations. Several houses or stores build up in proximity of the station and the area/community naturally becomes known by the name of the station. A community can be small and limited in size, it doesn't have to have 100,000 residents and skyscrapers to make it "exist". The old saying "one-horse-town" says it all. I vote to keep because historical communities like this deserve documentation and simply need better sourcing. There are plenty of mentions of it. Here are some of the newspaper mentions that helped me come to my vote.

• "They turned to friends who owned an old farmhouse in Landenberg Junction for referrals."
• "Company of 30 Clash with Officers at Landenberg Junction."
• "It once extended from Wilmington through Greenbank, Yorklyn, Hockessin and up to Landenberg Junction, where it connected with the old Pennsylvania Railroad."
• "Officer Wounded in Landenberg Junction."
• "The extreme heat is said to have been responsible for spontaneous combustion of some paper in the shack of Albert Brown in Landenberg Junction."
• "The Cranston Heights Fire Company was called upon last night to extinguish a fire in Landenberg Junction."

Pinging users @Dough4872: and @TheCatalyst31: who both supported to Keep article during first nomination in 2013. --Fallingintospring (talk) 05:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Fallingintospring. Pinging editors from only one side, and in particular the side you're on as well, is canvassing and it is forbidden. You should be pinging everyone involved in that discussion, or no one at all. This is a friendly and constructive, I hope, advice. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 07:49, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as suggested above. Non-notable location with no legal recognition, so neither #2 nor #1 of WP:GNG are met. To be notable, it would need an article that is primarily about the topic, not a passing mention. Where is the WP:RS article that is primarily about the indicates the WP:GNG of the subject? I agree that there are a number of trivial, passing mentions in newspapers.com, but nothing has this location as its primary subject. Many of the articles are about the railroad station and yards: thirty men on a train at the yards at Landenberg Junction, Lineman killed by train. (BTW - Fallingintospring: I did not find the "Officer Wounded in Landenberg Junction", could you provide a link or year?) The article about spontaneous combustion is at best a trivial mention. Yes, people died there - there seem to be articles about accidents and at least one obit. Not all historical communities, suburbs, housing developments or trailer parks are notable. GBooks has Delaware Place Names from 1966 that refers to it as a "RR station," if there was a community in 1966, then the source would have indicated this. As this locale is primarily a railroad station, WP:STATION is applicable and there is nothing notable enough about this station to warrant a separate article. BTW - this is similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Landlith, Delaware. Cxbrx (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The sources above seem to demonstrate some notability of this as a real place name that's been used historically to refer to here. If @Fallingintospring: adds them to the article, I will !vote to keep; otherwise I'll !vote to redirect to the article on the railroad or on the city nearest it (Elsmere, Delaware). jp×g 21:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Fallingintospring has discovered sources which indicate that this was an actual community, rather than simply a GNIS error. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - 1904 and 1904 topos show this as "West Junction". Newspaper searches for both West Junction and Landenberg Junction return numerous articles that refer to it as a railroad junction ("Landenberg Junction of the B&O Railroad") and a very few that use it as a landmark. At this point we have zero reliable sources that support "community", "populated place", "settlement", etc, and I would also say that these passing mentions (though numerous) don't meet GNG. At best it might warrant a mention in an article about the railroad. –dlthewave ☎ 16:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which railroad? the B+O, or predecessors? Or railroad with which it junctioned? And do you mean redirect? Djflem (talk) 22:06, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Railroad companies built their stations where money could be made from a combination of freight, passenger, mail, and express traffic. Even where a community did not already exist (and I am thinking of transcontinental railroads in Canada and the United States) when the railroad company built a station, there soon would be, because new settlers would buy land from the government or the railroad. A community grown up around a station might consist only of a mine and housing for its workers, but that would still be a community driven by their needs and eventually with a general store and a post office. So this is why you don't need a city charter to show that a point on a railway line is a community: Settlements at the start of the railway era formed around stations, in the same way that they used to form around harbours. You don't need in-depth coverage of a community when you can demonstrate that something had to be there because a passenger train stopped there every day. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Railroad stations did play a role in the development of communities (and vice versa), but in my experience there are just as many junctions, sidings, water stops, etc that found their way onto Wikipedia because they were miscategorized as "populated places" in GNIS. Many of these places didn't have communities because the employees, if there were any, commuted from an actual settlement. Mentions in news articles could indicate a community but just as often meant that it was simply the closest place marked on the map to whatever it was that happened. Do we have any evidence that Landenberg Junction had worker housing, a general store, post office or anything besides a junction where two railroads connected? Was there even a station here? The bar is low, but we do expect verification that the train stopped here before we assume that there must have been a post office, store, etc. –dlthewave ☎ 21:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to have to say this, but the notion that stations inevitably led to settlements is completely untrue. Railroads had "stations" for a whole laundry list of reasons, and even when the reason was to generate traffic, often enough that traffic never came. Even now there are places called "West Plane" and "East Plane" on the Old Main Line, the ends of the siding for "Plane 4", but there was never a Plane 4 town: the name comes from the earliest days of the railroad there, and since there was an interlocking, it had to be called something. We have deleted numerous "stations" that were nothing more than passing sidings necessary to single track operation. We've also deleted a bunch of "Junctions" which were nothing more than places where two lines joined. Based on the testimony we have, the latter situation is what we have here: the various newspaper references (which BTW would never satisfy WP:GNG) are the typical sort of name-drops one sees about any sort of place name in local crime reporting and such. A spot on the rails is not proof of a settlement. Period. Mangoe (talk) 03:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Wikipedia is a gazetteer about settlements, and this is/was a real one, per above. --Doncram (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very surprised by your suggestion as above, Doncram, seeing as you're an experienced editor. Wikipedia is most definitely not a "gazeteer." We have, inter alia, WP:NOTGAZETEER, and certainly WP:NOT (especially the part about Wikipedia not being any kind of guidebook). Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of random information. We're not the internet's end-all and be-all. -The Gnome (talk) 07:49, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know before of that essay, created in 2021. Of course essays do not govern. But there is also wp:Gazeteer, an older essay. And I do understand from many AFDs over the years (altho i have not been active recently) that the consensus is that established settlements are wikipedia-notable, and that we are deliberately a gazetteer about them. I believe the general usual reference to give is wp:GEOLAND (i think tho I am not sure). We simply are a gazetteer about settlements, that is just a fact, sorry if u do not believe that. --Doncram (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, for over a decade the WP:GEOLAND standard has been that "populated places without legal recognition" are considered on a case-by-case basis, so simply confirming that a place existed is not sufficient. My experience has been that we've been trending toward a stricter reading of this guideline but a significant minority of editors feel that our gazetteer function takes precedence. A compromise that's been suggested for this article is that the rail junction be covered in the article about the railroad, which might also be how a gazetteer would handle it.

One issue that's come up recently is the realization that many thousands of articles were mass-created from incorrect GNIS database entries. WP:GNIS goes into detail, but the gist is that the database lists many natural features, rail junctions/sidings and other miscellaneous places as "populated places", and these were mislabeled as "unincorporated communities" by the article creators. This means that places sourced solely to GNIS always require a third-party fact-check. Landenberg Junction one isn't quite as blatant at the infamous Susie, but this might give you an idea of why it's under a bit of scrutiny. –dlthewave ☎ 22:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:Recently I've seen some new-to-AfD editors who seem to be on the keep side. I welcome having more eyes on these AfDs and in general I agree that if an article is borderline, we should keep it or merge it. However, it seems like some editors might not have reviewed Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) and WP:STATION. In addition, taking a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Geography to see other, similar discussions could be helpful. The GNIS database is down, but reviewing WP:GNIS could also help. I'm trying to reach consensus here and am hoping that editors will review the resources I've mentioned.

In the case of this location, it is railroad junction. There is no legal recognition of a community at this location. I agree that people probably lived near this location, but there is no WP:RS article that is solely about this location. Fallingintospring listed a number of references, which I also looked at. As I wrote above, most of these seem to be about a railroad station or yard at this location. The other references are trivial. The article still has just one reference, no one has taken the time to add these other references (I realize that the lack of refs is not a reason for deletion, my point is that we have far more words here in the deletion discussion than we do in the article.) One thing to consider is that if the subject was a person or a company, would it meet WP:GNG? This location does not meet WP:GNG. Not all geographic locations are notable and as this is clearly a station, it should be redirected. Djflem suggests redirecting to Wilmington and Western Railroad, which would be fine with me. Cxbrx (talk) 12:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per reasoning I gave in commentary, above. We're not here to post up indiscriminate information. -The Gnome (talk) 07:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Fallingintospring, and Eastmain, and Doncram. @The Gnome WP:5P1 supports that wikipedia is in part a gazeteer. As such the non-policy essay WP:NOTGAZETEER has contradictions with a fundamental core pillar and is a badly realized idea. Further WP:NOTGUIDE was never intended to undermine wikipedia's role in essentially fulfilling it's core mission which is and I quote "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers."4meter4 (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasoning, 4meter4, is wrong on a fundamental basis: Having some attributes of something does not make you that something. And this is applicable in every field and every discipline. A gazeteer is an unfailingly complete record, or, at the very least, this is its purpose: To contain all known information about its subject, be it a geographical location, the laws, addresses, etc. The emphasis in WP:5P1 is on "combines many features"; were Wikipedia a gazeteer, WP:5P1 would phrase its self-definition differently and quite explicitly. On the contrary, Wikipedia not only clarifies that it is not a directory (there is no contradiction whatsoever) but states flat out that it cannot be trusted, unlike publications of record such as gazeteers. -The Gnome (talk) 12:21, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Gnome is right except for where they are wrong. Wikipedia is a gazeteer about settlements. --Doncram (talk) 07:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you, then, please, Doncram, provide links to Wikipedia policies, guidelines, or "multiple" AfD/RfC pages where it is stated, or even indicated, that "Wikipedia is a gazeteer about settlements"? -The Gnome (talk) 10:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I said that I would !vote "keep" 23 days ago if somebody managed to add the above-mentioned newspaper references. They do not seem to be in the article. jp×g 19:40, 16 September 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 Brad Anderson (cartoonist). If anyone wants to merge any content (most of it seemed rather trivial), it's in the page history of the redirect. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Anderson (cartoonist)[edit]

Paul Anderson (cartoonist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I think the article should be merged with Marmaduke with a redirect - all the refs presented at the moment are not enough to show the notability. Moreover, I have found this, this (and many other obituaries), this, this, and this but I believe it's still not enough for a standalone article. Tell me what you think. Less Unless (talk) 13:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 13:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 13:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 13:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I was able to find SIGCOV in the form of article-length by-lined obituaries (not paid death announcements) in the New York Times, Time Magazine, Washington Post, Philadelphia Inquirer, Los Angeles Times -- all major newspapers. That is enough to convince me he meets notability criteria and presents enough information on his life to improve the article. Netherzone (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Netherzone, hang on, aren't those obituaries of the subject's father, Brad Anderson (cartoonist)? As far as I can tell Paul Anderson is still alive. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ganesha811 you are right! Thank you for pointing that out, I've struck my !vote above. Netherzone (talk) 13:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Very weak delete - this one is just on the threshold for me. Paul Anderson has been mentioned plenty in reliable sources, usually in conjunction with his father, but there is little significant coverage. The "America Comes Alive" source is best, but its reliability is questionable. From what I can see, the subject is not notable, but if better sources can be located, a re-creation would be welcome. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nomination. Brayan ocaner (talk) 09:09, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to Brad Anderson (cartoonist) per WP:CHEAP. Given that the work was done in conjunction with his father, this would seem to be something we could highlight in the article on his dad without being off-topic. Alternatively, the article could be merged and redirected to Marmaduke, but I prefer the latter choice. Netherzone, Ganesha811, Brayan ocaner what do you all think about this option? 4meter4 (talk) 22:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  4meter4 I'm fine with merge/redirect. to Brad Anderson. Netherzone (talk) 22:45, 15 September 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, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vernon Parker[edit]

Vernon Parker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The council member of a municipality of ~10,000-15,000 is not inherently notable. Neither is a congressional candidate. I believe this article fails to meet the notability guidelines for politicians. There does not appear to be enough GNG for his legal or business career to meet notability for those professions either. Mpen320 (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politicians and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Arizona.--Mpen320 (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NPOL and not independently notable from his congressional campaign. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bobcat Bite[edit]

Bobcat Bite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I don't think this restaurant meets notability for Wikipedia. I'm just not seeing a lot of coverage out there and restaurants, even "award-winning" ones, aren't necessarily notable. It appears that editors are not disclosing COI, either, though I can't be sure. But with sentences such as: "The Panzers snuck behind the Eckre family's back and copyrighted the Bobcat Bite name", it's hard to see how the article is neutral or notable. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I haven't yet analyzed the article sufficiently to offer a !vote here, but I have reverted copyvio/promo content introduced in July and requested a revdel thereof. --Finngall ^talk 18:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Motz, George (2011). Hamburger America: Completely Revised and Updated Edition: A State-by-State Guide to 150 Great Burger Joints. Philadelphia: Running Press. pp. 193–194. ISBN 978-0-7624-4070-2. Retrieved 2021-09-12.

     The book has an eight-paragraph entry for Bobcat Bite. The book notes: "A visit to the Bobcat Bite for a green chile cheeseburger results in what I like to call the 'Whole Burger Experience.' The restaurant, the people who work there, the relaxed environment, and a stellar burger all coalesce into a perfect hamburger moment. ... The Bobcast Bite is way out of town, southeast on the long, lonely Old Las Vegas Highway. The low adobe structure sits on a rocky washboard incline at the foot of what once was a large quarterhourse ranch. The interior is cozy New Mexican with a low viga ceiling and a large picture window that looks out toward the old ranch and a hummingbird feeder. Seating is limited—there are only eight stools at the counter, five tables, and just recently added, three tables on the front porch (weather permitting). The restaurant got its name from the bobcats that used to come down from the surrounding mountains to eat scraps that had been tossed out the back door. ... In 1953, Rene Clayton, owner of the Bobcat Ranch, turned a gun shop into a restaurant. Today, Bonnie and her husband, John, keep tradition alive by serving a green chile cheeseburger that has been on the menu since the place opened. Fresh chuck steaks are ground and pattied by Bonnie's brother nearby. In 2006, John decided to switch over to naturally raised antibiotic- and hormone-free beef. He made one of the best burgers in America even better."

  2. Motz, George (2018). Hamburger America: A State-By-State Guide to 200 Great Burger Joints. Philadelphia: Running Press. ISBN 978-0-7624-9222-0. Retrieved 2021-09-12.

     The book notes: "The Bobcat Bite is no longer, another sad victim of selfishness and greed, but I'm happy to report that the spirit of the Bobcat has been salvaged thanks, of course, to New Mexico's first couple of the Green Chile Cheeseburger, John and Bonnie Eckre. ... But as we know, all good things must come to an end. For most of us this one ended far too soon. A rent hike and an ownership disagreement forced John and Bonnie into a very tough decision, and in 2013 they shut down the sixty-year-old Bobcat and reopened a few months later as the Santa Fe Bite."

  3. McGraw, Kate (2004-11-14). "Documentary brings Bobcat Bite to silver screen". Albuquerque Journal. Archived from the original on 2021-09-12. Retrieved 2021-09-12.

     The article notes: "More than three years ago, award-winning cinematographer George Motz and a camera crew turned up at Bobcat Bite, the venerable roadhouse just south of Santa Fe on the Old Las Vegas Highway."

  4. Ryan, Ann L. (1996-11-01). "Nothing Scruffy About Small Bobcat Bite's Grub". Albuquerque Journal. Archived from the original on 2021-09-12. Retrieved 2021-09-12.

     The review notes: "Bobcat Bite is legendary in Santa Fe as a carnivore's heaven. Want a big burger, a big steak, or some pork chops? This is the place ... The burger was big, about the size of a dessert plate and more than an inch thick, covered with melted white cheese and chopped green chile. It took a lot of smashing to get it down to mouth size. It was a darned good burger, but a little too dry, and a little too close to well-done. The cheese was gooey, the chile not too hot, and the home fries were little potato nuggets, charred a bit here and there. Yum."

  5. Hillerman, Anne (2013-05-24). "Goodbye to Bobcat Bite". Albuquerque Journal. Archived from the original on 2021-09-12. Retrieved 2021-09-12.

     The article notes: "Bobcat Bite has been a family-owned restaurant for more than 50 years. Originally a trading post and then a gun shop, the building became a restaurant in 1953 under the ownership of Rene Clayton and management of her daughter, Mizi Panzer. Subsequent operators continue using some of the same recipes Bobcat Bite has served for decades."

  6. DeWalt, Robert (2002-08-16). "Dinner Reviews: Bobcat Bite". The Santa Fe New Mexican. Archived from the original on 2021-09-12. Retrieved 2021-09-12.

     The restaurant review notes: "With nearly 50 years of family-owned restaurant experience under its belt, the Bobcat Bite delivers straightforward food with reasonable prices. Although I’m an advocate of highway safety, I suggest you get there as fast as you can (within the law, of course) and as hungry as you wanna be."

  7. Crawford, Emily (2004-12-04). "Spectacular sandwiches". Albuquerque Journal. Archived from the original on 2021-09-12. Retrieved 2021-09-12.

     The article notes: "A documentary in the Santa Fe Film Festival spotlights local favorite Bobcat Bite. Cinematographer George Motz gladly returned to Bobcat Bite on Friday, where he made short work of a hefty green chile cheeseburger."

  8. Haywood, Phaedra (2013-05-09). "Bobcat Bite managers to leave over dispute with property owner". The Santa Fe New Mexican. Archived from the original on 2021-09-12. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  9. Haywood, Phaedra (2013-06-08). "Bobcat Bite customers savor their last burgers before eatery's closure". The Santa Fe New Mexican. Archived from the original on 2021-09-12. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  10. Vitu, Teya (2021-03-29). "Bobcat Bite returns to Old Las Vegas Highway in May". The Santa Fe New Mexican. Archived from the original on 2021-09-12. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  11. Ragan, Thomas (2015-11-10). "Bobcat Bites It. Sale would end seven decades of tradition along old Las Vegas Highway". Santa Fe Reporter. Archived from the original on 2021-09-12. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Bobcat Bite to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 01:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Appears to have decent coverage.--Surv1v4l1st ^{▌Talk|Contribs▌} 04:04, 15 September 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 draftify. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Myles Peart-Harris[edit]

Myles Peart-Harris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The player has yet to make an appearance in a fully professional league, in a cup match between two fully professional clubs or at full international level. Beatpoet (talk) 18:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and SNG -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 20:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Some media coverage for this 18-year old. £1.5 million transfer fee from Chelsea. Was been on the bench for a fully professional Brentford match two weeks ago. Is it really worth deleting this at this time? Nfitz (talk) 00:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to draftspace as an alternative to deletion. It's likely he'll be notable enough soon (as he was on the bench 2 weeks ago), at which point it can be moved back. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draft Agree that moving to draft space is a viable option for the article rather than straight up delete. Govvy (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify - while not guaranteed, it's certainly plausible that he will meet notability criteria soon Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify - agree that he is likely to make the grade soon JW 1961 ^Talk 20:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Surely meets GNG with the transfer alone. No Great Shaker (talk) 04:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify. Clear case of WP:TOOSOON.4meter4 (talk) 22:40, 15 September 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 23:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Night (2006 film)[edit]

Dark Night (2006 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable film, showing at a few minor film festivals does not meet WP:NF, it does not have significant coverage by independent sources per WP:GNG BOVINEBOY2008 17:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I couldn't find much out there about the film and not enough to establish notability. There are primary sources like this and a brief mention here, but that's about it. That's kind of par for the course for first films, as most tend to get little to no coverage until later in the director's career, assuming that they manage to get that breakthrough. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NFILM.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:26, 10 September 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of living former United States governors[edit]

List of living former United States governors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Trivial cross-categorisation which fails WP:LISTN and is just the same as usual WP:NOTDATABASE-listcruft. See also recent AfD logs for similar lists of living former government officials from plenty of other nations... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:HTRIVIA -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 21:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There are similar articles for senators and representatives which should probably be evaluated as well.2601:241:300:B610:D14F:D58D:3EC0:80E7 (talk) 22:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Edge3 (talk) 02:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Goes against WP:NOTDIR and as there are no sources at all, let alone sources that specifically cover this listing as a group or set, fails WP:LISTN. Rorshacma (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The intersection of "has held public office X" and "is still alive" is to my eye self-evidently a WP:Non-encyclopedic cross-categorization, and as such WP:DELREASON#14 (Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia) applies. Of all possible parameters to list this group of people by, being alive is certainly one of them – but so is being born on a Wednesday. TompaDompa (talk) 19:12, 9 September 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nimism[edit]

Nimism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

After considerable searching, I can't find a single use of this term anywhere outside of Wikipedia or its mirrors. I tried searching:

• The web, via DuckDuckGo and Google
• Google Scholar
• *The Oxford and Merriam-Webster dictionaries
• *JSTOR's full-text
• Gale's e-book collection
• EBSCO's Academic Source
• My university library's database
• The Internet Archive's full-text book collection
• HathiTrust's full-text book collection

and couldn't find any normal uses of "nimism" (though they did turn up plenty of bad OCRs of "animism" and more rarely "optimism"). I checked the search results prefixed with an asterisk exhaustively; for everything else I went through the first couple pages.

There are two links here in Wikipedia: Index of aesthetics articles, which was probably autogenerated, and Macbeth. The second was added by the same user who wrote nimism. It uses the term in the context of Caroline Spurgeon's work, though I could not find the term used in any of her books on Shakespeare (I performed a full-text search of Leading motives in the imagery of Shakespeare's tragedies and Shakespeare's imagery and what it tells us on the Internet Archive and looked through references to Macbeth in paper copies of Keat's Shakespeare and Shakespeare's iterative imagery)

I asked the creator about this back at the end of July, with no response; while they haven't edited English Wikipedia since 2016, they have contributed on German Wikipedia, so they likely saw the message.

I'm willing to withdraw the nomination if I can find any uses of "nimism" that predate or don't trace back to this article, but I haven't been able to do so. Vahurzpu (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Vahurzpu (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Vahurzpu (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Vahurzpu (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm not sure whether it can be called a neologism if it has been lurking around since 2009 but there is nothing to corroborate it as a genuine term. It is not in Wiktionary in any language. As far as I can tell it is not in Google Scholar except as a mistake in the OCR. Fails verification hard and, even if it exists at all, it would be very far from being a notable enough term for an article. Quite possibly it is the author's own coinage. After 12 years fetch has not happened and it is time to give it up as a bad job. We should delete this and also clean up the stuff in Macbeth, which is astonishingly poorly referenced for an article about a topic which has been a subject of detailed scholarship for centuries. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seems to either be a WP:HOAX or WP:MADEUP. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NEO -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 21:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and recommend that closing admin send it to WP:HOAXLIST. wizzito | say hello! 05:25, 9 September 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.