< April 10	April 12 >

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 Philip Morris International. History is under the redirect for attribution as there's no reason to delete it. Star Mississippi 00:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Longbeach (cigarette)[edit]

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

Can't find any indication from independent reliable sources that this is a notable brand. No significant coverage located. Cigarettespedia is a user-generated wiki, zigsam is just a website that collects pictures of cigarette packages. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Philip Morris International. Can have a bare mention there. Ajf773 (talk) 23:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Philip Morris International, per above Mujinga (talk) 00:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per previous votes, send it to Philip Morris. Bgrus22 (talk) 04:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
redirect as discussed. Oaktree b (talk) 01:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Soft delete They exist. Nothing else is provided about them and I've found little to say there is. If anyone wants to or can pull a wp:HEY I'd be delighted - but not in current state and I don't think there is enough there. Neonchameleon (talk) 16:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. They exist, and that's about it. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 21:33, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. per improvements made during the course of the AfD Star Mississippi 00:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Reid (actor)[edit]

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

The sole source in the article is mostly about the building that he bought. I've been unable to find any sources to support notability as an actor or as a musician. (Common name doesn't help.) Schazjmd (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Schazjmd (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Schazjmd (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Limited coverage in RS. Adabow (talk) 09:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of significant coverage. He made the news in New Zealand as a former small-time entertainer turned real estate tycoon ([1], [2]), but I can't find anything to say about him beyond that. An encyclopedia article should have something for the curious reader. This vote might be longer than the guy's life story. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure if the above AFD and votes are serious. Try searching in Google, Index New Zealand, Ebsco and A/NZ newsstream for "Paul Reid" "Shortland Street" and "Paul Reid" "Rubicon". -- haminoon (talk) 22:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you can add additional sources to the article to support notability, that would be great. Or even post them here in the AfD discussion so others can add them. As I said in the nomination, I didn't find any. Schazjmd (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for <"Paul Reid" + "Shortland Street"> only results in minor directory listings about how he was an actor in that show. Searching for <"Paul Reid" + "Rubicon"> only results in minor directory listings about how he was a member of that band. In both cases you will also get some minor mentions about how he is now a landlord. Quantity does not matter if a lot of sources say very little; see WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've expanded the article using just a few of the many references that show that GNG is met. During his three years playing a major character in New Zealand's longest-running and most popular television soap opera, there were a number of profiles of Reid in New Zealand newspapers, not freely available online but available via "The Knowledge Basket" database, some of which have been used in this expansion. Also, it is interesting to note that the very many more-recent (almost 20 years later) news articles about Reid's property development career invariably mention his past as a Shortland Street star, and often use publicity photos from that time. Paora (talk) 11:46, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Excellent work by Paora that shows that the subject is clearly notable. Schwede 66 14:41, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per expansion by Paora.-gadfium 22:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per expansion and more reliable sources added by Paora.— NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 03:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heyward Donigan[edit]

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

A ceo and entrepreneur who lacks in-depth significant coverage, this is tricky and I’d break it down, they do have google hits but unfortunately none are reliable. If you observe the sources (conducting your own research if you may) you’d note they are self published, pr sponsored, sources with no reputation for fact checking, & sources not independent of her, this shouldn’t confuse you, although this can be tricky for a new NPR reviewer. This is largely an WP:ADMASQ. Celestina007 (talk) 22:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No substantial coverage of her at all. Everything indicates she's just another ordinary business executive, with no special claim to notability. JBW (talk) 22:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Inadequate sourcing to meet notability for WP: GNG. Sourcing is additionally not independent, and also manufactured, therefore unreliable. NiklausGerard (talk) 05:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful delete. I would love for us to be able to have an article about Ms Donigan. There are far too few role models for women in business at the level of a CEO of a major company, and as such, in a colloquial not wp-technical sense, she should be notable. However, as others have said, the sources that seem to be available are generally just uncritical transcripts of interviews with her. I dug through the first 3 screens of google hits and the best I found was https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-ceo-crafted-a-vision-for-rite-aid-now-shes-launching-it-in-a-crisis-11586955602 and https://greenwichfreepress.com/around-town/arts/from-sunday-school-to-ceo-heyward-donigan-ceo-of-rite-aid-to-speak-at-christ-church-171378/, both of which are flawed in this way. Martinp (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rian Adkinson[edit]

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

While this artist has an interesting story and has had a couple of mentions in local media, there is no significant coverage of him or his music available. I turned up one of the magazine articles in question, but there's nothing really beyond that, and thus I feel this artist fails WP:NMUSIC. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I poked around and the best I could find was https://www.loudersound.com/features/limelight-rian-adkinson and https://www.broadwayworld.com/bwwmusic/article/Rian-Adkinson-Recruits-Andrew-Colyer-for-New-Album-and-Tour-20170627, which just aren't independent (and meaty) enough to write an article from. Martinp (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is sourcing does not rise to the level required to keep this. If someone wants to actively work on this in draft space and dive deeper into potential sources, I'm happy to provide it. Star Mississippi 00:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christ Church Girls' School, Barbados[edit]

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

The article has been referenced to nothing but primary sources since it's creation in 2010, I couldn't find anything in a WP:BEFORE when I looked that would help for notability, and in the meantime schools are not inherently notable. So either someone needs to find multiple, in-depth, secondary reliable sources about this or the article should be deleted. Adamant1 (talk) 17:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Barbados. Shellwood (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It may be easier to find sources for the same school by two prior names; Kingsland Girls' School and Providence Girls' School. The school is over 300 years old, so there probably are some to be found... I don't have time right now, but will get back to this soon. Jacona (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It's frustrating, but I'm not finding sources online. They probably exist in print, but my search skills aren't up to finding them. Jacona (talk) 20:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- 1898 is not 300 years ago. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added a couple of sources from Barbados Today and Nation News, which is a state-owned news company and considered reliable in Barbados. The school is quite old and dates back to 1898, though initially it was both boys and girls girl until separated to just girls school. But am sure with the sources I've added it should be somewhat ok, sources in barbados don't cover everything as it's still a developing country and very few publication houses. Regards. Jamiebuba (talk) 11:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately none of that is even close to meeting the wp:Significant part of the GNG. It just shows that the school exists. The Barbados Today article just shows that there are vaccinations at that venue. One of the Nation News articles doesn't even mention the school other than a photo taken there, and the other just says a return to school is delayed. wp:ORG isn't met at all. Neonchameleon (talk) 16:19, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Being in Barbados isn't the trouble. Barbados has documentation of its education system going back to the 19th century, in Barbados Year Book issues, government reports, and all sorts of stuff. There's plenty of material on the Christ Church Foundation School, for example. The cause is nothing to do with the country and everything to do with this being a primary school rather than a secondary school. There are a lot more in-depth sources for secondary and tertiary education in Barbados, and not much for primary education. I couldn't find anything confirming this school's self-professed history, for example, although the secondary school(s) did get in the way a lot. Uncle G (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Island Academy International[edit]

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

The article is referenced to primary sources and I couldn't find anything about it in a WP:BEFORE when I looked that would help with notability. So this fails the notability guidelines. Adamant1 (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Caribbean. Shellwood (talk) 17:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing close to satisfying wp:ORG and nothing found on searching even after reopening twice. Neonchameleon (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa Ferster Glazier[edit]

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

My search for sources showed up listings of a book by her, mainly in later editions with a co-author, but nothing saying anything substantial about her. This article has existed with no sources for over 12 years. I was able to find this [3] that says she was an associate professor of English at Western Illinois University, but it is not a reliable source. Everything I can find is just incidental mentions of her in relation to the book. We have an article on the book, so a redirect might be worthwhile, but at least at present even the book does not seem to have sources at a level to show that it is notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- The article actually dates back to 2006, and has as far as I can tell never had sources, it seems before 2009 people just did not place no sources tags very much.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Women. Shellwood (talk) 12:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - via the Wikipedia Library, it looks like she has some WP:AUTHOR notability based on the critical reception of more than one book:

1) The Least You Should Know about English

Guinn, D. M. (1978). "Review of The Least You Should Know about English; Writing from the inside out; The Authentic Writer, by T. F. Glazier, R. L. Optner, J. M. Mellard, & J. C. Wilcox". College Composition and Communication, 29(1), 70–74. https://doi.org/10.2307/356264 (via JSTOR)
"The Least You Should Know About English, Form C: Writing Skills, 11th Edition", ProtoView 2015 (via Gale)
"The least you should know about English; form b; writing skills, 11th ed", Reference & Research Book News, 2012, (via Gale)
"The least you should know about English; writing skills; form A, 10th ed", Reference & Research Book News, 2008, (via Gale)
"The least you should know about English; writing skills; form B, 9th ed", Reference & Research Book News, 2006, (via Gale)
"The least you should know about English; writing skills; form A, 9th ed", Reference & Research Book News, 2005, (via Gale)
discussed in "And They Wrote Happily Ever After: The Nature of Basic Writing as Portrayed in Textbooks", Composition Chronicle: Newsletter for Writing Teachers, 1996, full text available via ERIC

2) The least you should know about vocabulary building; word roots

"The least you should know about vocabulary building; word roots, 6th ed", Reference & Research Book News, 2007, (via Gale)
cited in "THE ROLE OF FRENCH LOANWORDS IN ENGLISH VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION", Fu Jen Studies: Literature & Linguistics, July 2016 (via Gale)
"The least you should know about vocabulary building; word roots, 5th ed." Reference and Research Book News 2004 (via ProQuest)

Also, a program she developed "to improve student self-image and reduce anxiety" is mentioned in context in Reigstad, T. J. (1985). PERSPECTIVES ON ANXIETY AND THE BASIC WRITER: RESEARCH, EVALUATION, INSTRUCTION. Journal of Basic Writing, 4(1), 68–77. (via JSTOR), at p. 71. And while this does not help support notability, there is some biographical information available on the Midland University website. There are also indications she has other works, e.g. via VIAF. However, most of the reviews are "capsules" from the same source, so while there is some support for notability, I think more is needed to get beyond ~~Weak Delete~~ Redirect. Beccaynr (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC) !vote updated to redirect to The Least You Should Know About English. - Beccaynr (talk) 01:43, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Before I cast my !vote I went back to the article on the "book" and did some WP:BEFORE type of research. I discovered that it is widely used in USA and for people teaching english as a second language. It is listed on various university websites, libraries and non-US government websites as a go-to resource to learn English. It is reviewed and mentioned in academic literature. And it's not a book, it's a series of books, a body of work. I therefore consider that she satisfied the criteria for WP:AUTHOR for creating a significant body of work that is cited in multiple independent sources. CT55555 (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the discussion above about her books. Oaktree b (talk) 02:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to her notable series of books. There's also some discussion about her program to improve student self-image here: JSTOR 43443440. pburka (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please consider whether a redirect would be an appropriate alternative to deletion or keeping this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NAUTHOR, based on google scholar search above. Jacona (talk) 12:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Poorly-attended AfD that could be closed N/C, but we have sources identified that counter the issues raised int he delete !vote, which itself acknowledges it's a notable concept. Whether this should be merged following sourcing can be discussed editorially. Star Mississippi 00:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Certified Arborist[edit]

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

Unsourced, written to subtly promote "Certified Arborists" and demote mere "ordinary" arborists. Not notable enough on its own to warrant an article. If anything from this could be kept, it should be merged with either the ISA article or the arborist article. Whilst this is heading into G11 territory, it isn't quite there. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 11:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miller, Hauer & Werner 2015, pp. 255–256 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMillerHauerWerner2015 (help) discusses this subject, and indeed explains the whys and wherefores of certification and that yes, certified arborists are different to uncertified ones. Konijnendijk & Randrup 2005, p. 470 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFKonijnendijkRandrup2005 (help) covers this subject, too. Then there are lots of little facts like the U.S. cities survey with respect to how many employed certified arborists, reported in footnote 33 of doi:10.4324/9781003054672-29. Clearly, there are sources to be had; and everything is fixable with the move and editing tools. Uncle G (talk) 13:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Miller, Robert W.; Hauer, Richard J.; Werner, Les P. (2015). Urban Forestry: Planning and Managing Urban Greenspaces (3rd ed.). Waveland Press. ISBN 9781478629498.
- Konijnendijk, Cecil C.; Randrup, Thomas B. (2005). "Urban Forestry Education". In Konijnendijk, Cecil C.; Nilsson, Kjell; Randrup, Thomas B.; Schipperijn, Jasper (eds.). Urban Forests and Trees: A Reference Book. Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 9783540276845.
I have only searched quickly however this research doi:10.1080/03071375.2016.1221178 shows an example of finding whether a CA makes a difference. This shows that the subject of CAs is of interest. Invasive Spices (talk) 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Comment Wikipedia is an international encyclopaedia. The current article appears unaware that the world extends beyond the US. The article would avoid the accusation of being promotional if it described the situation more widely. For example, in the UK, a tree surgeon isn't obliged to have any particular qualifications, and the title "certified arborist" has no particular meaning and is not protected - anyone could call themselves this. But the concept exists, in that a good tree surgeon is likely to have qualifications from the National Proficiency Tests Council. If the article is to be restricted to US certification, then it should be moved to "Certified Arborist (US)" to avoid confusion with parallel articles covering Australia, the UK, NZ etc. Elemimele (talk) 17:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Ironically, reading Konijnendijk & Randrup 2005, p. 470 would have led to doi:10.1080/03071375.2001.9756456 that it cites as Dowson 2001, which would have shown that to be wrong. Dowson 2001 lays out the many professional qualifications in the U.K., one of which is the ISA's Certified Arborist, on page 355. Uncle G (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Really, what needs to be done is improving the article, because there appears to be a notable concept that could be covered under the title "Certified Arborist". But this ain't it, chief. In the current state, it merely promotes the ISA and is fully unsourced (unless the External Links are meant to be sources?). casualdejekyll 18:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Black Kite (talk) 18:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bavis Fabacraft[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. The current sources in the article are a legal document the homepage of the website, a trade publication piece that's largely an interview with a Bavis employee, a labeled press release, and a second trade publication. Since WP:ORGIND indicates that trade publication pieces are generally not independent, the sourcing in the article fails to meet WP:ORGCRIT. I cannot find additional coverage indicating that would satisfy NCORP, so I suggest that the page be deleted. — Mhawk10 (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an apprentice in Engineering in Ohio and Bavis is one of the largest providers of drive-thru technology in the state rivaling Diebold Nixdorf, with clients mostly at Walgreens and Chase, which I think for a 60-year-old company does warrant an article. I do have to concede that for the love of my life I cannot find good sources on this because Bavis is a private company in a niche trade, and Bavis and Fabacraft were two different companies before a merger. However, the articles although from the customers' trade magazines are from widely varying trades with enough notability to a large audience that I believe pass WP:NCORP, if admittedly barely. This articlefrom the Cincinnati Business Courier is one of the major business sources that I think can be admitted. Moreover, and this is a major argument, the company's main product trademark, the Vittleveyors, is a well-known product with major public coverage dating back to the 90s (trademark information). This article from The New York Times, along with this article and this article and are completely independent. I can make the case of creating an article for the Vittleveyors and linking Bavis as the producer. This is my first time creating an article so apologies for any confusion, but I believe the article should stay for now. Do let me know how I can expand this article to need guidelines. Quangson306 (talk) 02:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep thru Drafity. The first is from a source that the reliable sources discussions previously reached consensus was good, but it's a primary source mostly (i.e. not a secondary source, which is better).

However I found this: Levy, Sandra. "Supermarkets Stay Ahead: Supermarket operators turn to high-tech solutions to ensure patients stay adherent and healthy." Drug Store News, vol. 42, no. 5, May 2020, pp. 52+. Gale General OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A629603180/ITOF?u=wikipedia&sid=ebsco&xid=ae6a0556. Accessed 11 Apr. 2022.

It's called them "Bavis Drive-Thru" ad mentioned them five times, going into details about leadership

Likewise (same source, same author) Levy, Sandra. "Problem Solvers: Technology, automation aim to improve efficiency and enable clinical efforts." Drug Store News, vol. 42, no. 1, Jan. 2020, pp. 80+. Gale General OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A617763851/ITOF?u=wikipedia&sid=ebsco&xid=8cf459a2. Accessed 11 Apr. 2022.

ALso mentioned them borderline briefly, and with a quote.

I couldn't open the NYT article, would be happy to hear what it includes.

It seems the company is borderline notable, but their produce the Vittleveyor seems more clearly notable.

I could be persuaded in either direction depending what the NYT article says and what other people think, but I currently suggest this article be moved back into draft (draftify) and be changed into an article about Vittleveyors, that would then have a section about the company that makes them. CT55555 (talk) 22:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Club Space[edit]

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

Purely WP:PROMO with no secondary sourcing. BEFORE shows existence but not notability. Slywriter (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Entertainment, and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very promo with little substance, they mostly seem to have been a bottom-tier ranked night club, peaking at 30-something. Hardly notable. Oaktree b (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 01:45, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rafé Totengco[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. A mere 2 gnews hits, 1 line mentions in plain Google search. His awards don't really add to notability. LibStar (talk) 22:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. Not much here. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 01:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 04:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article got several issues. References are not reliable. Afzlfc (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC) (sockpuppet of FBedits)[reply]
Weak keep/Comment - The article isn't great, but I have a feeling the subject may actually scrape a pass after a thoughtful scrutiny of Google Books and Newspapers. Coverage pops up from the mid-1990s up to the 2010s, regularly enough for him not to be a solo flash-in-the-pan. He is mentioned (and illustrated) as a notable contemporary handbag designer in the curator Valerie Steele (of the Fashion Institute)'s 1999 bag book. Other fashion-focused books do also name check him, although individually they are pretty easy to dismiss as not "serious books", it still adds up over the last couple of decades. One of the more interesting hits was for this book on Filipino icons which seems to have something talking about how Totengco was responsible for introducing an "iconic" Filipino shoe called the bakya to the Western fashion scene, but the preview isn't showing me any of it. A Google Newspaper search shows a number of articles mentioning and discussing him in Filipino papers, although I suspect most of them are not considered RS (e.g. Philippine Daily Inquirer). The Manila Standard has a few pages dedicated to him but nothing hugely substantial, mainly quotes and a recap of what he had achieved by 2003, and some nice commentary on how he was able to pursue the American Dream before even going there became less accessible to Filipinos see here. I would like to know if there are Filipino-language articles on him as well. It isn't much, but I think there's *just* enough to scrape him through to qualify for a stub article. Mabalu (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Nothing but a few captions for his bags on NewspaperArchive. I am actually leaning towards a "delete but no prejudice against recreation" because as I said, it feels like he may just scrape through, but it's extremely borderline. Mabalu (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 07:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Joel[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Never been sourced. On the cat:nn list since 2010. scope_creep^Talk 17:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Georgia (U.S. state). Shellwood (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, absent a remarkable discovery of sources. BD2412 T 06:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was able to find some coverage of him in The Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide 1 and The Advocate 2 for his leading roles in A Very Natural Thing and Up!. There were also lots of mentions of him being involved in various theatre productions. I feel he might be a borderline case in both NACTOR and the GNG. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 17:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and I'll try to make that stronger. I have added 3 references and tidied up the article. Also, I'm finding more sources using Robert McLane or Robert Joel McLane than I am with just Robert Joel. Lamona (talk) 23:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this is kept then I think it should be given the title "Robert Joel McLane" because as far as I can see he only used "Robert Joel" in one film. Lamona (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some coverage a play he did as playwright got in the LA Times and San Bernardino County Sun. 3, 4. Several of his other plays were reviewed in the LA Times or LA Weekly and as the San Bernardino County Sun article noted, he was involved in early projects in the LA area for AIDS, now called APLA Health and was mentioned in LA Times and Associated Press articles from the mid 80s. I think with this added to the other sources linked above gets him over the GNG in non-trival coverage. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I added those and their info into the article. I also found a brief quote from a Robert McLane in an article about AIDS and the movie industry in which he is said to be a "counselor with the AIDS project". I'm now thinking that is him, given that the LA Times article also lists him in this role. I will add that link back into the article (I had put it in but then had doubts.) Lamona (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above and I reviewed all the sources. Spkabil (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:GNG and the sources identified above. The intro talks about the lack of references, however, per WP:NEXIST: Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. The bold is in the source, so we will not disregard. gidonb (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per the above sources, subject passes WP:GNG Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 13:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above the topic satisfy WP:GNG. JoyStick101 (talk) 06:08, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Natuk Vivekananda Bidyamandir[edit]

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

WP:MILL institution. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. The WP:NSCHOOL criteria have been made much stricter since the previous deletion discussion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find jack about this except for a couple of name drops in a few books about other things. There's nothing from what I can tell that discusses it in detail though. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Survived previous AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage to be found. Secondary schools are no longer presumed notable, so the previous keep no longer applies. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Reform Party of New Jersey Convention[edit]

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

Article has no citations to independent sources and no media coverage. This non-notable state party convention for a non-notable state party has no case for an article. Toa Nidhiki05 17:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Toa Nidhiki05 17:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and New Jersey. Shellwood (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete State-level party conventions are pretty much never notable – definitely not one of a chapter that's not notable itself! Reywas92^Talk 18:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero notability of this convention of a non-notable party. AusLondonder (talk) 12:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ~~Reform Party of New Jersey~~ New Jersey Reform Party. Djflem (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above reasons. Stifle (talk) 11:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Méndez Villalobos[edit]

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

unable to find any significant coverage independent of the subject of this unsourced WP:BLP. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR J04n(talk page) 17:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 17:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 17:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 17:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 17:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 17:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 17:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article substantially same as when it was written in 2007 by CarlosMG who may be associated with the subject. Searched by name and also searched the various publications and unattested awards, and found nothing of note. This appears to be a vanity page. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Inadequate sourcing to meet notability for WP: GNG. Concerned with connection to previous author. That concern aside, article fails to establish independent and credible sources. NiklausGerard (talk) 04:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. While there are COI issues, the consensus here is sourcing exists to build an article.SPI closed cautioning too close a read into the creator's possible sockpuppet status, so that is not factored in. Attention from uninvolved editors to incorporate these sources would be helpful in terms of creating a bettter article. Star Mississippi 00:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ranjish He Sahi[edit]

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

WP:PROMO. Possible WP:UPE/WP:COI. Created in support of an ongoing AfD of the director's page. - Hatchens (talk) 09:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 09:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 09:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hatchens, what kind of WP:PROMO? If subject is notable and i created the article then what’s is WP:PROMO in this? Please If a person has created something by working hard, then do not destroy it. I created all articles with my own wish. I do not take anything from anyone. If my subject is not notable the you can nominate to afd but please don’t do this without any reason. - IndaneLove (talk) 09:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An article should speak for itself, and this article does not explain why the web series is notable. It lacks Reception information or any other mention of what third parties have said.
- "I worked hard on it" is an Argument to Avoid in deletion discussions.
- Not being notable is a reason in itself to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article may not be complete but it is referenced to six full reviews including reliable sources such as The Hindu, New Indian Express and Rolling Stone. Therefore a reception section could easily be written so this a clear pass of WP:GNG in my view, however if sockpuppetry is confirmed in the ongoing case then the article will be G5 deleted. Atlantic306 (talk) 00:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this does seem to, as noted, have plenty of reliable sources. matt91486 (talk) 04:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is well sourced, the article needs work, not deletion. CT55555 (talk) 13:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Gopalganj Sadar Upazila. (non-admin closure) DMySon (talk) 06:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

S. M. Model Government High School[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and WP:N. See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 06:29, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 06:29, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 06:29, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gopalganj Sadar Upazila, the enclosing geographic area, where the school is listed. Searches of the usual types, in English and Bengali, found no independent, reliable sources containing significant coverage of the school, so it should not continue as a stand alone article. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gopalganj Sadar Upazila. A school is not inherently notable simply because it exists, and my searches were similarly unable to find the significant coverage in reliable sources that the GNG requires. I agree with Worldbruce that a redirect to the locality's article is a reasonable (and cheap) alternative to deletion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of smallest stars#SSSPM J0829-1309. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 10:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SSSPM J0829-1309[edit]

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

Previously rejected as a draft, but somebody just created it in article space. Fails WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG. Most of the sources are catalogs or even unreliable; and the few that mention this are either trivial mentions (like the Dieterich et al. paper) or the discovery paper (which, per NASTRO, is not independent). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, the article in it's current state is a word-for-word and unattributed copyvio of the draft. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: it's not completely non-notable, being a nearby bright L dwarf that gets mentioned in several studies. But there's not enough published yet to deserve a stand-alone article. I suggest adding it to List of brown dwarfs#Field brown dwarfs and redirecting there. Praemonitus (talk) 14:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One of the studies (which was one of the two reliable references, although it only covered SSSPM J0829-1309 in one paragraph and the results) indicated that SSSPM J0829-1309 was fusing hydrogen and was a star. Some references (mainly older ones) say it is a brown dwarf, others say it is a star. Since we have no proof, it should not be redirected to something on brown dwarfs but something on red dwarfs, stars or just L-type stars/brown dwarfs. That is why a redirect to List of smallest stars (where it is already mentioned as a red dwarf, just without information) would be better than a redirect to List of brown dwarfs#Field brown dwarfs. If redirected, we will add information to the notes section to fix the information gap. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 15:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not particular; it could be added to both articles. Praemonitus (talk) 03:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: As the person who created the now-rejected draft (which has now been turned into a redirect), I would say that it should be redirected to List of smallest stars because that it one of the primary places that mention it. The notes section for SSSPM J0829-1309 is empty, and we can take some information from here (and maybe a reference) to there to fill in the information gap. I agree that it is currently non-notable (see Talk:SSSPM J0829-1309#Notability) until more about it is published or something notable happens to it (like the discovery of a potentially habitable exoplanet). InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of smallest stars, per InterstellarGamer12321's comments. Makes the most sense based on the context. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:40, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If SSSPM J0829-1309 is turned into a redirect, will the page history be saved? InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you can usually go back and view the history. Praemonitus (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: When I went onto the SIMBAD page, it said there were 43 references, many of which were scientific papers. Do any of them establish notability, or are they irrelevant or lack coverage? InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I have been able to determine, most are brief mentions by way of comparison to other objects. The only substantive study was the original discovery paper. Praemonitus (talk) 14:07, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Searching Google Scholar gives 19 results, a few of which might give SSSPM J0829-1309 notability. Bli231957 (talk) 19:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Some of the results when searching Google Scholar gave results that give SSSPM J0829-1309 notability.Bli231957 (talk) 12:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones? Please pick WP:THREE of those which you think do meet the standards of WP:SIGCOV. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The citations are: Z. H. Zhang 张曾华, D. Homeier, D. J. Pinfield, N. Lodieu, H. R. A. Jones, F. Allard, Ya. V. Pavlenko, Primeval very low-mass stars and brown dwarfs – II. The most metal-poor substellar object, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 468, Issue 1, June 2017, Pages 261–271, https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stx350

Spectroscopic classification of red high proper motion objects in the Southern Sky, N. Lodieu, R.-D., Scholz, M. J. McCaughrean, R. Ibata, M. Irwin and H. Zinnecker, A&A, 440 3 (2005) 1061-1078, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:20042456

R.-D. Scholz, H. Meusinger, SSSPM J0829–1309: a new nearby L dwarf detected in SuperCOSMOS Sky Surveys, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 336, Issue 3, November 2002, Pages L49–L52, https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05998.x Bli231957 (talk) 09:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The last one is a repeat of Source Number 2 (reliable but not independent). However, the other ones might establish some notability. What facts do they give that show notability and adhere to WP:SIGCOV? InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 11:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If these do not establish notability, then check the ones that SIMBAD cites. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 11:44, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The other sources on SIMBAD are mostly all-encompassing surveys like Gaia or 2MASS. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:19, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first is plainly a trivial mention, with the whole of the coverage on the star being (in an explanation of a graph), Two five-pointed stars filled with red are the L1 SSSPM J0829−1309 and the L2.5 2MASS J0523–1403, which are likely least massive stars in the local field (Dieterich et al. 2014).

The second one is also similarly not-very-much-to-be-said, with the whole of the coverage being The nearest L dwarf in our sample (SSSPM J0829−1309; L2.0) has a spectroscopic distance of ∼ 12 pc and we confirm the spectral type obtained from a lower signal-to-noise spectrum in the discovery paper by Scholz & Meusinger (2002) and This was successfully demonstrated by the discovery of the first field L dwarf, Kelu 1 (Ruiz et al. 1997), other bright L dwarfs including SSSPM J0829-1309 (Scholz & Meusinger 2002) and LSR 0602+3910 (Salim et al. 2003), and the very nearby T dwarfs ε Indi Ba,Bb (Scholz et al. 2003). These are, at best, trivial-ish mentions. This might be enough to support mention in an existing article about very-low-mass stars or brown dwarfs, but not nearly enough for a standalone article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:13, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, since nothing establishes significant notability, I think we should redirect to List of smallest stars (which is an article on small and low-mass stars as well as some brown dwarfs) as said in my earlier comments. If something happens to make SSSPM J0829-1309 notable, we could always make it into a full article again. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consulate General of Afghanistan, Jeddah[edit]

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

Cannot be presumed independently notable as the political affairs of the Afghan government in KSA are (or were, depending on your interpretation, which doesn't really matter for this) conducted through the embassy in Riyadh. No sources cited to establish notability that way. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 08:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 08:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 08:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 08:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 08:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG. Embassies are not inherently notable, consulates even less so. This article just confirms it exists. LibStar (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I came here to review the sources...and it doesn't have any. So that's a delete or a speedy delete, I think, plus the point about no inherent notability. CT55555 (talk) 13:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. Mccapra (talk) 20:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DMySon (talk) 06:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

C31 road (Namibia)[edit]

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

A road with only a map reference does not met the notability standard. DGG ( talk ) 09:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages :[reply]

Keep The general precedent is that roads at the national level are notable. I am also hesitant to delete an article on these grounds since "only a map reference" could mean "we just haven't been able to find newspaper sources for an underrepresented area like Namibia yet so there must be none". --Rs chen 7754 18:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a road is a road us a road — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottWillis45 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—per WP:ROADOUTCOMES. Imzadi 1979 → 07:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:ROADOUTCOMES Hey man im josh (talk) 19:12, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Valentina Azarova (academic)[edit]

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

Notability? WP:ACADEMIC?--Владимир Бежкрабчжян (talk) 10:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG. Lots of coverage including that cited in the article. (t · c) buidhe 10:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

in the article NO.--Владимир Бежкрабчжян (talk) 15:35, 4 April 2022 (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/2022 April 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep She is notable, as any WP:BEFORE type search makes clear. CT55555 (talk) 13:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. While the subject is mainly notable for a single event (the rescinding of the job offer at U Toronto), the coverage was substantial and over the period of at least a year or so. I think it's enough to meet the significant coverage standard of WP:BLP1E. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Tower of London. Very selectively, per nom. Sandstein 18:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tower of London in popular culture[edit]

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

Continung the series of articles that violate WP:IPC, WP:GNG, WP:NLIST, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:TRIVIA, this time we have the Tower of London. The important difference this time is the reasonably well referenced opening prose paragraph is, for some reason, not present in the main ToL article and needs to be merged into it (which I'll be happy to do once this is closed, upon a ping by the closer, if such a merge hasn't been done yet), but the rest of the article, consisting of mostly unreferenced TVTrope'ic list of trivia, needs to go as usual. Let's spend a minute of silence considering the quality information that will be pruned, like "In the game Simcity Societies, one of the prison-like buildings, dungeon, looks-like the Tower of London." or "In the novel Stars and Stripes Triumphant, the Tower of London is partially destroyed by invading American ironclads." ... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - the sourced prose bits to the main Tower of London article. I'm not sure if that information, on the long-held misbelief that Julius Caesar was involved in the Tower's construction, would really go into a "popular culture" section, but it should be mentioned somewhere in the main article. The rest of the non-notable, poorly source trivia should not be merged, however. Rorshacma (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Spiderone above. Merger should be selective and not include non-notable trivia. --Whiteguru (talk) 21:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per others, selectively while removing cruft. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per nom. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Not much to see here. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 05:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Trim, but Keep ~~or Merge~~. I'm strongly against this recent campaign to eradicate all such articles. Please, if you see another nom like this let me know. It's an underhand trick to go round picking off pages that have been created following WP:SUMMARY. Piotrus, do you really have nothing more useful to do? As it stands, it's not a great page but fine to keep (and is likely to return at some point, as these things do). Johnbod (talk) 19:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod: Do you have nothing better to do than attacking other editors (in this case one who has been here for 18 years and created thousands of articles) because they disagree with you about the kind of content we should have on an encyclopedia? AusLondonder (talk) 12:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And also done a lot of useful work on Wikipedia-related research. This was exactly my point, and that wasn't an attack. Johnbod (talk) 13:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Tower of London: Again, this list provides no real support for the information provided within. Most of it is completely unsalvageable due to the amount of trivia that it contains. However, the first paragraph is worthy of a merge into the main article on the topic. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Remove trivia and merge anything useful remaining back into main article. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? I haven't looked, but TOL may be a high-quality article, where a deliberate decision has been made to follow WP:SUMMARY and WP:SPLIT and float off the pop culture section, as is very often done. Then after some long interval someone takes it into their head to have a purge of pop culture articles, & a bunch of drive-by AFD types who have barely looked at TOL vote to force it back into the article. Johnbod (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tower of London is a featured article, and already at the upper end of what would be appropriate in terms of length. A separate child article is appropriate per WP:SPLIT. Poorly-sourced cruft can be removed; other than that, there don't seem to be any substantive arguments supporting a merge. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, thanks. And did the nominator feel it worth informing TOL talk of his proposal to dump this stuff into a featured article he has previously had nothing to do with? No, he did not. Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  If the FA mainterners deem the content subpar, they can delete it. Which will also further show that this content is not suitable for encyclopedia. Splitting of non-encyclopedic, low quality content into a stand-alone article does not magically improve quality. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:20, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Saying this content doesn't belong in the main article, which is already quite long, is not the same thing as saying it doesn't belong anywhere. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is, considering WP:INDISCRIMINATE. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:31, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    INDISCRIMINATE doesn't disallow child articles, which by their nature will include more detail about a particular subtopic than the main article. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:32, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not about child articles, you seem to be making an argument saying that if we have garbage content and then it's split off, it becomes immune to any deletion. There is no such policy. INDISCRIMINATE says we should not have such content, either as sections or as stand-alone articles. Decade ago we were much more open to trivia, but these days we are trying to be, you know, more professional? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Agree with the nominator, not enough. ContentEditman (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and selective merge Some decent prose here that is frankly missing from the main Tower of London article should be moved there. Other rubbish such as "The Tower of London was featured on 1000 Ways to Die" (a six-season, 74 episode American television program about "unusual deaths and urban legends") can be safely deleted. I encourage editors to watch the Tower page if they are concerned about inappropriate addition of content. Lazy spin-offs is not the answer. AusLondonder (talk) 13:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes it is. Johnbod (talk) 13:51, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you have a fundamentally different understanding of what Wikipedia is to my understanding then. AusLondonder (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per Blenheim, see below. KJP1 (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The last two "keep" opinions make no sense, but we don't have consensus for deletion either. Sandstein 18:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lynette Scavo[edit]

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

Plot-only article, which violates the WP:NOTPLOT policy. BlackShadowG (talk) 04:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. BlackShadowG (talk) 04:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and trim appropriately. The first four Google Scholar links all appear to be substantively about this character. One is paywalled, one is dead, but each appears from title/abstract to be on topic. That is, this article is banal, but the topic is notable. Regardless, if not kept this should be redirected to the series in which this fictional character appears. Jclemens (talk) 04:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Desperate Housewives. Trimming would only make the article a shorter plot-only article, which wouldn't fix the issue. ShuffleboardJerk (talk) 10:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added some info on her casting and reception, although I could have added more to the casting section admittedly. I can do that if the article is kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:46B0:3840:8479:7CA1:8515:5879 (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 10:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The character is notable and there are many credible sources pertaining to them. While it is true that the article needs work, the plot section can be trimmed and more substantive information can be added. Underclass King (talk) 23:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further policy based comments would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 08:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KeepRose&Bernard (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actual silver weight[edit]

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

This page should be deleted per WP:NOTHOWTO. NotReallySoroka (talk) 07:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. NotReallySoroka (talk) 07:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Partial merge to Intrinsic value (numismatics) - this is a method for determining same. If the how-to content is reduced by dropping the worked example, the rest is suitable for expaning that stub. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Elmidae, I have nominated Intrinsic value (numismatics) for deletion, which I would have done in any case. NotReallySoroka (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Wikipedia is not a how-to. Stifle (talk) 11:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTDICT. Would be open to a redirect if a good target can be found. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Hijacking the article is not sensible. Anyone is free to create a disambiguation page using this title. ✗plicit 07:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kakeru[edit]

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

Unreferenced article and no evidence of notability. - Xexerss (talk) 06:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Japan - Xexerss (talk) 06:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 10:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Speedy Delete due to no citations. CT55555 (talk) 13:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced manga. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I also agree to turn the article into disambiguation, per Link20XX. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 16:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate; I agree that the manga fails GNG/NBOOK. However, this appears to be a fairly common Japanese given name as there are many notable individuals with the name (Kakeru Kobashiri, Kakeru Higuchi, Kakeru Kumagawa, Kakeru Ayabe, Kakeru Funaki, Kakeru Yamanobe, Kakeru Tanigawa, Kakeru Suminaga, Kakeru Narita, Kakeru Sekiguchi are some I found). Thus, a given name Disambiguation page seems to be in order. Link20XX (talk) 15:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetwater Baptist Church[edit]

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

WP:RUNOFTHEMILL, fails GNG Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and South Carolina. Shellwood (talk) 12:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for very run of the mill coverage. The building isn't listed on the NRHP so it's not notable. The congregation simply exists and seems no more important than the other hundreds of churches. Oaktree b (talk) 14:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus, and no one !voting for delete with a niche topic unlikely to draw more input. Where to and whether this should be merged can be handled editorially. Star Mississippi 00:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hippogonal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Hippogonal

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

This article is very short and has no reasonable chance at ever being expanded. Almost all information covered within this article is already covered at Fairy chess piece#Leapers, and that which is not can simply be moved to said section. The article cites only one source that specifically covers the topic. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 03:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fairy chess piece#Leapers per nom, which does seem to be a reasonable place to cover this. Jclemens (talk) 06:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, what it does not cite is the coiner of the term, who has a bit more to say on the subject. But what xe has to say is best said in the things about the subjects that xe discusses, since this is not a noun. Parlett notes that Claude de Bossière's 1556 rules for Rythmomachia allow every piece except a pyramid one hippogonal move, for example. It's obvious which article that properly belongs in. Uncle G (talk) 07:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Parlett, David (1999). The Oxford History of Board Games. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780192129987.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am not an expert at all, but according to Piececlopedia the term refers to the orthogonal movement, as there are hippogonal leapers and hippogonal riders. I also think that the article could be expanded with other games pieces and with tactical possibilities of this kind of movement. Alexcalamaro (talk) 13:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- If even that WWW site doesn't give this its own article, which as you have just pointed to it does not, why? And expanded based upon what sources? Parlett has things to say, but they are relevant to the things that xe has to say them about, which have other articles. Uncle G (talk) 07:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Macpup[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG - lacks independent, significant coverage in reliable sources. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 01:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 01:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 01:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 01:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for no evidence of notability. I was thrown for a second when the article said it "came with Firefox," because I read that as FIREFOX including this distro. That would imply a LOT of notability. But no, it was the other way around - the distro included Firefox. I've edited the article to remove the ambiguity. PianoDan (talk) 18:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bennett Vickery[edit]

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

impressive, albeit non-notable kid, no in depth coverage, just minor local awards and nothing beyond that. CUPIDICAE💕 00:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Internet, and California. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:N. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has won local, non-notable awards. Oaktree b (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inadequate sourcing to meet notability for WP: GNG. Coverage is general. NiklausGerard (talk) 04:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of mayors of Springfield, Missouri#List of Mayors. ✗plicit 02:37, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ken McClure (Politician)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL on merit, and fails WP:GNG as well, as no non-local sources that provide WP:SIGCOV seem to exist. Curbon7 (talk) 00:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 00:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 00:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack the depth of sources needed to justify an article on a mayor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Municipal/regional politician fails WP:NPOL. KidAd • SPEAK 21:28, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Lack of sources, fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 22:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of mayors of Springfield, Missouri#List of Mayors. Lacks independent notabilty, per WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.Sal2100 (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this. To be fair, Springfield MO is a large and significant enough city that its mayors would likely be allowed to keep substantive articles, but mayors are not handed an automatic notability freebie just because they exist — the notability test for a mayor is not passed by writing a bit of pre-political career background and then providing cursory verification that he's the mayor, it is passed by writing and sourcing substantive content about his political impact (specific things he did, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects he had on the development of the city, and on and so forth.) But that's not what's here: this isn't a properly written article that demonstrates his notability as a mayor, it's just a résumé. Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of mayors of Springfield, Missouri#List of Mayors. The list of mayors of Springfield exists and is a valid redirect target. --Enos733 (talk) 22:44, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a local politician, I'm just not seeing any regional coverage, but I would be surprised, given the significance of the city if we don't see it in the future. Redirect to List of mayors of Springfield, Missouri#List of Mayors for now. There will probably be enough for WP:GNG in the future. Jacona (talk) 12:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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