< June 11	June 13 >

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!} 05:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subsonic Factor[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Musical act with no reliable sources to indicate WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - See also the related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chosen Effect (2nd nomination), where there is suspicion of a possible conflict of interest. As for Subsonic Factor, there is evidence that they released records, but the article is dependent on puffery like "original founders", "biggest hit", and "thrust into the music scene". They can be seen in basic social media and genre directory sites but I can find nothing substantial per the requirements at WP:SIGCOV. The same appears to be true of Japanese sources as well. As a pre-Internet act it is possible that they were covered in old hardcopy magazines, and if anyone finds something useful I may reconsider. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers.com produces no results other than this false positive. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Improve upon article.... When discussing an article, remember to consider alternatives to deletion. LiterateFactChecker (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None are relevant here. There are no sources out there to use to improve this article. There's no place to merge it either. Deletion is the answer here. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LiterateFactChecker when discussing an article, remember to consider arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Just pointing at a policy or guideline such as ATD does not demonstrate anything. I would like to know which alternative you propose. I argue none of these are appropriate, there is no target for a merge, redirecting to Sony music makes no sense given the lack of notability or verfiability within the article, incubating is pointless given there is no sourcing available to make the article overcome its lack of notability with zero indication such could occur within the near future, and no other ATD appears nearly relevant. @Muboshgu is hence correct - the alternatives are not valid options and so deletion is the answer. MaxnaCarta (talk) 04:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citation added LiterateFactChecker (talk) 23:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This discussion is at risk of turning into a repeat of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chosen Effect (2nd nomination), with the same user having trouble accepting community consensus. Some articles simply cannot be improved, and adding yet another unreliable social media source makes no difference. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on notability grounds as MusicLife, Unusualyxx, Mixi and VK are not reliable given they are WP:USERGENERATED. I can locate no other sources to indicate notability. This subject does not even come close to meeting any other criteria per WP:MUSIC. MaxnaCarta (talk) 04:09, 13 June 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 NESN#Former. ✗plicit 12:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SportsDesk[edit]

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

Unsourced, minimal sourcing found. As a one-market show it's unlikely to have garnered media attention Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to NESN#Former as a definite WP:ATD. Nate • (chatter) 01:01, 13 June 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 01:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moguls (TV series)[edit]

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

No sourcing found, prod contested Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:59, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a search for any sources turns up nothing relevant, apart from IMBD (not reliable), therefore not notable per WP:GNG. HenryTemplo (talk) 15:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Ski Channel was a long-term 'coming soon' entry in the '20xx in American television' series of articles...but it was never more than a specialist VOD service which has long went defunct. Thus, this is a television series that never actually aired, much less scheduled, on an actual cable network. Nate • (chatter) 01:04, 13 June 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Renner[edit]

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

other than sexual harassment accusation, not notable. WP:BLP1E applies. Not enough to be in Wikipedia. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Germany. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't know. I can say that it needs re-writing. Is this a big scandal in the papers or media? Bearian (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Chief of police of an entire German state (note to Americans: in Germany the state police is the only police force in the state) is clearly notable. Not just BLP1E. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:16, 8 June 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, 12 June 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

W. N. Chattin Carlton[edit]

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

Extent of notability unclear Mooonswimmer 22:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, and Connecticut. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Museums and libraries, and Illinois. Curbon7 (talk) 23:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing to justify an article is not there, and his career does not meet any of the prongs of notability for academics. Heads of libraries can be notable for such, or for their work as a librarian, or as a scholar more generally, but to show that we would need better sources than we have here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant list of publications, notability is clearly established. Gamaliel (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll play devil's advocate. Which of these are significant and how?
The following are reprintings of speeches or very short works, including catalogs of collections.
- The Arrangement and Use of Documents (without Cataloguing) in a Depository Library. Hartford, Connecticut, 1909.: 32 leaves. Short. Revision of a paper read. Not significant.
- The Catalogue of the E.D. Church Collection. Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America, 1912.: 5 pages. Even shorter. A cataloging of a collection is not significant; this probably doesn't even belong in a Wikipedia article, even if it was published.
- Henry Edwards Huntington, 1850-1927: An Appreciation. New York: American Collector, 1927: 20 pages. Short.
- Notes on the Bridgewater House Library. New York: Priv. Print., 1918.: 20 pages. You can read them here. Short.
- Superstructures. New York Public Library, 1918.: 13 pages. Short. "An address delivered at the commencement exercises of the Library school, the New York public library, June 7, 1918... Reprinted ... from the Bulletin of the New York public library of June 1918." Not significant.
- The Kilmarnock Burns, 1786. New York: G.D. Smith Book Co., 1927.: 7 pages with illustrations. Short.
2 books:
- Charles Jeremy Hoadly, LL.D.: A Memoir. Hartford, Connecticut: Acorn Club, 1902.: 54 pages: Short. More significant for the subject than for the author, but sure, it's a book.
- Pauline: Favourite Sister of Napoleon. New York & London, 1930.: WorldCat has little on this one. It may be 300+ pages, according to Google. Not sure of its significance or the significance of the other book--reviews, etc.
So why do you say "significant list of publications, notability is clearly established"? I'm about to vote delete but I'll change my vote if you can shed enough light. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet GNG or author notability. Carlton's era was a good time for WASP males in academia, history, genealogy, and librarianship. They did research, they wrote books, they gave presentations, and they had their speeches, their cataloging, and sometimes the occasional books published somewhere and some of those documents are cataloged in archives. Some of those documents are now in the public domain and have been digitized and are held by multiple institutions now. But just because they were part of social or even scholarly clubs doesn't make them notable (note the article history: it was created by someone creating articles for multiple members of a club). This article has nothing that indicates notability and I am not finding an obituary on newspapers.com. I would expect to find such for a director of Newberry Library, so I'm afraid it's delete unless someone can show me something. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the article creator added 2 obit listings in the references section and some information apparently from those obits. I tracked down the obituaries on newspapers.com and linked them in the article. (Issues with initials and multiple names going on in my first search.) I have removed a deadlink, cited these obituaries properly, fixed up the order, and clarified that most of his works were papers adapted from presentations he gave or bibliographies he created. These do not help his notability. If someone finds out that what appears to be his sole full-length book, on Napoleon's sister, got some press back in the day, please add some reviews to the article. With a whopping 3 holdings in WorldCat, I'm not optimistic it made too big of waves, but who knows? DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious -- His achievements are largely in atchival cataloguing. I do not think this is enough to constitute notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, coverage seems dubious and sparse at best. Should be recreated in draft first if someone things they can improve. On current basis, delete. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:50, 19 June 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 23:45, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meesons[edit]

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

Chain seems to have existed, notability isn't apparent. Mooonswimmer 22:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 07:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A chain that had disappeared by the 1970s is unlikely to have many online sources! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is entirely unsourced and the only source includes a small reference commenting on a photo of Meesons sweet shop where you could buy a quarter of sweets and get another quarter free. Also, our policy WP:V states that information should be verifiable. Necrothesp validly points out that online sources won't be readily available for a chain that disappeared in the 1970s but online searches of newspaper archives and books doesn't turn up any information or mention. On that basis it is difficult to argue for notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although I found a brief mention in the Glasgow Herald, print sources are the best case for this. There's precious little coverage available. In its current state, it appears to be a collection of knowledge from someone's memory thus failing WP:V. Can always be reworked on if archives are found. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:54, 19 June 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!} 03:38, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reidar Lunde[edit]

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

Couldn't come up with significant ample coverage, not sure if notable. Lunde was chief editor of Aftenposten, Norway's most circulated newspaper. Would this fall under WP:JOURNALIST's "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" ? Mooonswimmer 22:30, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cited in the Journal of Polar Studies, "Reidar Lunde was one of the most distinguished members of the Norwegian press , and one of its most distinctive personalities" [1] and he wrote a book, most sources are in Norwegian, but his name pops up in English every few hits. Oaktree b (talk) 01:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Norway. Shellwood (talk) 07:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, editor of Norway's largest newspaper at the time, sourced to a now-online paper encylopedia. Geschichte (talk) 10:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - easily notable. Passes WP:GNG. 2404:4402:17E5:9C00:E5D8:6E92:7F60:E144 (talk) 01:36, 14 June 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 Ottoman Turkish alphabet. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tirfil[edit]

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

Subject matter doesn't seem to warrant a standalone page. Once translated, a sentence or two can be incorporated into Ottoman Turkish alphabet or similar articles. Mooonswimmer 22:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 07:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ottoman Turkish alphabet. Doesn't seem like there's a better target, but this is basically a foreign-language DICDEF and doesn't merit a standalone page. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:20, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ottoman Turkish alphabet - not enough information for standalone article ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:56, 19 June 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. Could these additional sources be added to the article? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pytkeev space[edit]

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

"Pytkeev space" is defined in a single 2000 paper, in terms so specialized we have no articles for them. The term is not in general use and easily confused with the "strong Pytkeev property". Links to weakly Fréchet–Urysohn space, an ad-hoc definition in the same paper.

Simply not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. IpseCustos (talk) 21:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia has never published original research, such as this. Bearian (talk) 17:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. MathSciNet has three hits for "Pytkeev space", none of which are the Malykhin&Tironi paper used as this article's reference:
- Fedeli, Alessandro; Le Donne, Attilio (2002), "Pytkeev spaces and sequential extensions", Topology and its Applications, 117 (3): 345–348, doi:10.1016/S0166-8641(01)00026-8, MR 1874095 (definitely relevant: a response to Malykhin&Tironi solving an open problem from their paper)
- Sakai, Masami (April 2003), "The Pytkeev property and the Reznichenko property in function spaces", Note di Matematica, 22 (2): 43–52, MR 2112730 (didn't come with a full-text link so I can't tell if it's the same concept, but the MR review says "An example: if X is a subset of the real line, Cp(X) is a Pytkeev space implies that X is perfectly meagre and has universal measure zero."
- Pansera, Bruno A. (2008), "Relative properties and function spaces", Far East Journal of Mathematical Sciences (FJMS), 30 (2): 359–372, MR 2477776 (again, didn't come with a full-text link so I can't tell if the MR review's mention of Pytkeev spaces is the same concept)

There are also additional hits for "Pytkeev spaces", including the Malykhin&Tironi reference. I conclude that, with the Fedeli&Le Donne paper at least, we have multiple research groups using this term non-trivially, enough for a borderline pass of WP:GNG. Although I doubt many readers will find this article useful, it seems mostly harmless. And reporting on research concepts described in academic journal articles, as here, is the opposite of original research. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:34, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Having consulted the full text of the sources that David Eppstein found, I can confirm that they are indeed about the same concept. In my opinion, this suffices for GNG. Felix QW (talk) 12:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein. That the topic is named by the same term as the title of the article assuages fears of introducing a neologism and should have been visible in a BEFORE check. — Charles Stewart (talk) 00:54, 14 June 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hasan Masurica[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hasan Masurica for a thorough explanation of the problems with this article. Much of this information is fantastical. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Albania. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We voted delete last time, why is it back again? Same as last time. Oaktree b (talk) 23:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hesitated on a WP:G4 because of the length of time between the prior article and this one. A judgment call I made. See Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_44#Is_CSD_G4_applicable_or_inapplicable_to_a_previously_kept_page_whose_most_recent_discussion_ended_in_deletion? for an exceptionally long back and forth discussion on G4 applicability, if you are so inclined and have some idle moments to spare. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I might take a look. Oaktree b (talk) 23:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note Just found this article is listed on Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia, particularly in reference to the airplane claim (that has been edited out of this incarnation of the article). — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:49, 17 June 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 03:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First Party[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. Kadı Message 18:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Asia, Europe, and Turkey. Kadı Message 18:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 12 June 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 Cartoonito (American programming block). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tickle-U[edit]

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

Non-notable programming block, no sourcing found. Deprodded for literally no reason. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cartoonito (American programming block) - Tickle-U ties in more as predecessor to Cartoonito. kpgamingz (rant me) 14:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking something similar as well. We could either merge with Cartoonito (whole brand) or Cartoonito USA. MegaSmike46 (talk) 18:00, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Cartoonito per above; unlike Sunday Pants, this was scheduled long-term at the very least. Nate • (chatter) 01:07, 13 June 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!} 23:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ajaita Shah[edit]

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

Poorly sourced, fails NBIO and GNG as the sources are all churnalistic entrepreneur profiles. Created by a blocked user. M4DU7 (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and India. M4DU7 (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no reliable secondary sources here. Fails WP:GNG. PaulPachad (talk) 01:29, 17 June 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. The case was not made that a redirect is within policy or desirable due to how common the phrase is. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Best Sex Ever[edit]

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

No sourcing found in a WP:BEFORE. Found only false positives using the phrase "best sex ever" unrelated contexts. Deprodded for no reason. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I checked and the editor who removed the PROD did so with the summary "Removed Proposed deletion/dated tag: "unlikely to have sources" not quite good enough for PROD, let's check". So, your assertion that it was "Deprodded for no reason." is yet another made up rationale in one of your AfD nominations. DonaldD23 talk to me 18:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Aside from routine entries in IMDb and the like, searches yield only incidental mentions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Cinemax original programming#Max After Dark as WP:CHEAP. Getting real tired of WP:ATDs never being considered for obvious gimmes like this show. Nate • (chatter) 22:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nate, A significant portion of our WP:PRODs are of this nature. You can help by joining WP:PRODPATROL. ~Kvng (talk) 13:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "the best sex ever" is a common cliché. It is too generic as a useful search term for a certain company's content. • Gene93k (talk) 12:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to subject's distinct lack of verifiable independent notability per WP:NTV, which is essentially WP:GNG. Material that is poorly sourced, or not sourced at all, does not get dumped elsewhere in Wikipedia; it is deleted. -The Gnome (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nobody is going to be looking for this article with a search title like that. (As for what they are looking for, answers on a postcard....) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Cinemax original programming#Max After Dark per Nate. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:26, 20 June 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 Plebiscito.eu. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Veneto Yes[edit]

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

A party that took part in an unofficial local election and of which it is almost impossible to find sources. It does not seems to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Having a separate article on this minor party is clearly better, as Wikipedia's greatness is made especially by small entries like this. However, I could also accept a merger with Plebiscito.eu. Veneto Yes was the partisan arm of the former. However, every little piece of political history deserves a space in Wikipedia and, indeed, also established and traditional encyclopedias also have small entries. The passing of time makes difficult to find more sources and information in the web, but we should avoid recentism and give space also to former minor political parties. --Checco (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- "Every little piece of political history", but certain parties are not in the least part of political history. In any case, a merger with Plebiscito.eu could be a compromise solution.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Plebiscito.eu as suggested by Checco. Yakme (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Plebiscito.eu P1221 (talk) 11:14, 16 June 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:30, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Systemic wars theory[edit]

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

Reviewed under new page patrol. No evidence of WP:notability. This is one person's theory. It appears that there is no in depth coverage of the theory except by the one person who created the theory, Ingo Piepers. It appears that 2-3 references criticized it. At least 5 (and probably more) of of the given references were written by Piepers. North8000 (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:11, 12 June 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 Italian Liberal Party (1997). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Liberals for Italy[edit]

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

"Liberals for Italy" was nothing more than a label for a parliamentary subgroup affiliated with the Italian Liberal Party (1997) and subsequently for a list (directly connected to the Italian Liberal Party) that participated in the Italian general election of 2013 (scoring 0.08% of the vote). In practice, the little information contained in this page could easily be merged with Italian Liberal Party (1997), but I don't see any reason to keep an autonomous page for this label. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 21:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Why should we delete an article on a five to ten-deputy strong parliamentary group, or better sub-group within the Mixed Group of the Chamber of Deputies of Italy? Not only, the group was joined by several leading politicians, but also it lasted for two years, was instrumental in the demise of Silvio Berlusconi's fourth government. Why should we lose these infos? Every little piece of political history deserves a space in Wikipedia and, even though also established and traditional encyclopedias also have small entries, the greatness of Wikipedia is precisely having articles for little-known subjects. The passing of time makes difficult to find more sources and information in the web, but we should avoid recentism and give space also to former minor political parties. --Checco (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You did well to specify, because was not a parliamentary group (in this case it would have been encyclopedic) but a sub-group of the Mixed Group of the Chamber of Deputies. The page does not show any information of particular importance and the fall of the Berlusconi government was caused by many factors. The very little information contained on this page could easily be transferred to the page of the Italian Liberal Party, to which the sub-group was affiliated. But I honestly don't see any reason to keep a standalone page in this case.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Italian Liberal Party (1997). It surely fits there, given that it is a parliamentary group completely dependent on the PLI and fully part of its story. Yakme (talk) 15:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Yakme, merge into Italian Liberal Party (1997). P1221 (talk) 11:12, 16 June 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.

Ring of Fire (radio program)[edit]

Result was Snow Keep. The nominator has been blocked for socking per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SquareInARoundHole. TolWol56 (talk) 01:18, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Subject has limited references, and seems to be WP:PROMO. I believe this subject fails WP:NBASIC. Sebastien1118 (talk) 20:38, 12 June 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 June 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 12 June 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 – see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DPLIVE202. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prabhu Shri Ram 2[edit]

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

Unreleased non-notable film. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 20:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 20:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion due to previous WP:PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 20:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not clearly notable. Film not released yet, and the producers are not notable and do not have significant coverage. Film would have to perform well and receive external coverage to become notable. Page also created by blocked user who is likely to be associated with the subject. Spiralwidget (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:06, 12 June 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. RL0919 (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outgrow.me[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Website is clearly inactive. Previous nomination in 2016 conducted when website was still active. Page is an orphan. Page also is lacking information and not contributing significantly. i would claim page no longer notable. Spiralwidget (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Websites, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Garber, Megan (2012-09-04). "The Afterlife of a Kickstarter Project". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on 2022-06-13. Retrieved 2022-06-13.
  The article notes: "Here's one spot: Outgrow.me, a digital marketplace for projects that were successfully funded on both Kickstarter and IndieGoGo. The site sorts its contents by "Orderable" and "Pre-orderable," as well as by topic and price. And it's "fine proof," The Next Web puts it, "that the Kickstarter concept does work despite the (admittedly warranted) pessimistic coverage of crowdfunded failures." ... On the one hand, Outgrow.me is both simple and inevitable: It's a catalog fit for the Kickstarter era. It sells, like any standard catalog does, knickknacks of varying value and utility -- some junky, some fantastic, some junky and fantastic at the same time. What's interesting about it, though, is that Outgrow.me is as much about selling a production process as it is about selling products."
2. MacManus, Christopher (2013-01-14). "Outgrow.me: Easily track success of crowdfunded projects". CNET. Archived from the original on 2020-11-24. Retrieved 2022-06-13.
  The article notes: "The new Web site Outgrow.me features a visual directory of successful crowdfunded darlings, which you can browse according to availability -- such as projects available now or those still in preorder status. Any projects currently seeking money won't even show up on the site, meaning Outgrow acts as an easy way to wade through all of the noise and buy some potentially cutting-edge products ready for prime time."
3. Falconer, Joel (2012-09-04). "Meet Outgrow.me, the marketplace that puts completed Kickstarter projects back in the spotlight". The Next Web. Archived from the original on 2022-06-13. Retrieved 2022-06-13.
  The article notes: "Outgrow.me is a marketplace for Kickstarter and IndieGoGo projects that were successfully funded and are now available for purchase. Here, you can go beyond thinking about how cool it would be if something did come to market and start benefiting from all that the best of crowdfunding entails. ... The site does allow listings for projects that are successfully funded but can only be pre-ordered. We don’t know whether Outgrow.me restricts these based on the project’s level of readiness for the market, which again raises concerns about the failure of funded Kickstarter projects, but these can be filtered out quite easily right at the top of the homepage."
4. Epstein, Zach (2012-07-18). "Outgrow.me: All the best Kickstarter projects you can buy, in one place". Boy Genius Report. Archived from the original on 2022-06-13. Retrieved 2022-06-13.
  The article notes: "From an iPad stylus with pinpoint accuracy and sleek desktop jelly fish tanks to customizable 3-string guitars and zero-waste batteries, Outgrow.me makes it beyond easy to see — and spend money on — the best that Kickstarter and Indiegogo have to offer."
5. F., G. (2013-03-30). "After the crowd leaves". The Economist. Archived from the original on 2022-06-13. Retrieved 2022-06-13.
  The article notes: "Sam Fellig has an answer in Outgrow.me. Mr Fellig started the e-commerce site last year as a programming project, while retraining to exit his old job working with homeowners who were trying to retain their houses in the event of foreclosure. He spotted a growing problem with crowdfunded products. ... More recent campaigns have learned from earlier ones' experience and are getting much better at meeting deadlines. Outgrow.me has every chance of living up to its name."
6. Less significant coverage:
  1. Aamoth, Doug (2013-05-01). "50 Best Websites 2013. Outgrow.me". Time. Archived from the original on 2022-06-13. Retrieved 2022-06-13.
    The article notes: "Outgrow.me solves that problem by featuring only Kickstarter and Indiegogo products that are either available for purchase or preorder. If it’s not on the site, it’s either not ready or it didn’t get enough funding."
  2. Dingman, Shane (2012-11-22). "Where to buy tech gifts that got Kickstarted". The Globe and Mail. Archived from the original on 2022-06-13. Retrieved 2022-06-13.
    The article notes: "So, where's the best place to shop for those Kickstarters? Try outgrow.me. This marketplace website collects the successfully launched gear in an attractive and easy-to-navigate online store. But buyer beware, they also showcase some of those products that aren't quite out of the launch bay (such as the examples above, or the Oculus Rift 3D headset)."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Outgrow.me to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 01:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Regarding "Website is clearly inactive" and "i would claim page no longer notable", see Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is not temporary.
Regarding "Page is an orphan", per Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Orphan status, this is not a policy-based reason for deletion.
Regarding "Page also is lacking information and not contributing significantly", see Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required.
Cunard (talk) 01:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have enough sources to be able to write about this – the sources Cunard has listed seem sufficient to show that it was notable once, and that's enough for inclusion, even if we're writing a historical article rather than an article about a live website. The relative lack of information also isn't a reason to delete – the page is effectively a stub, but has the potential to be expanded, and the existing information seems to be well-sourced (and even if the article never gets expanded, it's still a net positive to the wiki). So I don't think any of the nominator's arguments for deletion are valid. --ais523 17:02, 15 June 2022 (U T C)
Keep: Per Cunard's great work. By the way, notability is not temporary. SL93 (talk) 23:23, 16 June 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 Lega Toscana. I've gone for this instead of a merge because consensus appears that there is little that could be added aside from a sentence or two, which would be minor work. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tuscan Federalist Alliance[edit]

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

A totally unknown local party, that existed for a very short period of time. The page is written in five lines and only half of them concerns the party. Two sources are cited on the page, only one of them concerns the party and textually reads: "Riccardo Fragassi ... founded the Tuscan Federalist Alliance and then disappeared." It does not seem possible to find any other source except this one, which merely states that the party has existed and disappeared. Practically, this party is devoid of any kind of source and relevance. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Tuscan Federalist Alliance was one of the major splits occurred to Lega Toscana. Its founder and leader Riccardo Fragassi was previously a leading member of Lega Toscana. The party was active for several years and, while it did not achieve electoral success (at the time also Lega Toscana was not doing well, possibly also because of the split), it clearly deserves an article in Wikipedia or, at least, a redirect to "Lega Toscana". Every little piece of political history deserves a space in Wikipedia and, even though also established and traditional encyclopedias also have small entries, the greatness of Wikipedia is precisely having articles for little-known subjects. The passing of time makes difficult to find more sources and information in the web, but we should avoid recentism and give space also to former minor political parties. --Checco (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The claim that "Tuscan Federalist Alliance was one of the major splits occurred to Lega Toscana" seems to me a WP:Original research, since it is not proven by any source (as no source deals with this party). A party without sources is not relevant, but it could be redirected to Lega Toscana with a brief mention in the article (and nothing more, since there is almost nothing to say about this party) as compromise. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into Lega Toscana. No academic publication, nor news articles, not even blogs nor random websites talk about this party. Except for the one book cited in the article, which only mentions the party in passing, as explained by the OP. This does not meet WP:GNG. Yakme (talk) 15:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. By the only source I was able to find (a post in a forum...), it appears that Alleanza Federalista was just a parliamentary group in the Tuscan Regional Council, not a real party. It totally lacks notability to me. P1221 (talk) 10:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Further comment. I believe that the party, which was also represented in Tuscany's regional council, should be kept, but, in order not to lose the article's history, what about a merger through redirect with Lega Toscana? --Checco (talk) 13:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine for me to have a sentence about this party in Lega Toscana. Yakme (talk) 13:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the article Lega Toscana already covers the portions contained in this article, so I think that a merge is not necessary because it was already done...

I would like to point out two things:

1) As far as I can verify, "Tuscan Federalist Alliance" has never been a political party, but just a "gruppo consiliare", i.e. a parliamentary group in the Tuscan Regional Council. They are two different things. I can't verify that Alleanza Federale ever participated in a regional election in Tuscany.

2) The fact that a political party or parliamentary group is represented in a Parliament/Council is not per se a notability criteria. A standalone article needs to follow at least Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. I believe that this article (like many other articles concerning Italian minor parties I'm finding in Wikipedia) doesn't meet any of the criteria set in this policy. P1221 (talk) 08:05, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that it is now difficult to find sources on the web on an old minor political party, but the Tuscan Federalist Alliance was a party of its own right. Moreover, from the point of view of international political science there would be no specific difference between a political party and a parliamentary-only political party. I will try to find more sources. However, I hope that we can avoid a deletion anyway. In order to preserve the article's history, the article could easily become a redirect pointing to Lega Toscana. --Checco (talk) 07:34, 19 June 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 – see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DPLIVE202. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Motzoid India[edit]

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

Contested Prod by single purpose editor. Nothing seems to be notable about this company fails WP:GNG and more so WP:NCORP McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 20:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 20:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject is not notable. The author has been blocked and is likely to be associated with the company. Company only has links to other articles also nominated for deletion. Sources are entirely links to Youtube, other sources directly associated with company, etc... no external sources or mentions. Spiralwidget (talk) 21:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would also like to know if the founder is notable or not. I don't think he is. ScriptKKiddie (talk) 02:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per the reasons given by nominator. Akalanka820 (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Per nomination. No notable external sources. Though the author of the page isn't actually blocked, they clearly have a COI. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 19:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lena Jensen Rogn[edit]

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

Low-level skiier that never placed on the podium or won a title, and maxed out at 23rd place, so we can't presume notability based on high achievement. No WP:GNG coverage located on a search. Long since retired so new coverage is unlikely to be generated. Only source currently is a database. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Norway. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:47, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 20:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Atle Rognerud[edit]

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

With WP:NFOOTY deprecated, notability is no longer presumed on a single professional appearance; WP:GNG must be met. No significant coverage located on a search. Even presuming the Norwegian News Agency source is SIGCOV (I haven't been able to find access to it to verify), a single source is insufficient to keep the article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:26, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Norway. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:26, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emil Nyeng[edit]

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

Low-level skiier that never placed on the podium or won a title, and maxed out at 19th place, so we can't presume notability based on high achievement. No WP:GNG coverage located on a search. Only source currently is a database. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Norway. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:21, 12 June 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kristiane Wyllie[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft:Kristiane Wyllie.--MonFrontieres (talk) 22:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability.Fondycardinals (talk) 04:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 20:19, 12 June 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:13, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Steuart Pittman, Jr.[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a county executive, not properly referenced as passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, the county level of office is not an automatic notability freebie that guarantees inclusion in Wikipedia -- it's one where the sourcing and substance need to establish that he has a credible claim to being a special case of significantly greater notability than the norm for county executives. But that's not what's on offer here: this is essentially a résumé, referenced almost entirely to a mixture of primary sources (raw tables of election results, the self-published websites of organizations that he's directly affiliated with, etc.) that aren't support for notability at all and run of the mill coverage in community hyperlocals, with only one hit from a major WP:GNG-worthy daily newspaper (which isn't enough all by itself.)
In addition, there's also a possibility of WP:COI editing here, as there were at least two prior attempts to create an article about him at the title Steuart Pittman, which consisted of a county employee trying to create the article by copy-pasting Pittman's own self-penned biography directly from the county website in defiance of our copyvio rules, and then trying to bypass the WP:AFC process by moving it into mainspace themselves without the AFC review that was especially mandatory because of the COI.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more than just the routinely expected level of local media coverage that every county executive in every county always has. Bearcat (talk) 17:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Maryland. Bearcat (talk) 17:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the very well reasoned argument of the nominator. County executives are almost never notable, and there is nothing to show this as one of the very extremely rare exceptions to that rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Anne Arundel County is a fairly big jurisdiction, of over 1/2 a million people. Bearian (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's no "big jurisdiction" exemption in WP:NPOL #2 — no matter how big a county is or isn't, the county executive's eligibility for a Wikipedia article remains undetachable from whether or not he can be shown to pass WP:GNG on his sourceability. Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet GNG or WP:NPOL. Only found stray mentions of him in the Post and other DC Metro area papers. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: more participation needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Appears to be little to no coverage to be found beyond routine campaign coverage. Sal2100 (talk) 17:55, 18 June 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 07:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Simiso Buthelezi[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer who died following a fight for a non-notable regional championship. He's only mentioned in reference to his death and almost certainly will not receive coverage for anything else. – ².O.^Boxing 20:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, and South Africa. ².O.^Boxing 20:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep to remind people the dangers of boxing and out of respect for his life. There are way more articles to go after than this one.--2601:3C5:8200:97E0:8DDB:A685:D3EA:FA55 (talk) 20:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They're not valid reasons to keep an article. See WP:NOTADVOCACY and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. – ².O.^Boxing 22:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Likewise re: "reminder": WP:NOTADVOCACY. Gnomatique (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I approved the WP:AFCH submission based on the widespread international coverage that the subject received. A quick search reveals many more sources that are not used in the article, such as CNN in the USA, News24 in South Africa, TribuneIndia. I agree that the subject's career as a boxer is not notable, however, the guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (people) state "If, however, there is only enough information about one notable event related to the person, then the article should be titled specifically about that event, such as Steve Bartman incident". I would be OK with a rename (although I think it would be overly pedantic) but not a delete. Greenman (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Greenman: WP:BLP1E would be the relevant policy here. The subject fails the three conditions for articles to generally avoid; he is covered only in relation to his death; this person will almost certainly remain a low-profile individual; the event wasn't significant. Unfortunately, deaths in boxing are quite common and all receive substantial short-term coverage. This one has received a bit more attention than most, but that is undoubtedly due to the video clip of the fight. – ².O.^Boxing 18:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The second condition also states "In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." Greenman (talk) 22:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no event article, and it's unlikely there ever will be per WP:EVENT. – ².O.^Boxing 23:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like recentism, I agree with squared circle that the subject is receiving short term coverage because of the video clip, it is quite jarring to see in hindsight, but a WP:CRYSTALBALL would be required to prove his death will have more impact then the other deaths that occur from in ring competition. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 20:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Certainly his death was tragic, but that doesn't make him WP notable. This is not the first, or likely last, boxing death and they all generate short term news and usually calls for banning boxing--but then the furor subsides and fades away (at least for the general public). WP:BIO1E, WP:NOTMEMORIAL, and WP:NOTADVOCACY all apply. He's not notable for anything else and the event was minor (on an encyclopedic level). If something significant comes from his death, the article can be recreated. Papaursa (talk) 23:23, 14 June 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. Modussiccandi (talk) 07:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citizens' Political Movement[edit]

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

A totally unknown political party, it has never participated in elections and is not mentioned in any relevant source. In practice, this party has limited itself to existing and nothing more. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is clearly encyclopedic and deserves a to be part of Wikipedia. The Citizens' Political Movement, through its founder and leader Fernando Rossi, was represented in the Italian Senate from 2007 to 2008 and was at times crucial for the survival of Romano Prodi's second government (2006–2008). In the 2008 general election, in alliance with other minor parties, it obtained 0.3% countrywide, despite being present only in a few constituencies. To be clear, that it is more than what several American third parties with articles in Wikipedia have gathered throughout their life. Every little piece of political history deserves a space in Wikipedia and, even though also established and traditional encyclopedias have also small entries, the greatness of Wikipedia is precisely having articles for little-known subjects. The passing of time makes difficult to find more sources and information in the web, but we should avoid recentism and give space also to former minor political parties. --Checco (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, 0.3% of the vote in the 2008 general election (a poor result in itself) was obtained from a list that was supported also by this party, not by the party itself, so this is surely not a valid motivation for keeping the page. Regarding his representation in the Senate, there are no particular constraints in the regulation of that assembly to declare membership of a party in the mixed group: Fernando Rossi, after leaving the Party of Italian Communists, had limited himself to declaring his belonging to this new party. Therefore, any votes of confidence in the Prodi government must primarily be attributed to him and not to the party. Since it is a substantially personal party that has never participated in elections, it could be directly merged with the article on Fernando Rossi. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definitely does not meet notability criteria, since it has no "significant coverage" in RS. From a google books search, it appears in a handful of publications, but always in passing and never analyzed in detail. Therefore it can become a sentence in the page of its founder Fernando Rossi. Yakme (talk) 15:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A very obscure and unknown party. The 0.3% share of votes obtained in 2008 was thanks to a much broader coalition and it didn't result in anyone elected. It totally lacks notability. P1221 (talk) 10:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Further comment. I believe that the party, having had a senator and having participated in a general election, should be kept, but, in order not to lose the article's history, what about a merger through redirect with Party of Italian Communists or, alternatively, Federation of Liberal Democrats? --Checco (talk) 13:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Citizens' Political Movement has never participated in a general election. This party is not a relevant topic for the Party of Italian Communists, nor for the Federation of Liberal Democrats (also proposed for deletion). I think the only page it could be merged to is Fernando Rossi's one (as an alternative to deletion).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it has to be a merger (not my choice!), we could indeed merge this article and Federation of Liberal Democrats into For the Common Good, the joint list including also the two parties now proposed for deletion which participated in the 2008 Italian general election. --Checco (talk) 07:24, 19 June 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. This title will also be salted. RL0919 (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greg maluma[edit]

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

See history of Greg Maluma and Gregson Maluma, both of which are now salted. All of the 'references' are self-published material. WP:BEFORE yields nothing. If this is somehow kept, it should be moved to Greg Maluma, which would need the protection removed. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Sportspeople, Martial arts, Internet, and Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as recreation of a previously deleted subject with no new content tending to show encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 20:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I completely agree with BD2412. No external coverage, does not meet notability. Spiralwidget (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per above. Adamtt9 (talk) 23:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the reasons mentioned above. --Evilfreethinker (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt this variant as well.--Mvqr (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete He's not any more notable now that he was previously. Fails to meet WP:GNG or any SNG. Papaursa (talk) 22:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and SALT per those above. GPL93 (talk) 19:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 19:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HD 220766[edit]

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

Wow, don't think I've ever seen a star with so little coverage, even in large database listings, so it fails WP:NASTRO. It is brighter than magnitude 6.5, which was a sort of get out of jail free card in the past, not so much now. Despite that, not listed in the Bright Star Catalogue so far as I can tell. Has a faint companion, same distance, don't know if they're gravitationally bound, doesn't look like anyone has ever published on it. I could probably find out some basic physical data from catalogues, but it is hard to imagine writing much about this star. Lithopsian (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Lithopsian (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there someplace where this information could be usefully merged? BD2412 T 20:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This star has an entry in List of stars in Aquarius, although it is not wikilinked and it is listed as "236 G. Aqr". Lithopsian (talk) 20:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. It was created by blocked user CarloscomB and began life with fabricated data. Praemonitus (talk) 13:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There do not appear to be any sources (in the article or from a search) describing this star specifically – only mentions among many thousands of other stars in large database. No indications of notability. ComplexRational (talk) 00:32, 16 June 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!} 22:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kaushalya Devi - The Mandana Artist[edit]

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

No sources and no notability. There is a draft also. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 17:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced BLP with no credible claim of significance. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references, does not meet notability. Spiralwidget (talk) 22:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to add, if I may, that the subject has received coverage in the Hindustan Times. https://www.hindustantimes.com/art-and-culture/mandana-paintings-this-artist-is-struggling-to-keep-the-tradition-alive/story-r0EhVTA9VDhzWnI1njoKNO.html I do not think the coverage is enough to warrant an article, but she could be mentioned in Mandana Paintings. perhaps Merge? Spiralwidget (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, Visual arts, and India. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mandana Paintings] per Spiralwidget. This person also got coverage here. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 12:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP with no references, and created with no understanding of how to contribute/write an article. Even the title is messed up. No RS found. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WomenArtistUpdates: See the discussion above. There is a clear potential for merge. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 20:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per WP:G4. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 23:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Intercontinental 2018[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Miss Intercontinental 2018

Beauty pageant that has already been found non-notable once. Does not even have any references, and so fails verifiability as well as notability.

Consider use of sodium chloride. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Beauty pageants, and Philippines. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated for G4. If that fails, I !v for Delete Happy Editing--IAm Chaos 18:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Karen Gallman who has coverage including under this title, for example: Miss Intercontinental 2018 Karen Gallman announces pregnancy. Pikavoom ^Talk 05:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT Not notable pageant....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable beuaty contest.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:04, 13 June 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mildred C. Crump[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

City councilwoman, fails WP:POLITICIAN. Previously deleted. Fails WP:BIO scope_creep^Talk 16:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Michigan, and New Jersey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ample accomplishments and sourcing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:38, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to be plenty coverage, some examples:

https://newjerseyglobe.com/local/mildred-crump-resigns-newark-council-seat/
https://www.nj.com/essex/2022/02/newarks-1st-black-councilwoman-celebrated-as-a-trailblazer-who-led-from-a-place-in-her-heart.html
https://patch.com/new-jersey/newarknj/trailblazing-newark-councilwoman-mildred-crump-resigns-report (previous discussion reached no apparent consensus on the reliability of Patch.com

Some less significant coverage, but worth noting:

She is quoted here, so I wouldn't use the quote, but the fact that they went to her for this statement suggests notability to me: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/nyregion/newark-riots-50-years.html
Brief mention here https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/23/procedural-justice-transform-us-criminal-courts
https://www.insidernj.com/crump-2022-refocusing-place-strength/
9 mentions in Gillespie, A. (2013). The New Black Politician: Cory Booker, Newark, and Post-Racial America. United States: NYU Press. CT55555 (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep per the above. I don't think the encyclopedia fails as a resource if this is deleted, but I also don't think it would be absurd if kept. BD2412 T 20:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. Djflem (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
looks like she was the subject of an article in ‘’The Crisis’’, a national publication of the NAACP. I can’t get to it on my phone.Jacona (talk) 11:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a mention of her, including title; she is quoted as believing the death penalty in New Jersey should be retained. Jacona (talk) 12:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

also, this book. Kukla, B. J. (2005). Defying the Odds: Triumphant Black Women of Newark. Jacona (talk) 11:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plentiful evidence by way of sourcing and citations supporting a keep on this one. Gnomatique (talk) 23:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep By my count, this 1994 New York Times article is 55 sentences. It's very in-depth, discusses her background and the start of her political career. This 2021 New Jersey Globe article is longer, is extremely in-depth and is the bookend to the Times article as it's about the end of her 27-year political career. In the middle of this 27 year span there's a bunch of other articles that can be found on google search (I left the middle initial out). She was an impressive individual, easily meets WP:GNG. Jacona (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good reference. Perhaps you can put it in the article and any others you find. scope_creep^Talk 05:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to, but I'm spending way too much of my WP time doing BEFORE for other people, which leaves very little time for editing. Maybe you could find some time to fix it. :) Jacona (talk) 17:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG, based on the references found in this discussion. --Enos733 (talk) 20:18, 15 June 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:27, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Adams[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMMA notability criteria. His highest quarterly ranking by FightMatrix was one hundred thirty fourth, far short of the top 10 requirement. Also never appeared in Sherdog's rankings. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 16:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, Wrestling, and Texas. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 16:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG. Are we really gonna start deleting every fighter who hasn't appeared in the top 10? That's gonna be like 99% of the pages. Removing the participation criteria basically neuters any combat sport notability since combat sports have way less major titles, there isn't a draft, there isn't constant tournanments that it seems all the other sports criteria rely on. Isn't a huge amount of the sports pages on wikipedia coming from basketball, football, and soccer where guys in literally 2nd national leagues would get pages? HeinzMaster (talk) 00:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not happy about it either to be honest, but I'm trying to target pages that are relatively unnotable. Like Adams for example is 1-3 in the UFC, probably best known for losing to Greg Hardy, and has never been highly ranked. If you could provide some sources with significant or indepth coverage about him to pass GNG, I'd be happy to withdraw the nomination. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 07:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG plus the background section and infobox data are extensive. I've been scared about the recent progression of these deletion policies and if it goes to this, I will be completely retiring from Wikipedia editing. It's just senseless. Ticelon (talk) 09:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitry Smolyakov[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMMA notability criteria. His highest quarterly ranking by FightMatrix was two hundred sixth, far short of the top 10 requirement. He also hasn't appeared in Sherdog's rankings. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 16:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Russia. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 16:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He obviously fails to meet the current WP:NMMA. He did have three UFC fights, but he lost all of them by TKO or submission. The coverage I found in English consisted of fight results, databases, and coverage of his two year suspension for using banned drugs. That's not enough to meet WP:GNG. There may be good coverage of him in Russia, but someone else would need to find and show that. Papaursa (talk) 22:48, 14 June 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 one, redirect rest. Redirecting all to century-based lists, except Solar eclipse of October 19, 1865. RL0919 (talk) 21:05, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Solar eclipse of March 14, 1801[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not an astronomical database or a catalogue. All of these partial solar eclipses merely happen to have occurred, but it is unlikely they are anything but WP:ROTM; and given how all of these occurred over mostly entirely unpopulated places, back in a time when this kind of data probably wasn't readily available (and who in his sane mind in the 19th century would have gone to Antarctica to observe a partial eclipse when such solar eclipses rather often, all across the globe?) it's unlikely any WP:SIGCOV, contemporary or otherwise, exists for any of these. As such delete for failing WP:NOT; or redirect to the appropriate list (but I'm not even sure whether those lists are appropriate, to begin with). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Africa, Oceania, Antarctica, and South America. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 17:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can these be merged or redirected to lists? I believe we generally have lists of solar eclipses by date range. It would be absurd for Wikipedia to have a separate article on every solar eclipse that has happened in the past few centuries, since it is merely a matter of calculation to determine when and where all of them occurred. I would at least restrict such articles to solar eclipses that were noted in the records of contemporary observers. BD2412 T 20:24, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I point out, there are lists, but the lists are, like these articles themselves, very much just a mirror of the NASA catalogue. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all but Solar eclipse of October 19, 1865 to List of solar eclipses in the 19th century or List of solar eclipses in the 20th century, as appropriate. There is a long history of eclipse expeditions to places where they were readily viewable, but most of these appear to fail that criteria. There are records for the Solar eclipse of October 19, 1865, so that should be retained. The Solar eclipse of October 19, 1808 article is already a redirect. Praemonitus (talk) 14:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Praemonitus: Can you provide secondary sources which document first-hand records of the 1865 eclipse? –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:57, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LaundryPizza03: [2][3][4][5][6] Praemonitus (talk) 13:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all except the 1865 one, per above. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Talaud Islands earthquake[edit]

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

Very little impact to be suitable for an article. Well below WP:MINIMUM. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Philippines. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Event is lacking significance and media notability. Earthquakes of this size in the area is common and often cause little to no damage like this one. Doesn't meet the criteria for an article. Reego 41 16:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not an interesting earthquake in any aspect, very little impact. Forgettable and undeserving of its own article. MagikMan1337 (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very little if no significance of this event. Hanami-Sakura (talk) 12:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N(E) Gnomatique (talk) 00:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Natural events naturally get more leeway. A natural event that is documented, sourced, to have caused damage, as this was, is enough for coverage. At worst, merge and redirect somewhere. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By this logic, WAY more insignificant earthquakes would be getting articles and Wikipedia would become oversaturated. Nothing was notable about this event besides its magnitude. Not every earthquake that does a little bit of damage needs an article. MagikMan1337 (talk) 14:11, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Do I even need to eleaborate on why this article is obviously useless and should be deleted? The event is significant and thereofre, does not deserve an article of its own. CoaÏ (Moctalk with me) 02:48 AM, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Delete Not significant enough. Bdonjc^talk
Delete per above, not sufficient enough for notability to pass or meet the criteria. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 12:46, 19 June 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:27, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Francesco Morosini Naval Military School[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE in both English and Italian (old name and new name) is not convincing about notability. A merge with Italian training ship Amerigo Vespucci might be an alternative for deletion. The Banner talk 15:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable institution and enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you really think that an unsourced article has enough sources??? The Banner talk 10:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - The requirement is for sources to WP:NEXIST, not to be in the article! A quick Google search finds many sources about this school. WP:BEFORE should be carried out before nominating for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Read the nomination. And yes, I know you wish to keep school-articles without regard to its quality, conten or source-wise. The Banner talk 14:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Whatever User:Necrothesp or User:The Banner or User:Jacona wishes is not important. What is important is Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In this case, the article has no sources, which vails verifiability. But the notability requirement is expressed at this guideline as well. The article needs improvement, and needs it very badly. Without verification it should be deleted. User:Necrothesp, could you at least post the top two or three articles that you believe establish notability under the general notability guideline so we know what sources exist, not just a vague belief that someone on the internet says sources exist? Thanks! Jacona (talk) 14:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable institution very well known. I have added the Official Italian Navy Web Page as source and a book in the bibliography section. Nicola Romani (talk) 14:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Previously nominated for deletion as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F. Morosini Military Naval School, result was keep. Jacona (talk) 13:24, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Better search terms. Much more came up by searching for "Școala Navală Militară Francesco Morosini" or Morosini+Naval+School. Jacona (talk) 13:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel free to improve the article. But for the WP:BEFORE I used the English and the old and new Italian name, as stated in the4 nomination. The Banner talk 14:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I would comment that you could have also improved the article instead of just trying to delete it, as those search terms bring up quite a few results. I have added a notables section, and put in a bunch of references, sorry they're bare-url as I hate to spend much time improving an article another editor wants to eliminate. I also used the former name "Collegio Navale della Gioventù Italiana del Littorio", for which I found many Italian sources, that I haven't tried to add to the article as yet. There are around a dozen sources now in the article. There is also an 11-part video series about life in the school, directed by an Italian who has an article on the Italian Wikipedia. I don't speak Italian. Jacona (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@The Banner An important aid in searching is to not keep the quotes. The school is often referred to without "Francesco" and with the words in a different order. Perhaps you could revisit your before and see if you can find additional sources. Jacona (talk) 14:34, 17 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of accolades by film[edit]

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

Just a bullet point list, redundant in addition to Category:Lists of accolades by film (169) Indagate (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Indagate (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most films can list their accolates on the main article like Cold_War_(2018_film)#Accolades. When this list or the main article gets long, it can be appropriate to split that into a subarticle. There's nothing inherently different about films with separate pages for awards and there's no need for a list compiling them when the category does it automatically, and this page does not – and largely cannot, due to the semi-arbitrariness of which films have their accolades listed in the main article or a subarticle – provide any additional benefit. Reywas92^Talk 16:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Adds absolutely nothing on top of the category. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this wholly redundant and useless list. Enough of these and the encyclopaedia turns into a school prank. -The Gnome (talk) 20:16, 16 June 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marraban Bin yauri[edit]

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

Marraban Bin yauri

This article appears to be about a village, but is incomprehensible. It doesn't even say that the village is in Nigeria, which must be inferred. It does not establish geographic notability. It was moved to draft space once, and moved back to article space. If the village is a named inhabited place or otherwise notable, this article should be blown up and started over because the quality of the English is bad. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NGEO has not been demonstrated and WP:TNT would apply here if the location is in fact notable. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This was declined thrice at AfC for good reason, no sources at all for subject and zero google hits for "Marraban Bin yauri". KylieTastic (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KylieTastic, McMatter, Robert McClenon. Nigeria was a under-developing country and not all things are in internet searching, by providing false information i have nothing to gain in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samum2 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Samum2 you are not accused of providing false information. However Wikipedia has policies and guidelines and requires sources. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KylieTastic i understood that wikepidia has policies and why some articles has not source and then published? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samum2 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 13 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of DC Comics major characters[edit]

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

Title is inherently subjective/POV, and thus fails WP:LISTCRIT. Who decides what is a "major" character? Are there really 45 major subsets of DC characters? Scope of a DC character list is already covered by the various lists at Lists of DC Comics characters, so there's not much point trying to rework this. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - We have the various other, much better defined, character lists brought up in the nomination for navigational purposes, and this particular list is extremely subjective to the point of being borderline WP:OR. Certainly none of the sources currently in the article define what counts as a "major" DC character BBB c or discusses any of this rather haphazard and random list as constituting a known grouping or set of heroes that count as DC's "major" characters. There are obviously a few characters here who are generally often described as being major characters (i.e., Batman, Superman, etc.). But again, each of these actual major characters already have their own lists (and often multiple lists) of their major related and supporting characters. Rorshacma (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both arguments above. This in no way passes notability criteria for lists. It looks to be ordered chronologically by first appearance for some reason. Rhino131 (talk) 16:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, though as a WP:ATD, this could be redirected to Lists of DC Comics characters. Redirects remain cheap. BD2412 T 20:26, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't oppose a redirect, but I don't know that it's a super-likely search term. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete or redirect: As a creator and all. I myself don’t mind it going either. Definitely when I went unfinished on it. Thanks! Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 23:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per creator's comment above. There is a consensus that this isn't a discriminate topic for a Wikipedia article. Jontesta (talk) 23:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above (major/minor is OR/POV). We have the list of DC Comics characters. This is a POVFORK. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As some of the contributors said, we already have a List of DC Comics characters page on this website. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a POV fork whose information is replicated elsewhere. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 03:13, 18 June 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:25, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Private War of Doctor Doom[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTPLOT as just plot and cast list. Fails WP:GNG as no significant coverage. Unnecessary extension of its episode list entry, plot could be condensed to max. 200 words per MOS:TVPLOT and moved across. Indagate (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Indagate (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. AHatd (talk) 14:38, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this page being considered for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Midnight Murk (talk • contribs) 14:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reasons in nomination, it's mostly plot and doesn't appear to be a notable episode Indagate (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am not quite sure why this episode alone out of the entire The Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes episode list has a separate article, as there is nothing indicating that it was especially notable. There are no valid sources currently in the article, and I am not finding any reviews or other coverage in reliable sources on it. The best I found was an entry in a "Top Ten" list. At best, it could be used as a Redirect to List of The Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes episodes, but even that does not strike me as being particularly useful. Rorshacma (talk) 16:33, 12 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Historical roots of discrimination against non-Arab Muslims, especially Iranians in the early days of Islam[edit]

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

This article, like the Shia jurisprudence and development, which has an XFD already, also reads like an essay, so doing the same for this one. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete essays are not notable/suitable for wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Because it's an essay. CT55555 (talk) 18:11, 12 June 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:22, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 St Albans City and District Council election[edit]

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

Reviewed during new page patrol. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. "Stats only" article about a local election. No secondary sources. North8000 (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AHatd (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. AHatd (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick google search reveals plenty of valid sources; including not only local and regional news (1 2 3 4) but also the Beebs (1 2 3). Arguably, keeping information about democracy open and easily accessible (and well, St Albans City and District has nearly 150 thousand people, so it's not exactly the middle of nowhere) is also fully compatible with the goals of Wikipedia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per RandomCanadian above. This is a recent event, and in time it should be improved or merged. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:11, 16 June 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Port Moresby International School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Port Moresby International High School

Articles for deletion/Port Moresby International School

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

Fails WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE does not bring up sufficient reliable, independent, in-depth sources. The Banner talk 12:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Oceania. Shellwood (talk) 12:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It meets the criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia, including WP:GNG.

From WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG#N ... In practice, articles on high/secondary schools and school districts are usually kept, as they are almost always found to be notable, unless their existence cannot be verified in order to stop hoaxes ... The subject of this article is one of a handful of international-standard senior secondary schools in PNG (where the literacy rate is below 62% for 9 million people), and attended by some notable people/families in the country.[7]
But regardless of the above, there are hundreds of independent secondary sources spanning 60 years easily found. WP:GNG is not an issue.
This includes WP:SIGCOV in the country's major national newspaper about an affirmitive action case on fees at the school that was taken to the Supreme Court of Papua New Guinea in 1976.[8][9][10][11]
Another 5 minute search yields another 10 various sources: [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] and I can't be bothered pasting further.
While I won't be updating the article page myself any time soon, it is suitable for a stand-alone article.

-- Ham105 (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the reasons given in the last deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Port Moresby International High School. This school is very important in the expat community of Port Moresby. --Bduke (talk) 00:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That last AfD used mainly the argument that secondary schools are automatically notable because there are secondary schools. But that argument is invalid since a RFC in 2017. The Banner talk 12:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's a bunch of really good self-published info that could be useful for further research at the school's diamond jubilee page. As far as search, it was originally Port Moresby High School, and (according to facebook) they currently use the acronym POMIS, rather than PMIS as the article states. Jacona (talk) 11:42, 16 June 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!} 05:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One Thing Remains[edit]

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

Aside from already-present AllMusic review, found no reliable coverage. Album/singles did chart but if that's all the subject has I don't think that's enough for me. QuietHere (talk) 03:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk) 03:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has three singles that made a notable chart. Added one more review. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NALBUM. Sources in the article are reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 23:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Charted so it passes WP:NALBUM. Review already cited in article, here is another one from The Province. Nominators rationale would be better for a merge discussion on talk page. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added to the article. Thank you for finding that source. QuietHere (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appearing in top charts is a part of notability policy for music related stuff. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NALBUM. Gnomatique (talk) 23:47, 12 June 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. WP:NOQUORUM applies. ✗plicit 12:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Living in the Age of Airplanes (soundtrack)[edit]

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

Approved by AFC reviewer, but is a mere copy of the original article, Living in the Age of Airplanes. This page seems to only serve as a new home for the templates, but the texts remain untouched in the original article. Don't see a purpose for this; perhaps a redirect can be made directing to the original article's music section, and the AllMusic exlink can be moved to the original's exlink section too. Gerald WL 09:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Music. Gerald WL 09:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep overlapping coverage in the main article has now been removed and this article is now linked so it is now a valid split with a pass of WP:GNG due to reliable sources coverage as shown in the article in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:36, 12 June 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!} 05:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Industry Federation of the State of Rio de Janeiro[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

advertising The Banner talk 08:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Brazil. Shellwood (talk) 09:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The article does not have a promotional tone, and simply delineates the history of the organization, such as various name changes, and what it does in contemporary times, all in a neutral manner. The article does not extoll the organization in a promotional manner, does not attempt to recruit others to join the organization, and does not contain promotional buzzwords and peacock terms. Also not particularly impressed with the one-word rationale for deletion here, because it provides no qualification at all (e.g. WP:VAGUEWAVE). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This nomination brings no question about the notability of the subject, just claims it is advertising. I agree with North America's assessment. This article is not advertising. It discusses the subject with a neutral tone and provides several sources for verification. Jacona (talk) 09:59, 15 June 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. This closure is affected by the lack of a thoughtful and carefully composed deleiton rationale. Offering one word reasons for deletion is really not doing your due diligence as a nominator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:33, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Industry Social Service of the State of Rio de Janeiro[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

advertising The Banner talk 08:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Brazil. Shellwood (talk) 09:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and copy edit – The article does not have a promotional tone, and simply delineates the history of the organization, and what it does in contemporary times, all in a neutral manner. The article does not extoll the institution in a particularly promotional manner, does not attempt to recruit others to join the organization, and does not contain promotional buzzwords and peacock terms. Also not particularly impressed with the one-word rationale for deletion here, because it provides no qualification at all (e.g. WP:VAGUEWAVE). That all said, the article does read in a couple of areas a bit like a press release, which can be addressed by copy editing it, because the majority of the article does not read as similar to a press release. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The article does need work, but it is clearly WP:N and it’s not as the one word nomination asserts “advertising”. Jacona (talk) 00:04, 17 June 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 Nova Southeastern University. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pallavi Patel College of Health Care Sciences[edit]

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

Non-notable college, one of 15 within Nova Southeastern University, that does not warrant a stand-alone article. Otr500 (talk) 03:54, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Florida. Otr500 (talk) 03:54, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nova Southeastern University per WP:RPURPOSE. – The Grid (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect not big enough to hold an article on it own self. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 16:54, 12 June 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. No one came up with any indication of notability, by any criteria, although the delete arguments were disputed on technical grounds. So I guess this is, ahem, weak deleted. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:50, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Akhada (TV series)[edit]

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

Non notable film by a non notable director. It fails WP:NFILM that requires a film to be "widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This isn't a film, so it doesn't need to meet WP:NFILM. It is a web series. TV has different criteria. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not realising WP:NFILM policy from any angle. Self promotion. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

its a tv series not a film Atlantic306 (talk) 20:50, 16 June 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 03:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doni Burdick[edit]

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

Almost no sources except one to Facebook which doesn’t even point to this person’s Facebook page. Minor career with zero impact on any charts. Fails WP:SINGER. Egghead06 (talk) 11:37, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Michigan. Shellwood (talk) 12:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Doni Burdick did manage to release one single which has been widely anthologized on compilation albums, and which continues to attract some public attention. In my opinion, he warrants a brief article even if little is known about him. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we need realibe sources. We do not have any.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources, a few passing mentions in Gbooks, one line here and there. Oaktree b (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my Prod2 rationale: No hits on Newspapers.com. Nothing found in World Radio History, which archives a large number of music magazines. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:22, 17 June 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 Trinity (story arc). This is the apparent consensus even though the redirect target has also been nominated for deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:30, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Triarch[edit]

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

Minor group of fictional characters that fail the WP:GNG. From what I can tell, this group only appeared in a single storyline consisting of a handful of issues, and were never used again. There is pretty much no coverage of this group in reliable sources, due to this complete lack of notability. The official DC Encyclopedia does not even dedicate an entry to this minor group. The article was WP:PRODed a couple years ago, but the PROD was removed without explanation, and this article has been sitting here unsourced since. Rorshacma (talk) 16:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Comics and animation. Rorshacma (talk) 16:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Trinity (story arc): I’m on the fence between this and Delete because the arc itself is of questionable notability. It’s tough to find reviews etc given the generic title, which has been reused by DC, and the time of release. Maybe there’s some info in a Wizard magazine, or something, so I’ll give it the benefit of a redirect, and if the story arc page gets deleted some day, then this would go with it then. These characters are definitely not meeting GNG on their own from what I can find, though. - 2pou (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Triarch (DC Comics) and redirect to Trinity (story arc) as non-notable cruft. If the story page gets deleted, this should also be deleted, per User:2pou. Redirect the current name to Triumvirate as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete. The problem is that Trinity (story arc) doesn't appear to be notable, either, and should be listed here next. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trinity (story arc). There is consensus to redirect Triarch unless Trinity (story arc) is deleted, but one user has also argued that it needs to be moved first to make room for a different redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 11:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG due to no coverage in reliable sources. A redirect is WP:CHEAP but it may be irrelevant if the other article fails to improve to meet Wikipedia standards, and is ultimately deleted. Jontesta (talk) 23:49, 14 June 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 solar eclipses in the 19th century. There clearly is no consensus to keep this as an stand-alone article (despite the sole WP:BUTITEXISTS !vote); and I don't see why this was relisted, other than maybe some WP:RELISTBIAS. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Solar eclipse of October 19, 1808[edit]

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

Failed GNG: The eclipse only occurred in the sea near Antarctica, and it is unlikely that anyone saw the eclipse at that time. Likewise, history does not record this eclipse, and this eclipse has no scientific value. Therefore, this eclipse is not of notability, and therefore the references in the entry do not prove notability, i.e., they do not constitute a valid introduction. Q28 (talk) 09:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's worthwhile including it in the List of solar eclipses in the 19th century (as it is), but there is no point in giving it an article of its own. Athel cb (talk) 12:23, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's a documented event, within a eclipse series, Solar Saros 111. Tom Ruen (talk) 02:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of solar eclipses in the 19th century. Praemonitus (talk) 00:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:27, 12 June 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 Lawyer joke. Closing slightly early, per WP:SNOW. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:18, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dewey, Cheatem & Howe[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This page is literally just a list of occasions when a particular pun was used. The fact that a pun has been used on TV doesn't make the pun notable (WP:ITEXISTS). Amisom (talk) 09:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Popular culture. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 11:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Lawyer joke. I disagree with the premise of the nomination. The "pun" in this case has evolved into a placeholder name, a thing of cultural significance. However, use of the term is obviously a "lawyer joke" (and one of the best known ones), so a merge to that article would also be a reasonable outcome. BD2412 T 16:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lawyer joke, per User:BD2412. The name is mentioned in the media commonly enough, while I couldn't quite identify WP:SIGCOV, but I've heard BigLaw attorneys and Magic Circle solicitors jokingly refer to their firms using the name. If we simply delete the article outright it will likely be recreated, probably by someone taking a break from studying for the Bar Exam. Fiachra10003 (talk) 13:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. Fails WP:GNG for stand-alone article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:33, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge makes sense to cover it within the context of other lawyer jokes as it's a well known one. Star Mississippi 12:15, 18 June 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delores Wells[edit]

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

Biography for a non-notable playmate (possibly, redirect it to some playboy models list) damiens.rf 06:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 07:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender, Arizona, and California. • Gene93k (talk) 08:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this performer/entertainer does not meet inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems fine to me. She was a Playboy centerfold who had a decent, if short, acting career including as a a recurring character in the popular "beach party" movies. I've added a photo and a another reference. She is sometimes listed as Dolores Wells (note the spelling of the first name). Polycarpa aurata (talk) 20:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When searching with 'Dolores Wells' I find a few more sources of images in her in newspapers. Nice tip Polycarpa aurata. They are now in the article. DaffodilOcean (talk) 00:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As above. Her B-movie career alone would suffice. kencf0618 (talk)
Keep. It's not an overwhelming case for notability, but I think enough sources have been added to reach WP:HEY. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:27, 19 June 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Florida Atlantic Owls men's soccer team[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage. There is an extensive consensus that college soccer seasons do not have a presumption of notability under WP:NSEASONS unless the team has qualified for the NCAA Tournament, and this is an article for a season that hasn't even started yet, so it would be WP:TOOSOON. Recent consensus on this matter was reached here. Jay eyem (talk) 05:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jay eyem (talk) 05:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:10, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, just like when we mass-deleted similar non-notable articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Redirect to Florida Atlantic Owls men's soccer. The target should not cover just the current team and season, but should primarily cover the history. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Normally I am ok with redirects, but those are usually best reserved for articles that are likely to be notable in the future. I am not sure that is the case here and think it makes more sense to not leave a redirect, kind of similar to the previous discussion to which I linked. Jay eyem (talk) 06:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability has not been established, a lack of sig cov. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:46, 19 June 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ilana Belmaker[edit]

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

dubious notability, virtually no hits on Google Scholar, created by an SPA with an interest in promoting this individual FASTILY 05:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Israel. Shellwood (talk) 07:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is not clearly notable in my opinion, and I think that the argument that scientific merit is limited is also valid as stated; there are many other candidates for similar articles who could be considered more notable. In addition, looking into the article history the article is clearly closely associated with the subject, and was created by User:אור פ, who later also removed a tag from the article "Ilana Belmaker" stating that the article is too closely associated with the subject at 16:01, 10 August 2021, which I think is clear evidence that this user is, indeed, clearly associated with the subject. Nothing on the talk page. the user does appear to have a history of conflicts of interest and articles which do not fulfill Wikipedia's standards. User talk:אור פ There are very few citations for most of the content, and the citations that do exist are entirely her published papers with no news articles or significant coverage from external sources to the journal. If this individual is notable, there are likely many thousands of people with similar levels of published work who would also be considered as such. Spiralwidget (talk) 10:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Leaning delete, seems to be a published author, unsure how notable these publications are. Not sure what her notability factor is. Oaktree b (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The subject has one fairly highly cited paper under the name Elaine Belmaker, and there might also be other material available under this or other names. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. 45 hits in Google Scholar, 39 hits in PubMed, article in The Lancet. this is not notable. I'm not a single-purpose account, I write articles about Israeli people, and because of The unpleasant attitude I received, I prefer to invest my time in Hebrew Wikipedia. I don't know Ilana Belmaker, I'm not associated with the subject. there are likely many thousands of people with similar levels of published work who would also be considered notable - Please write an article about them. if she is not notable, I don't know who is, I get the feeling that you have something personal against articles about Israelis in the English Wikipedia. it seems racism, our even worst. אור פ (talk) 15:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, most of the ones that come up in AFD have been of questionable notability. Not just anyone gets an article here, we don't really care what social/economic/ethnic background they have, they must pass the notability bar here. Oaktree b (talk) 13:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please see here [22] about a British Jew that was kept. Oaktree b (talk) 13:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is unusual for anyone to pass WP:PROF, our notability guideline for academics, when they are an associate, rather than a full, professor, so holding the subject to similar standards is far from racism. It is also unusual for such people in English-speaking countries to take the title "Prof.". Is that different in Israel? Rather than accuse people of racism it would be best for you to concentrate on the requirements of WP:PROF, where the most common reason for passing depends on the number of citations from others to articles, rather than the number of articles published which is what your previous post concentrated on. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All (or most) sources used in the article are papers she authored, so are not reliable. All I see (using the various Google services above)are papers she's published, but nothing about her as a person. I'm unable to access either Scopus or Web of Science to judge her citation factor. Nothing in GNews, the NYT or JStor, I would have liked to have seen one mass media piece about her or at least interviews. It seems that at best she's been a mid-level government functionary and a university professor. Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. her is some mass media piece about her or at least interviews: [23] [24] [25], and here is another article [26] אור פ (talk) 10:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.not a single articles is about her, there are newspapers articles about incidents in Israel's medicine, she is interviewed in small part of the articles along with other interviewers and the authors descriptions of the incidents, she isn't in the center of the intreviews. As for the last item, its an articles she co-authored in the journal הרפואה (the medicine) - a very low quality journal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.102.204.53 (talk) 11:59, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not have enough independent coverage and does not pass WP:PROF. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 15:45, 17 June 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!} 03:27, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Four Rivers Conference (Missouri)[edit]

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

Sources are routine local coverage. Does not meet GNG. MB 01:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Sports, and Missouri. MB 01:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hoping for a bit more participation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 12 June 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 Ho Chi Minh City Television. ✗plicit 12:47, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HTV9[edit]

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

Redirect repeatedly contested without sources. Article in its current state does not pass WP:GNG. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Vietnam. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We've been getting a lot of bad Vietnam TV pages lately, but there's little I can do about them. The vnwiki article is similarly list-formatted. I do note that, if the sources can be found (and I suspect that nearly all of them are in Vietnamese), this would be a GNG-clobberer based on the information that needs to be referenced. Keep if the sources can be found. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article quality isn't great, but that's not our job. It's a thing, it's part of a national broadcast network. WP:BROADCASTOUTCOMES: "Most national and regional pay television (cable, satellite, linear streaming) services are likely to be notable." Sourcing, Vietnamese not being my long suit, is admittedly problematic but it's likely we're past WP>GNG... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:10, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If redirection has been repeatedly contested then there should be a talk page discussion, per WP:BRD. Why is there not? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ho Chi Minh City Television We're not going to delete the article of a major national broadcast network...but also, we're not going to keep an enthusiast site-formatted chronology which is poor quality. Nate • (chatter) 23:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ho Chi Minh City Television per Mrschimpf. No opposition to a merge outcome if anyone who can check the Vietnamese sources wants to take responsibility for that. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:06, 13 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commune (model of government)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Discussion continued on the talk page following the last AfD and ended with agreement to return to AfD for deletion, seeing as there is no common literature on a commune "model of government" or even relating the various insurrections/revolutionary governments colloquially known as "communes". There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Pinging prior participants @Otr500, Goldsztajn, Spinningspark, 力, and AusLondonder. czar 04:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. czar 04:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom. See comments below. -- Otr500 (talk)
Delete: Per Nom. Pages such as Intentional community and the disambig page: Commune already exist. Etriusus (Talk) 19:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is one of those articles that people often want to argue Keep for because it feels like a natural topic for an article, but as czar has repeatedly shown, "Commune (model of government)" is a larger topic than any particular branch of study. As Otr500 has pointed out, the disamb page that covers the implied topics of this article already exists at Commune. -- asilvering (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

The scope of this article is too broad (no clear direction) for a reader to learn exactly what is attempted to be portrayed. "Commune", as a political entity could be a Participatory democracy, a revolutionary government (Paris Commune), a self-governing province (Jeju Province), city-state (Principality of Monaco) or other "political organization" (from the article) such as a state, that includes "...theories about a certain range of political phenomena." This article (last sentence in the opening paragraph) states: At its core, a commune is just an organization which creates social conditions that prioritize the primacy of the collective over the individual. --- and there you have it. A commune as a model of government is a type of Intentional community. This article branches into Marxist ideologies, the same as State (polity), and delves into to mini-communes (Intentional community that could include squatters) and even workers-organizations. It looks like synthesis with some original research thrown in. Political philosophy articles need to be reliably sourced at every instance so we don't end up with unsourced editors comments exampled by everything after the source: "This hypothetical is an example...". I do not see how chopping the article back to a stub can produce anything of encyclopedic value that is not covered somewhere else. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:38, 12 June 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) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 04:15, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bengali songs recorded by Shreya Ghoshal[edit]

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

All of these lists are WP:INDISCRIMINATE listings of apparently all individual songs recorded (not "written" or "first recorded" by) by this artist. Most are not backed up by a single source (thus failing WP:V); and are otherwise probably information which is of interest only to very dedicated fans of the subject. Wikipedia is not a fansite, an itunes directory, or, effectively, a database (which is what these lists are). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, Lists, and West Bengal. ––FormalDude talk 04:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hemantha (talk) 06:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the entries are verifiable via the linked film articles, but I agree with the rest of the nomination. While I haven't checked, some sources might be available which explore her combined body of work and thus justify perhaps one list article. I do not see any basis for one article per language though. Hemantha (talk) 06:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Ultimately, I appreciate the work that @Bubaikumar has done here. However, I agree with the nominator that they do not meet Wikipedia's minimum requirements for verification. ––FormalDude talk 06:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep verification might be an issue, but then it's why this article could be improved rather than deleted. The page is not an indiscriminate listing, as suggested by the nominator, nor is it a directory (as defined on WP:NOT for both), and I can't see how a list of songs recorded by a specific artist could ever be dismissed as a fansite. We have numerous lists of songs recorded by artists or filmographies, and never would I imagine such an argument for their deletion. Sources must be added, but WP:CONRED clearly suggests that this should not be a reasoning if improvement can be offered. That's what Wikipedia is all about. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The page is not an indiscriminate listing, as suggested by the nominator, nor is it a directory (as defined on WP:NOT for both), and I can't see how a list of songs recorded by a specific artist could ever be dismissed as a fansite. That is again (now for the fourth time) an unargued, plain proof by assertion. These pages are both WP:INDISCRIMINATE (due to sheer size; but also due to being "Summary-only descriptions of works.") and WP:NOTDIRECTORY (due to being, clearly, "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit.") Refusing to acknowledge the reality of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and persisting with a personal, unsubstantiated opinion, will only make reality hit harder. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian: It must be proof by assertion on your part, my friend. Going by your interpretation (or misinterpretation) of WP:INDISCRIMINATE and specifically "Summary-only descriptions of works", no article which lists songs or films by an artist merits a WP article. And to top it all off, if artists are particularly prolific, their work is even less suitable for a WP list. The same goes for WP:NOTDIRECTORY - I completely disagree with your description of this page as a "simple listing without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit". Other than citing the same irrelevant policy without being able to explain its association to the proposed page, wikilawyering about it, and addressing everyone who votes against your nomination time and again (on this and others), you haven't proved anything and I find your rationale quite feeble. Let me then recommend again that you let people cast their votes without being forced into an empty argument with you, and the AfD run its course. Thank you, Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you come here and directly call my arguments unfounded; then don't complain that I'm "bludgeoning" when I directly address you (since you directly addressed my arguments) and show how wrong you are. You refusing to accept the validity of WP:NOT is now becoming something of a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. The only other part of your comment which warrants a reply is the OTHERSHITEXISTS argument, and that just to point out that this, except in the cases when it is a false equivalence, is indeed a good reason to delete the other stuff, too. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian: No no, I do not refuse to accept the validity of WP:NOT - I refuse to accept your interpretation of it, which is simplistic and unwarranted (please take no offence for I intend none, it's not personal). I can't see how WP:OTHERSTUFF is relevant here now - I didn't mention a particular article but just said that your rationale suggests that "no article which lists songs or films by an artist merits a WP article". Which is exactly what your flawed interpretation of policy contributes. Your point about "come here and directly..." - I'm afraid you completely misunderstand the process of AfD - people cast their votes based on their view, and it goes without saying that, if they think an article should be kept, they are obviously going to cast doubt on your arguments. The problem is that you seem to not accept that people might disagree with you and find your "arguments unfounded", and this is pretty evident in your bludgeoning here and elsewhere. This doesn't help the process, so let's at least agree to disagree. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disagreeing with interpretations of policy is fine. Repeatedly calling my interpretation "flawed", without offering any reason why it is flawed and instead simply dismissing it in a true ad lapidem style, is where I draw the line. Are these pages "simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit"? Considering that the only contextual information provided is, at best, the subject's biography (often copied exactly between the different pages), which is not contextual information about the list topic, there's not much room for anything but a "yes". Are these "summary-only descriptions of works"? yes. There's not much, if any, interpretation required here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian: Well, calling your interpretation flawed and disagreeing with is practically the same thing, I believe. And clearly, I did explain why, it's just that my reasoning does not satisfy you, I guess. That all these songs are performed by the same singer is not basic shared contextual information, but even if it was, that wouldn't be enough to dismiss it because it's not a simple listing and neither does it lack encyclopedic merit, as the quote says. You highlight one part of the quote. Your example of "List of airplanes" (which you compared to a list of this sort on another AfD) shows that your position dismisses every page which lists songs or films by an artist on WP and considers only part of the policy. Then you will bring sourcing, which is another issue and not at all a reason to delete a page per WP:CONRED. Then you will mention its excessive length with a claim that I find weird at best, as if to suggest that Shreya Ghoshal should be blamed for being more prolific than, say, the Beatles, whose list of songs is not at all a directory, according to you, for reasons you can't explain. Also weird though is your original point that the existence of such a page as the one proposed here for deletion is more suitable for a fansite. Well, we're not going to see eye to eye on this issue, I guess. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, in short, your "reasoning" as to how this does not fail WP:NOT is (quoted from your comments above):
This page is not an indiscriminate listing nor is it a directory (no further reasons provided why it is so, see [27])

I completely disagree with your description of this page ([28])

your interpretation of it, which is simplistic and unwarranted ([29])

it's not a simple listing and neither does it lack encyclopedic merit ([30])

Reasoning being the drawing of inferences or conclusions through the use of reason; the above is definitively not "reasoning", since it shows no supporting evidence, no logically sound argument, lacks any attempt to engage with counter-arguments, and is pretty much an "I'm right you're wrong" monologue coupled with a blatant disregard for the facts (if List of Hindi songs recorded by Shreya Ghoshal is not a "summary-only descriptions of works", then nothing is). As such I'll stop wasting time with people who flat-out refuse to argue about it, and let a reasonable closer come to their conclusion about how much weight these non-arguments should be given.

Your example of "List of airplanes" (which you compared to a list of this sort on another AfD) shows that your position dismisses every page which lists songs or films by an artist on WP and considers only part of the policy. Still persisting with the false equivalence? Again, the Beatles list contains a total of 300 entries, all solidly backed up by reliable sources. List of Bengali songs recorded by Shreya Ghoshal - on its own, ignoring all of the other similar lists nominated here, has 375; List of Hindi songs recorded by Shreya Ghoshal has over a 1000; ... These lists are simply not comparable in any way due to sheer differences in scale; and the additional problems posed by WP:V issues mean they are really fatally flawed. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian: Getting an accusation of false equivalence from someone who compares pages of singers' songs to a theoretical "List of airplanes" is becoming amusing. Even more so though is you cherrypicking phrases from my explanations while all you did in your "reasoning" is quoting irrelevant lines from WP:NOT and giving the same simplistic rationale that this page (and others) is too long (as if Indian singers are to be judged for being too prolific). Please, I don't get what we're doing here; what I see here is a clear case of desperate WP:BLUDGEONING and intolerance to others' contrasting opinions (further evidence of this can be found in your replies to those who vote here after me). This isn't what I would like to waste time on and keep arguing with. My vote is keep and my opinion of this nomination has been made clear already. We're done here. Shahid • ^Talk2me 08:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your position here is riddled with oblivious hypocrisy. ––FormalDude talk 09:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FormalDude: A) I wonder what makes you want to address me for the first time with this rude, unconstructive and baseless comment. B) Your opinions (or lame way of expressing them) do not interest me. C) Discuss content and not me. D) Actually no, I'm not sure I want to discuss anything with users like you. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a list of original songs "first recorded" by the artist. Can't see how it is any more WP:INDISCRIMINATE than other lists of works (such as filmographies and discographies). -- Ab207 (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can't see how a list with over a thousand unsourced entries is INDISCRIMINATE? Too bad. If there are other similarly large and excessive, unsourced lists of works, they should also be deleted. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Acceptable article subject by a notable Indian singer, it just needs sourcing. This seems more like a case of WP:I DON'TLIKEIT. We don't discriminate against artists because they are prolific. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What an utter textbook strawman which looks like WP:ITSIMPORTANT ("Acceptable article subject by a notable Indian singer"). We do discriminate against articles which fail WP:V and WP:NOT; and the second condition can't really be fixed with "just needs sourcing" RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You admit the article needs additional sourcing, therefore implying that is not suitable for mainspace, yet you've voted keep. Make it make sense. ––FormalDude talk 09:31, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Discussion seems to be split across another similar, mostly-identical AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Lata Mangeshkar — DaxServer (t · m · c) 12:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Discographies of singers, when verified and discussed in reliable sources, are of encyclopedic interest and thus wouldn't fall under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It is telling that we have an entire WikiProject dedicated to this purpose. The article in its current state does not include sources for most of its entries, but that does not mean that they don't exist.
- Considering all the 2022 songs from List of Hindi songs recorded by Shreya Ghoshal, we have:
  - "Jab Saiyaan": coverage in The Indian Express
  - "Heer Raanjhana": coverage in Hindustan Times
  - "Ami Je Tomar": coverage in The Siasat Daily
  - "Mere Dholna": coverage in Firstpost
  - "Makhmali": coverage in ThePrint
  - "Gulabi": coverage in The Free Press Journal,

but our article lists unsourced entries for all these songs. I cannot personally verify each of the hundreds of entries in the article within the course of this deletion discussion for obvious reasons, but it seems to me that there isn't a problem with sources not existing, and I disagree with the interpretation that this information does not have a place on Wikipedia when sources exist. The problem, then, ultimately lies in this article not carrying these sources. As this essay eloquently puts it, an article which may currently... lack sufficient sources... can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws. The remedy for such an article is cleanup, not deletion. Best, DeluxeVegan (talk) 16:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for the same reasons as given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Lata Mangeshkar. Shreya Ghoshal is notable, with 292 cited sources. Many of them discuss her work, the topic of the list, which is also notable. Plus, of course, we should never delete anything that might resolve an argument in a trivia quiz. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Coming here from WP:ICTF, Discography of an internationally notable artist. Such articles are split following WP:CFORK, when they grow too large. Dont use WP:BURO to delete articles that people look for. If you dont want a separate page, it will have to be merged into one discography article. There is no question of deletion. Venkat TL (talk) 14:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Urdu can be merged with Hindi. Other than that there is not much to do here. WP:CFORK is being followed. Venkat TL (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discography of an internationally notable artist is besides the point. In its present form, this fails WP:NOT. Whether the artist is notable or not does not mean that an excessive, unsourced and indiscriminate (most of these songs are not notable, and thus this fails WP:CSC as being an exhaustive listing that is clearly not reasonably short) is acceptable. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian You've made your point quite clear. I'd advise stopping now — DaxServer (t · m · c) 15:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Briefly pointing out WP:ATA or other arguments which miss the point shouldn't be controversial. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As with the parallel AFD, I'm not really seeing the WP:NOT issue here. A shorter list for a less prolific singer would not raise an eyebrow, so this appears to be a perfectly fine use of WP:CFORK. These lists also aren't mere information-dumps; among other things, they connect the song to the film it was sung in (many of which are bluelinked), which is potentially quite helpful to the reader. These lists need more sources, but there doesn't seem to be any question that the information is verifiable. -- Visviva (talk) 14:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All per previously discussed AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Udit Narayan. No change since then in policies and deletion guidelines that may suggest in deletion of this article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just refuting the "no change" bit: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bengali songs recorded by Runa Laila; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Armaan Malik. And OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a good argument to begin with. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian: It's interesting that you brought up specifically these two AfDs which clearly should not have been closed and were clearly deleted too early. WP:DRV is in order. Thank you! Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're free to keep making me laugh. Like here, the only keep arguments were "but other similar stuff exists". Like here, any reasonable closer would have (and correctly has, in these cases) dismissed such arguments which miss the point. But feel free trying. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shshshsh I am shocked. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Armaan Malik at worse should have been relisted or merged. DRV for both is in order. Please proceed. Venkat TL (talk) 11:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@User:RandomCanadian: Okay, if you say so. The fact you're not willing to read beyond what suits you does not mean others' arguments are not valid.

@Venkat TL: I have little time at the moment, will do once I get more time. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ghoshal is a high-profile singer and has been nominated for multiple major awards, including for her work in Bengali songs. Many of these have millions of views on YouTube and were reported in Indian media. I don’t see how it’s any different from many other similar lists we have on Wikipedia. Yes, it obviously needs sourcing but we should do that instead of deleting. FrB.TG (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The singer being notable misses the point. WP:OSE misses the point. This failing WP:NOT cannot be fixed with sourcing (although the lack of sourcing does indicate additional issues). Closer should disregard the above and all similar non-policy based comments per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and WP:NOTAVOTE. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How will sourcing it not fix it? Isn’t that what the issue is here: failing of WP:V? Also, WP:NOT is a very vague way of disregarding an article. OSE definitely applies if thousands of other similar articles exist, including even featured lists. If this is sourced entirely, it will be no different from those lists. If we’re to delete it based on any other reason than WP:V then all the other similar articles also need to go. FrB.TG (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thousands of other similar articles How many of these literally include thousands of entries? How many of these lack so many sources it is probably more worthwhile to WP:TNT and start from scratch? How many lack any pertinent context and sources showing such except for basically a copy of the lead of the parent article? Simply saying "other similar stuff exists" is not convincing usually, even less so when the "similar" stuff is not actually similar to begin with... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So your approach to this is "let’s delete it because it’s too long"? That is absurd. Deletion is not clean-up. There are ways to cut it down (maybe only include the most notable songs?) but deleting the lists, one of which gets 250k views a year, is not the answer. If it fails WP:V, we can start by sourcing it. Nothing is beyond fix here. FrB.TG (talk) 04:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As previously noted by DaxServer, the discussion splits across several identical AfDs. The nominator has just opened another AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hindi songs recorded by Asha Bhosle. A previous one for Armaan Malik has been restored by the closing admin after closure for further discussion. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is wide spread disruption and wastage of time by one guy with wrong understanding of notability policies. Similar Afds. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Neha Kakkar Venkat TL (talk) 08:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. They meet WP:NLIST per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 00:06, 18 June 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 06:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seminole Warriors Boxing[edit]

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

While there exists sources ([31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39]), I wouldn't consider the sum indicative of notability. SWinxy (talk) 04:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Boxing and Florida. SWinxy (talk) 04:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no evidence that this is notable boxing promoter. There doesn't appear to be significant coverage of the organization itself. Passing mentions in articles on boxers they promote doesn't come close to meeting WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. According to NCORP, "An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it." Papaursa (talk) 23:11, 14 June 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!} 03:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Ferri[edit]

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

Almost entirely self-promotional, peacocking bio of a WP:GNG non-notable individual. Lots of sources, but none WP:RS except three, none of which however is WP:DEPTH/WP:SIGCOV. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 02:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 02:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:23, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Purely a promotional article. Notability has not been shown. Sorely fails WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reads more like a resume attempting to meet WP:GNG than an article that actually passes it. Given sources poorly/don't indicate necessary notability. Gnomatique (talk) 00:49, 13 June 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!} 03:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An idea and a smile[edit]

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

WP:GNG. It's hard to see what this is even about, never mind if it should have an article. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Applying the duck test, this looks and quacks very much like OR, since the single cited source is apparently the book itself, if Google translate is accurate, and the overall writing level is very much not the standard academic English style one would expect if this were based on existing sources. The level of detail is obviously excessive (this looks more like a book summary for, I don't know, a high school class, than an encyclopedia article). The writer does not appear to be notable either, so the claims in the article that this is a book by a great writer seems almost like dubious aggrandisement. Thus, fails both WP:NOR and WP:V. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Author is non-notable, and no external sources besides that of the book itself. Spiralwidget (talk) 10:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete going to need better sources for this to meet any sort of notability guideline, and I can't find any (on the subject or the author). Gnomatique (talk) 00:01, 13 June 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. I was very close to closing this AfD with consensus to delete, due to notability concerns per WP:NLIST. The article itself contains no references to sources that discuss the topic of US cities and their areas, and why the area delineated by their borders is relevant or significant. The vast majority of this discussion didn't focus on finding or identifying sources that could be used to demonstrate the notability of this topic, which is, of course, required in order for any article to exist. However, towards the very bottom of the discussion, User:Newimpartial made a good faith effort to find a few sources. While these sources are somewhat tenuous in my opinion, I believe that they are just far enough over the line to cast doubt on whether this topic is non-notable, and push this discussion into "no consensus" territory. My advice for the editors working on this article would be to expand your search for sources that discuss the grouping of US cities by land area and include them in the article. Otherwise, this article will be at risk of being nominated for deletion again in a couple months' time (which, if it happens, should focus on a deeper analysis of the available sources to demonstrate notability). —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 22:38, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States cities by area[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

This is obvious statistical trivia. Merely (possibly? probably?) being true does not make something suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia, particularly in cases like this where the only source is the WP:PRIMARY data from the US census. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Using this logic, most of the "List of ... by population" articles should also be deleted, which is absurd. This list, for instance, averages almost 900 views per day, so it used a lot. Also, WP:PRIMARY doesn't forbid use of primary sources, stating in particular 3. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge, which describes how the census info is being used here. Indyguy (talk) 01:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good reason. Population, unlike area, is at least usually a straightforward number (one can say X people live within the City of London, Y within the London urban area, and Z within the metropolitan area); and is one for which sources can be readily found (ex. [40]); and which tends to at least be correlated with other factors (economic, social, ...). Area? Sitka, Alaska and Seattle (both on the list) seem to me pretty much like the textbook example of apples and oranges. Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, Wikipedia is not for "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". A trivial statistical intersection might be interesting to people interested in that kind of stuff, but that has never been a standard for inclusion.

As for the primary sourcing, the reason I highlighted this is because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which is usually a summary of existing, secondary sources, not data collated from original primary sources. Anybody can go through US census data and come up with random statistical intersections. That is not sufficient reason for inclusion in an encyclopedia.. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Trivia indeed; these aren't even metropolitan statistical areas or some other population-based grouping, for which a list by area might actually have some use (not saying that should exist either). I could not find a source discussing city areas in a fashion equating, as RandomCanadian notes, tiny towns and huge cities. Funny fact, though. Ovinus (talk) 01:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The US Census is public domain information and nobody is doubting the reliability of these statistics (which are often provided by the cities and the states themselves). This is common information found in sources such as The World Almanac and city/county size is cited in nearly every article, and this article already has a hard 100-entry limit which means it's not absurdly-sized. Nate • (chatter) 02:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The data being correct does not make it encyclopedic. Basic information being noted in the individual cities' articles does not mean a list of it is appropriate. Wikipedia is not the US census database. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 07:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This list in particular seems to fall foul of “listings of unexplained statistics”— city “borders” seem pretty arbitrary, with very small towns in Alaska being “huge” and most big cities being “tiny”. Not sure how this is useful beyond trivia and specialized research, neither of which we cater to. Dronebogus (talk) 12:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is what an encyclopedia should have. Wikipedia:Five pillars states Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. The Census data is not in doubt as being accurate. Listing the size of the largest cities according to it, and giving information about them in an easy to sort table, belongs here. Some come to Wikipedia to learn something, not just look at popular culture articles. Dream Focus 13:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how this is even relevant. Anyone can go through the Census data and spin out some random statistical intersection. WP:BUTITEXISTS; or "it's true"; are not valid reasons to keep it. Some come to Wikipedia to learn something, not just look at popular culture articles I fail to see what one would learn form this, except maybe answers to (ironically, since we're talking of "pop culture") trivia questions and some comparisons between big apples (yep, the Big Apple's on this list too) and random places in Alaska. Readers don't learn anything from lists or repositories of loosely associated topics; and merely being true does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This argument would be compelling if there were a general or specialized encyclopedia, almanac, or gazetteer (the US Census is none of these) which has this list or something similar to it; I doubt there is one besides Wikipedia and its mirrors. There is also a difference between extracting data from a census and extracting data from a less general ranking or list of cities. Ovinus (talk) 06:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We need a WikiAlmanac at this point, and also maybe to informally topic-ban Dream Focus from AfD due to terrible party-line keep rationales. Dronebogus (talk) 13:18, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Indeed, cities in Alaska are large, but that doesn't make this indiscriminate or trivial. It's good statistical information that shows the impact of consolidated city-counties as well as urban sprawl. It's a perfectly reasonable compilation of a superlative of encyclopedic data. If anything this could add a population density column. Reywas92^Talk 14:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's good statistical information that shows the impact of consolidated city-counties as well as urban sprawl. Without reliable sources to support this, this is nothing more than WP:ITSINTERESTING. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Badly fails WP:NLIST and WP:NOTSTATS – from the WP:GLOBAL perspective, it resembles a theoretical "List of Nebraska soccer players by height". — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, re: Wikipedia:Five pillars invoked by User: Dream Focus. Gnomatique (talk) 23:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NLIST.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 18:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Statistics for population and area administered are standard values for describing political entities. They are common and thus encyclopedic. Ask yourself, why is Russia known as #1 in the world? Its not by population, not by economics, everyone knows Russia is the largest country in the world by area, Vatican City the smallest. In fact, the statistics are commonly combined to calculate density. This OP is deliberately putting blinders on to common statistical values in order to mass delete other "by area" articles. This is improper procedure. This should be discussed as a group not as a sequence of individual AfDs. And I suggest, because of the amount of damage success at this could do, we should hear from a lot more people involved with the statistics of political entities. It would be a huge disservice to the Wikipedia readership to have something of this magnitude deleted by a handful of . . . I will withhold my expletives at this time. Trackinfo (talk) 02:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While countries are indeed compared as regards size, cities are hardly ever, because the current administrative area is rather irrelevant in city ranking. I thus find your comparison a bit misleading. Just because we compare mountains by height, it doesn't mean we should have a "List of US cities ranked by tallest building". — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets WP:GNG, is closed-ended as a class, and is supportable by WP:RS. Potentially useful to readers. E.g., urban geographers and demographers, urban planners and those interested in the relationship of size and population and their synergistic effects. This is a view from 50,000 feet, and aids comparisons and analysis. For example, the relatively large size of Detroit, combined with a markedly downward population shift has political and economic consequences. WP:Not paper and WP:Preserve. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:NLIST and WP:NOTSTATS, and city boundaries are often decided inconsistently. MrsSnoozyTurtle 12:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:LISTN. No SIGCOV in RS covering the different land areas of various cities (which, for the record, change very frequently due to annexations, etc.). -Indy beetle (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:LISTN due to lack of secondary coverage. It's not particularly useful to compare a combined city-county government with a population of 1000 to a major city of 1 million. That's why we have List of largest cities by area which compares the size of urban areas regardless of where the actual boundaries may be drawn. –dlthewave ☎ 14:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It should probably be noted for the record that this was posted to WP:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list with the comment These noms make no sense, its basic statistical information. I don't see questioning of the accuracy of the statistics, additional sources aren't necessary. What is needed are experts to tell the echo chamber of ghouls voting delete about the validity of these lists of information. (the comment was later removed). TompaDompa (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A dedicated editor was emotional and posted something, then two hours later removed it before anyone responded. I had already posted here days before that happened. Dream Focus 16:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not an accusation, against you or anyone else. It is considered best practices to note in the AfD discussion when it has been posted to WP:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list, and I figured that leaving out either that the comment was made or that it was removed would be an instance of "not telling the full story". TompaDompa (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the boundaries of cities is an historical and legal issue. They are subject to change. And it is highly variable across the country. Metropolitan statistical areas are an analytical tool. All that being recognized, I don't think that is a reason to delete. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is the kind of list that many paper encyclopedias contained before Wikipedia put most of them out of business, but I'm struggling to find any use for it. The "by area" just asks for cities in Alaska to be at the top, because many of them incorporate small centres with very large areas of barely inhabited land, and it was certainly no surprise when I just looked and saw them there. Along with the American habit of calling every town a city this just seems to be, as I saw someone write about another topic recently, a nothingburger. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is clearly a WP:DISCRIMINATE list of information. Most of the arugments I read above are that its "indiscriminate" (it's not, it's clearly defined) and that it isn't useful. Well... useful isn't really a measure that we use for notability--but I found the article and this discussion because I was looking for a list of US cities by land area. Seems to meet the measure set forth in the essay WP:IMPACT to me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:07, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clear WP:NLIST pass. Many of the Delete votes represent conceptual objections to the list (basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT), rather than being based on policy. Many reliable, secondary sources discuss the content of the list (cities by land area). Newimpartial (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could you perhaps list one of those many sources that compare cities by area? — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the first academic paper that I could find that not paywalled and follows a related approach (its authors choose to present the population and the density but not the area used to calculate density). And here are a couple of journalistic sources offering analysis directly based on land area comparisons between cities: [41] [42]. I only scratched the surface; I have no doubt there is much more out there (some of it paywalled, of course). Newimpartial (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the first paper explicitly states that it Core Based Statistical Area and not the "city area". The second link is borderline relevant, although some may argue that it's a "nothingburger" that does not venture beyond raw statistical data ("Oh, there are now cities with a bigger area than Cleveland even though they have smaller populations"). The third link is again unconnected with this present list (it discusses population densities). Does it indeed show that we need to have a separate ranking list on Wikipedia, or it's enough to have area/population data in individual articles? — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:38, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you are misreading the first paper. Tables 3 and 4 each consist of three lists: one based on metropolitan area, a second based on urbanized area, and a third based on principal city area. The content of this WP article corresponds to the city area used for the calculation underlying the third column of Table 4.

Also, it is inaccurate to say that the third link is again unconnected with this present list. It provides the land area of each city it lists and also explains how a city's land area impacts density (using the comparison of San Francisco to Jacksonville).

You have given me an excellent example of why I don't normally WP:SATISFY requests for sources at AfD: when I do give relevant sources, it is typical for editors to misread them (as you have done) or dismiss them as a "nothingburger" (as you have also done). My prior belief - that people asking for sample sources at AfD are typically making a rhetorical move rather than, you know, actually asking for sources - is unfortunately confirmed. Newimpartial (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Area of populated places is a significant topic. p b p 22:59, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the excellent arguments presented by Kashmiri and the lacking arguments given for keep so far. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:43, 16 June 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. Views are split between keep, merge and delete and I find it unlikely an agreement is going to happen. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of the largest counties in the United States by area[edit]

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

This is obvious statistical trivia which appears to have been compiled as an original project (one with an original methodology, it also seems, since this goes to lengths to explain how it came to its results) by a random Wikipedian. Merely (possibly? probably?) being true does not make something suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Doesn't pass WP:LISTN and is trivia, although less so than the counties article. There is [43], but it seems to be taken from this list. Ovinus (talk) 01:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the World Atlas took anything from Wikipedia. Just access the census website or other government sources for the same information. Dream Focus 05:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a list with no sources. Does not pass WP:LISTN TH1980 (talk) 02:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The US Census is public domain information and nobody is doubting the reliability of these statistics (often provided by counties and states themselves). This is common information found in sources such as The World Almanac and city/county size is cited in nearly every article, and this article already has a hard 100-entry limit which means it's not absurdly-sized. And unlike city entries, outside small land annexations here and there, usually the sizes of American counties never change, so this is pretty solid and unchanging statistical data. Nate • (chatter) 02:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The data being correct does not make it encyclopedic. Basic information being noted in the county's articles does not mean a list of it is appropriate. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 07:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be yet another list cruft. Azuredivay (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Statistics for population and area administered are standard values for describing political entities. They are common and thus encyclopedic. Ask yourself, why is Russia known as #1 in the world? Its not by population, not by economics, everyone knows Russia is the largest country in the world by area, Vatican City the smallest. In fact, the statistics are commonly combined to calculate density. This OP is deliberately putting blinders on to common statistical values in order to mass delete other "by area" articles. This is improper procedure. This should be discussed as a group not as a sequence of individual AfDs. And I suggest, because of the amount of damage success at this could do, we should hear from a lot more people involved with the statistics of political entities. It would be a huge disservice to the Wikipedia readership to have something of this magnitude deleted by a handful of . . . I will withhold my expletives at this time. Trackinfo (talk) 02:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment County_statistics_of_the_United_States#Area shows the top ten. This article shows 106 although 103 and 105 are missing from the list. Dream Focus 06:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets WP:GNG, is closed-ended as a class, and is supportable by WP:RS. Potentially useful to readers. WP:Not paper and WP:Preserve. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Meets GNG? How, and do you mean NLIST? Also, be mindful of where "WP:ITSUSEFUL" goes... -Indy beetle (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks independent sources establishing that WP:NLIST is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 12:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Did some searching, surprisingly, couldn't find much to substantiate this. Seems to fail LISTN with a lack of sources discussing county size across the country in a comparative way a la SIGCOV. World Atlas is the closest we have, but its not a really top tier source (ex-passion project blog). US Census data on its own is basically a primary source, and articles should not be built solely around various census facts without other secondary sources demonstrating significance. -Indy beetle (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It should probably be noted for the record that this was posted to WP:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list with the comment These noms make no sense, its basic statistical information. I don't see questioning of the accuracy of the statistics, additional sources aren't necessary. What is needed are experts to tell the echo chamber of ghouls voting delete about the validity of these lists of information. (the comment was later removed). TompaDompa (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A dedicated editor was emotional and posted something, then two hours later removed it before anyone responded. Dream Focus 16:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not an accusation. It is considered best practices to note in the AfD discussion when it has been posted to WP:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list, and I figured that leaving out either that the comment was made or that it was removed would be an instance of "not telling the full story". TompaDompa (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Putting up the template records that fact, and is ethically required by the project. Apparently someone forgot to do that. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: At one time, the World Almanac had a list of the largest counties by area. p b p 23:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is something seen as notable by the World Almanac, and the information is important enough to be listed in all articles for counties, then it obviously is notable enough for a list on Wikipedia. Dream Focus 04:23, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars, the fundamental principles of Wikipedia, where it states, "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers". (bold emphasis mine). This data is encyclopedic relative to the core principles of what Wikipedia is all about. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge - It would seem far more efficient to refactor the sortable table in List of United States counties and county equivalents to include a column for land area, so that the reader can easily find the largest counties, the smallest counties, the median county, the largest county in a particular state, the smallest county in a particular state, or whatever other statistic they're looking for. This would be far more efficient than creating a bunch of separate list articles like List of smallest counties in the United States by area, List of largest counties in Texas by area, List of smallest counties in Oregon by area, List of largest counties in the United States by population, List of smallest counties in the United States by population, etc., etc., etc. Make one big sortable table, and let the reader manipulate it to find what they're looking for. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 22:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems wholly encyclopedic as noted above. NLIST simply describes one type of list that is generally not deleted; it does not provide any authority for deletion. As others have pointed out, other major reference works have maintained comparable lists. So this list would seem to "satisfy" NLIST even if we read that guideline upside-down as the nom urges us to. The nom's claim that the discussion of land area vs. surface area makes this list OR is risible, since that is an entirely routine concern with area information, and the list creator wisely included both forms of information in the table so that readers could make their own decisions about which measure of area is more important. I have no opinion on whether the list should be somehow merged into List of United States counties and county equivalents (although I think that might be more challenging than it appears). But in any event that doesn't require the deletion process. -- Visviva (talk) 02:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The core topic is verifiable, given by the U.S. census, and it might well be worth noting that [i]t is generally presumed that obviously appropriate material, such as the inclusion of Apple in the List of fruits, does not require an inline citation. The nominator bizarrely takes issue with the fact that the article has a methodological selection criteria, despite the fact that we encourage lists to not be overly broad. This sort of list is something that is standard in the old print editions of the World Almanac and is regularly reported by the U.S. census; framing this as "statistical trivia" is quite odd in my opinion. And there are indeed reliable sources that explicitly frame this sort of thing as worth including, beyond the raw census data. The American Counties, for example, provides a detailed methodology and list of the 100 largest (and smallest) U.S. counties by land area, which seems to show interest in this sort of thing as recently as 2013. I do think that the page could be updated (The U.S. Gazeteer files are updated with county land area and sea area as of 2021). And routine calculations (like adding land area + sea area = total area) are not WP:OR. This sort of material improves Wikipedia and, if there exists some poorly phrased rule that would prevent us from fulfilling our core mission of creating an encyclopedia that combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers by making us delete basic and fundamental lists of encyclopedic information like this, we should ignore it. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:58, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to County_statistics_of_the_United_States#Area. I agree with the keep voters that this is valid encyclopedic information that is not merely trivia and certainly not original research, but I question the need for a stand-alone article that lists the top 100. I think expanding the County statistics section to the top 20 could be an appropriate cutoff. This seems like a better target than the overall list as linked by Visviva and Scottywong. Reywas92^Talk 05:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per discussion which builds the case well. When a page has this many Keeps and this many view (averaging 234 views a day) it means that from a significant point-of-view the page is an asset to Wikipedia. Delete "voters" should realize that since a large Keep viewpoint exists that also translates to the probable percentage of readers who would enjoy or use the page, benefiting the project. Everyone has a tendency to think that their point of view is correct and universal - not so, and this page falls well within the shadow of Keep. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:08, 20 June 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 Provinces and territories of Canada. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 22:13, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Canadian provinces and territories by area[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTSTATS (since the sole purpose of this page is listing a few statistics, which can be and already are covered elsewhere) and is particularly redundant to Provinces and territories of Canada, where the most significant aspects of this are already covered. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 07:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Provinces_and_territories_of_Canada, which contains all the relevant information. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 11:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not going to remark on its notability, but as a Canadian I found looking at the lists useful. Nunavut in particular was a surprise. Curiocurio (talk) 03:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOTSTATS is the suggested reason to delete. I quote it here in full Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article. (e.g., statistics from the main article 2012 United States presidential election have been moved to a related article Nationwide opinion polling for the 2012 United States presidential election). Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists offers more guidance on what kind of lists are acceptable, and Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Selection criteria offers guidance on what entries should be included. I don't think this article is an excessive list of unexplained statistics. On the contrary, I think it is well explained. I find it not confusing at all, in fact I find it clear. As per the guidance, the data is in tables and has explanatory text. The guidance suggests splitting things into separate articles, which is the opposite of what the nominator is proposing. My reading of this guidance is that if we are to follow the spirit and the technicalities of WP:NOTSTATS, then keep is the only logical conclusion. CT55555 (talk) 03:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets WP:GNG, is closed-ended as a class, and is supportable by WP:RS. Potentially useful to readers. WP:Not paper and WP:Preserve. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- GNG reads: "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." How does this meet GNG? -Indy beetle (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Some examples of where the area of Canada's provinces and territories are included in literature (and there are many, including already in the article):
  1. Johnson, G., Fisher, S. A. (1904). Canada: Its History, Productions and Natural Resources. Canada: Department of Agriculture of Canada.
  2. Federalism and Economic Reform: International Perspectives. (2006). United States: Cambridge University Press p197
  3. Political Competition and Economic Regulation. (2007), Taylor & Francis. p59 CT55555 (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It should probably be noted for the record that this was posted to WP:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list with the comment These noms make no sense, its basic statistical information. I don't see questioning of the accuracy of the statistics, additional sources aren't necessary. What is needed are experts to tell the echo chamber of ghouls voting delete about the validity of these lists of information. (the comment was later removed). TompaDompa (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A dedicated editor was emotional and posted something, then two hours later removed it before anyone responded. Dream Focus 16:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not an accusation. It is considered best practices to note in the AfD discussion when it has been posted to WP:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list, and I figured that leaving out either that the comment was made or that it was removed would be an instance of "not telling the full story". TompaDompa (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Provinces and territories of Canada. This list is redundant. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did not post it at WP:ARS. But I came here from there.

I assumed that the customary notice had been posted here. I still don't know it was or wasn't at the time. If I had noticed the omission, I would have corrected it when I posted my reply. I will try to be more diligent in the future. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

7&6=thirteen, please see here. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If that template is used, it is neutral, and simply states the fact that is of interest to a project. Without the need for User:TompaDompa's explanation. He too could put it in, 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or lightly merge to the main article; not all information is covered there and the statistics aren’t indiscriminate, trivial or “unexplained”. Dronebogus (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: quite redundant. I see nothing significant on this page not covered already on the page for Canada's provinces and territories, both land and water areas are given. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:33, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per LaundryPizza03. desmay (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Provinces and territories of Canada, which also covers this topic. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:12, 17 June 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.