< November 29	December 01 >

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!} 23:44, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Karen Hilltribes Trust[edit]

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

Could not find significant coverage to meet WP:ORG. The article mostly relies on primary sources. LibStar (talk) 00:56, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Thailand, and United Kingdom. AllyD (talk) 08:14, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - laudable yet non-notable charity that fails GNG. Bearian (talk) 14:54, 6 December 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 The Citadel. Stifle (talk) 10:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Citadel School of Humanities and Social Sciences[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to pass WP:GNG; it is not notable independent of its (notable) parent organization - and notability is not inherited ElKevbo (talk) 23:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Each of The Citadel's five schools has an independent article, containing far more detail than the one-paragraph mentions in the parent article. This is a fairly common way of dealing with major subunits of schools and colleges. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"[M]ajor subunits of schools and colleges" should not have articles if they are not independently notable so it would be helpful if you could address the notability of the school independent of its parent institution. ElKevbo (talk) 18:40, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively back into the main article, unless coverage of this particular school can be found. Bearian (talk) 14:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Bearian Andre🚐 20:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Bearian.4meter4 (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Bearian. All of the sources cited are blank pages (or maybe I just don't have access to the content of those sites?) except 3, 4, and 5, and the sources that are alive did not even mention the school as far as I can tell. With the sources currently provided, it seems that the subject is not notable enough to have a stand alone article. As for the fact that each school have their own article, as mentioned by MelanieN, I think it might be worth the time to check if the other schools are notable enough to justify their articles as well. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 00:59, 9 December 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 00:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sintered polyethylene[edit]

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

The body of the topic can be found in the article Sintering. In my opinion a stand alone article is not needed. Additionally, Sintering has more general attention and thus will be updated. Sintering, and sputtering, seems obscure but it is important and it is covered elsewhere in a very good overview article. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back. There's one line of cited test. Bearian (talk) 14:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:GNG, per the references in the expanded article. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 21:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As far as I can tell, the article on Sintering did not go so detailed on the topic of Sintered polyethylene, and the latter seem to have enough content to justify a separate article. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 23:58, 6 December 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. Stifle (talk) 10:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

3 Damansara Shopping Mall[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD was no consensus. I could only find routine coverage. Fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Malaysia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:29, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be a run-of-the-mill shopping center. The article contains minimal information and a few references, all from the same newspaper. Interestingly, List of shopping malls in Malaysia lists dozens of malls in Malaysia but does not mention this one. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources in the article establish notability per WP:GNG. WP:ROTM is an essay and does not override GNG. Garuda3 (talk) 20:58, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A cursory look shows what appears to be good citations for a large mall. Bearian (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:MILL and very out of date (that Borders and Toys R Us are definitely out of business). If you're going to put up a mall article, make sure it stays up to date. Nate • (chatter) 02:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Out of date isn't a valid reason for deletion, WP:MILL is an essay and doesn't trump GNG. Garuda3 (talk) 08:30, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For the subject matter (a listing of shops at a shopping mall), the bare expectation is that the list of stores is relatively up-to-date by at least a couple of years. Borders closed in 2011. We shouldn't, and do not, keep articles for contemporary subjects which do not receive updates due to neglect or loss of interest. Nate • (chatter) 23:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While I think you're right that both of those stores are no longer at the mall (as I can't see any listing on their respective store lists), your dates seems fairly wrong. The Borders still existed in 2017. [1] [2] (The clearance sale may have been when it closed or maybe it was just a regular "clearance" sale. Malaysian law or enforcement of fairness in advertising is often lax so frankly clearance may be just a name some thought sounded good and could have connection to actually clearing anything.) I don't know when the Toys R Us closed. Your comment makes me wonder if you are confused about the status of the overall business rather than just these specific stores. Note that both brands Toys "R" Us#Asia [3] [4] and Borders Group#Bankruptcy and liquidation [5] [6] still exist in Malaysia to this day and I think have continuously for maybe 30 years for Toys "R" Us (going by memory_ and 16 years or something for Borders, as partly mentioned in our articles (albeit unsourced and with no explanation in Borders) just like Kenny Rogers Roasters. Given the complicated franchise and branding relationships in place and a variety of local ownership requirements etc, it's always a mistake to assume the closure of a parent company means the end of their related stores in other countries. In some cases the brands can get fairly disconnected e.g. Vodafone in NZ, although recently renamed had AFAIK almost no connection for quite a few years other than a naming rights agreement. Added in edit: Consider also the attempts of various Western and Western allied country businesses to close their related businesses in Russia after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Some of these simply weren't possible. And some were but required some loss from the parent company. These were sometimes simply because the local operation was written off but I think in some cases they parent actually needed to pay some partner to exit the agreement. A bankrupt business may not be able to support any related operations but they aren't going to be paying money to get out of existing agreements either so unless there's a clause automatically ending the relationship on bankruptcy, it's likely to continue. And I think the way Russia opened in the early days combined with the potential seen for the market and perhaps perceptions it was somewhat a similar market to some existing European operations and for those who entered very early probably also the lack of obvious partners meant businesses were more likely to retain ownership at least when they started. Nil Einne (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC) 10:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Partly out of personal interest, I researched this further as I had more time now. It seems the Borders likely closed between late 2018 and mid or late 2019 see [7] [8]. So between 3 and 4 years ago. The Toys R Us, longer ago closing I believe in early April 2016. See [9] [10] but especially [11] where the comments as I understand it suggest it's closing down at the time. So over 5 years now. I didn't look for secondary RS documentation of these closures. I'm not sure it exists. I don't know the standards for shopping malls but for many of the articles of malls in NZ, I somewhat doubt you will secondary RS documentation for most of the individual store closures. I think a lot of the time even primary RS documentation will be spotty. So I'm not sure how relevant this is. Although I do see now our article does say they were minor anchor tenants which may make their closure more significant. OTOH, it also suggests we should likely keep mentioning them even if we make it clearer they are not at the mall anymore. A more significant problem is our article does not make clear AEON closed. There may be limited secondary RS at least coverage of this depending of the sourcing standards needed for such issues. Nil Einne (talk) 09:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NBUILDING and WP:ORG. The sources all appear to be routine press release type articles, articles of entirely local scope and interest, or minor trivial local coverage. Nothing here to establish the sources rise to the level of significant coverage as required by WP:CORPDEPTH for businesses, and a mall is a business.4meter4 (talk) 19:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Shopping centres have never been held to WP:NCORP standards. The article covers the building, not the people/business that owns the building. Garuda3 (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The building itself wouldn't be notable under that standard then (unless it's somehow a Mecca for the mall walking community); it has unexceptional architecture and is otherwise just another mall, and again the stores are in need for a serious updating for this to push over GNG. Nate • (chatter) 20:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, buildings do not need to be exceptional for them to pass GNG and once again being outdated can be fixed with editing and thus is not a valid reason for deletion as AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. Garuda3 (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Garuda3 Incorrect, and essentially nonsense based on the evidence. If the sources were actually about the architecture of the building or some other physical or historical property of the building then you could make a notability argument under WP:NBUILDING. However, the sources are not about the building but about the business of the mall. Businesses are definitely regulated to WP:ORG under policy. The sourcing is not there for the building and its not there for the business. See source analysis below.4meter4 (talk) 20:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG is the relevant guideline per the first bullet on that page, it supersedes specific guidelines like NBUILDING anyway. Garuda3 (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, businesses are held to a higher standard by wide community consensus. We require greater rigor, and WP:ORGCRIT applies. ORGCRIT must be passed in this case, because by community input that is how we apply GNG to businesses like malls. This is the policy. Even it it wasn't, the sourcing lacks sufficient in-depth coverage and independence to pass GNG in my opinion without applying ORGCRIT. 4meter4 (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The correct standard here as we went over earlier is GNG. This page passes that, with articles like this and all the coverage of the acquisition of the mall. These articles are focused on the mall itself. I would also argue that traffic congestion caused by the mall is directly related to the mall itself and so your source table below is incorrect. I can't currently view that article as am unable to access the Wayback Machine. Garuda3 (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again not true. This is a for-profit business with publicly traded stock announcements and therefore WP:ORGCRIT is the standard. Acquisition, merger, and branding press release announcements like these are all dismissed as trivial non-significant coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH.4meter4 (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Shopping centres have never been held to WP:NCORP standards?" Quite aside from that 4meter4 did not cite NCORP, your general stance is completely detached from longstanding practice. Shopping malls are routinely subject at AfD to ORG and other such notability criteria, and deleted for failing to meet them. You'd be just as accurate in saying that shopping centers have never been required to meet WP:NHOCKEY, WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Ravenswing 23:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually read the relevant policies before quoting strings of capital letters at me you would have noticed that WP:ORG and WP:NCORP redirect to the same policy Garuda3 (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravenswing I am indeed using WP:NCORP as a key relevant policy. Several of the sources being put forward as proving the notability of the 3 Damansara Shopping Mall are publications about the corporation that owns and operates the mall. These includes stock announcements, mergers and acquisitions, branding announcements, etc. Our relevant guidelines for referencing involving publicly traded companies (of which the 3 Damansara Shopping Mall is a part) is the WP:NCORP guideline. If we are going to start using corporate stock announcements and merger/acquistitions as evidence of SIGCOV, I don't see how anyone could reasonably argue that NCORP doesn't apply here as these are all directly related to the actions of a publicly traded company on the stock exchange.4meter4 (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
"Launching of 3 Damansara". 3 Damansara official page. Retrieved 26 June 2018.	N	N	N	N	N	Facebook page of the organization. Lacks independence. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGCRIT and WP:NBUILDING.
"All under one roof". The Star Online. Retrieved 7 August 2012.	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Article is not about the mall/organization but about a family and an unrelated housing complex. The mall (the building and business) are not even mentioned in the article and it does not actually verify the content it supposed to be verifying in the article. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGCRIT and WP:NBUILDING.
"Fear over traffic congestion". The Star Online. Archived from the original on 4 April 2009. Retrieved 7 August 2012.	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Article is not about the building or the business but about local fears over traffic congestion related to the mall. I would not consider this significant coverage of the building, or the business as it essentially about traffic in the surrounding area. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGCRIT and WP:NBUILDING.
"New mall for PJ residents". The Star Online. Retrieved 7 August 2012.	Y	N	?	Y	N	Essentially a puff piece largely based on an interview with executives who own the mall. Lacks sufficient independence from the subject to be considered a reliable source. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGCRIT and WP:NBUILDING.
"CapitaMalls to buy Tropicana assets - Business News". The Star Online. Retrieved 27 March 2016.	N	N	Y	Y	N	Routine acquisition press release announcement. Per WP:ORGCRIT guidelines not considered significant independent coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGCRIT and WP:NBUILDING.
https://www.theedgemarkets.com/article/capitaland-malaysia-trust-npi-jumps-45-1qfy22-announces-095-sen-dpu	N	N	Y	Y	N	Stock analysis of the corporation that owns the mall. No mention of the 3 Damansara Shopping Mall except in quoted text by an corporate employee. Not independent and not in-depth. Regardless, this is sig cov of the larger company but not of this specific mall. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Total qualifying sources					0	There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements

keep Found notibility this. Should pass GNG.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 21:27, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HelpingWorld 3 Damansara Shopping Mall is not even mentioned in that article other than in quoted text by a CEO connected with the portfolio of businesses which is about the corporation which owns the mall. I added it to the table. 4meter4 (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging HighKing who is an expert on WP:ORG policy. What is your opinion? Do we consider stock analysis SIGCOV under WP:CORPDEPTH? Also, this appears to be about the corporation that owns the mall and not the mall itself, so does this even count as coverage of the mall? The only mention of the m all is in a recovery plan by an employee of the corporation. 4meter4 (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I feel this is vote stacking per Wikipedia:Canvassing given HighKing's AfD record. I don't think that comment is an appropriate notification. Garuda3 (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

4meter4 has also written a request for input at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies) and while the notification wording is neutral, the audience is very much partisan. Garuda3 (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've also left a note at ANI. ~~I suspect that some of the commenters here may have an undisclosed WP:COI with connections to this for-profit business.~~ The reluctance to apply our policies for for-profit businesses to this article is very odd. The fact that neutrally worded questions and posting notifications to pages where editors who are likely to be well versed in policies on for-profit businesses with community backing is being misconstrued as canvasing is equally concerning. If we can't ask for help from the most competent collection of editors, that seems to be counterproductive to building an encyclopedia. 4meter4 (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned at ANI There's nothing wrong with posting a neutral notice on the notability guideline talk page, but canvassing an individual editor with a vague criteria of being an "expert" is simply unacceptable. Please don't do that again. Nil Einne (talk) 02:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I won't make that mistake again. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

? As per WP:APPNOTE, The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion is appropriate, how is leaving a message at a notability talk page, much like leaving a message at a local WikiProject, partisan? VickKiang (talk) 02:38, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"... the audience is very much partisan." Care to elaborate on your hard evidence for this? (Never mind "partisan" for what, exactly?) Ravenswing 02:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Good grief. Passing the GNG does NOT, repeat, NOT mean "Oooo, there are sources listed." It does NOT mean "Oooo, using the search term means I found a link on the interwebs so that must mean it's a GNG pass, right?" Passing the GNG means that the subject has gained "significant coverage" in multiple reliable sources, and if you're fuzzy in what those elements mean, or if you're judging based on "cursory" glances, you have no business in deletion discussions. To quote from WP:ORG, "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability." This is what we have here. Ravenswing 23:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO and WP:NOTDIRECTORY, as well as the source analysis by 4meter4 and my online search for sources. There is insufficient significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to support notability under any guideline. Beccaynr (talk) 01:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 4meter4. This fails WP:ORG, the current refs are a collection routine announcements clearly failing WP:CORPDEPTH. Many of the sources appear to be promotional, e.g., this states locates strategically and you're in for a surprise, clearly a promotional piece. The source HelpingWorld provided is trivial, mentioning that Portfolio occupancy as at March 31, 2022 declined slightly to 79.5%, largely due to the exit of a supermarket anchor at 3 Damansara... in a quoted text that clearly is not direct independent non-trivial coverage required per CORPDEPTH. The other references are either interview-like, depending exclusively on non-independent quotes and covering trivial details on stores/retail openings, general information about a housing complex or traffic congestion, or other stock/acquisition press releases that falls under standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage under examples of CORPDEPTH-failing coverage. My WP:BEFORE unfortunately found no sources counting towards WP:NCORP (though if other keep voters found any do ping me, thanks), and the keep votes are currently unconvincing, so I'm at delete. VickKiang (talk) 02:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 4meter4's source assessment table, and the fact that a quick search yields advertisements, mostly. Nythar (💬-❄️) 03:03, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Theoretically, this could be a notable building, which would require significant (not routine) coverage of its design, architecture and history as a notable building. I see none of that. It is just another mall and there many thousands of them. None of the sources discuss anything unique about its architecture. They say nothing about its architecture. Alternatively, the article could be framed as coverage of a notable business, which would require significant coverage in reliable, indepent sources of this mall as a business venture. Again, I see none of that. All I see is trivial, routine local coverage of things like ownership changes, store and post office branch openings, and local concerns about traffic impacts. That is nowhere near enough. Cullen328 (talk) 07:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have grown rather fond of 3 Damansara Mall based on this heart-warming story in New Straits Times about the amazing customer-service of the fishmonger at the Oliver Gourmet food hall, and there is this somewhat tantalizing headline in Malay Mail Online that begins "List of notable malls in Klang Valley" but ends "with reported Covid-19 cases in third wave"...but this is not nearly enough to write an article, let alone satisfy WP:NCORP. And no, no real independent analysis of its performance as a business and not seeing anything about its architecture in initial Wikipedia Library cross-database search either. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:35, 9 December 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. Stifle (talk) 10:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mason (American band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There is a lack of notability in the article. Zekerocks11 (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Zekerocks11 (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing has changed with the article since 9 yrs ago when it was up at AfD. Nothing notable about them and zero sources found. Oaktree b (talk) 21:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as does have an AllMusic staff written bio here and a album review there as well, also book source mentioned in the previous AfD, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Atlantic306, WP:BARE, and WP:NBAND: we have tended to keep bands for which there is an article on AllMusic. It's not an open-and-shut case, however. Bearian (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. While there isn't much online coverage, the Allmusic bio suggests they were significant enough in their day. It seems very likely that print coverage from the 1970s exists. --Michig (talk) 14:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough to suggest notability Flibbertigibbets (talk) 03:27, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep In addition to the AllMusic bio, I found a review of their album. Garuda3 (talk) 21:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It needs to be noted the flaw in relying on these particular AllMusic entries--comprising the bio, discography, and previous AfD discussion--as something we can fairly rely on in assessing this band's notability, as there appears to be some confusion with the work of this band and someone else who records under the same name. ShelbyMarion (talk) 03:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Should the article be kept, Mason (band) is the better title. 162 etc. (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Not sure how much this helps in building consensus, but everyone who issued a not-so-enthusiastic "weak keep" above is convincing on the existence of the AllMusic bio and a few surviving album reviews. This indicates that the band got some reliable notice in its day, but the article will never rise above Stub status. Also, I agree with the recommendation to move the article to Mason (band). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

East African Children's Education Fund[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. No coverage found. Nothing in gnews or gbooks. LibStar (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Kenya, and Uganda. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - laudable charity, but many of the extravagant claims in the articles do not bear up to scrutiny, and coverage is very poor. Bearian (talk) 14:57, 6 December 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!} 03:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sarıkız, Amasya[edit]

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

Apparently mythological peak, not a place?? JJLiu112 (talk) 20:54, 16 November 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 November 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:18, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More logical thing would be to revert this edit, no? ~Styyx^Talk? 21:50, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Didn't notice the vandalism as it was sourced, I assumed it was genuine. JJLiu112 (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, don't understand why this is being relisted as AfD rationale is clearly erroneous (I note no concern about notability has been expressed, just questioning whether the place is real) - the source in the article is sufficient to show this is a real and officially recognised village. --GGT (talk) 01:04, 6 December 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Ursula's College, Kingsgrove[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, sourced entirely to primary sources. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Christianity, and Australia. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 22:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourcing available satisifies WP:GNG, as it does for pretty much any secondary school in the English-speaking western world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:46, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How does it satisfy WP:GNG? It's all primary sources GNG requires secondary sources. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:37, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per usual outcome for secondary schools. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:07, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES was overturned, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist now. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:37, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:59, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are 3rd party sources on there already, and more to be found, and there are a few good notable Alums to add, I think it needs work, not deleting JeffUK (talk) 12:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sources 1,2,4, 5 and 6 are the schools website and source 3 is the website of a group the school is part of. None of these are 3rd party, in my WP: BEFORE search all I could find was either database entries, primary sources or Wikipedia mirrors. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JeffUK:. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:34, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep per ~~JeffUK~~BusterD per WP:HEY. Deus et lex (talk) 08:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
JeffUK's argument is false though, he claims 3rd party sources are on the article when all 6 sources are primary sources. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all the sources are primary. Bearian (talk) 14:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if there's not consensus for deleting, there is a valid alternative to deletion which is a Redirect to Kingsgrove, New South Wales. The article should not be deleted. Deus et lex (talk) 23:49, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: My reasonable BEFORE found several reliable sources directly detailing the subject from which I've added five citations. I find 43 mentions in this volume about the Ursuline order in Australia, but only a snippet view is available in gbooks search. The three snippets shown demonstrate direct detailing of the institution. Plenty more to be found. I agree with User:Deus et lex redirection would be a superior outcome to deletion. BusterD (talk) 22:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the reliable sources coverage identified by BusterD which have been added to the article as references including newspapers and the above-mentioned book so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:10, 8 December 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 1997–98 Australian Baseball League season#All Star Games: 12–13 December 1997. czar 03:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1997 Australian Baseball League All-Star Game[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:GNG. Merge into 1997–98 Australian Baseball League season. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball and Australia. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the season article as suggested by the nominator. There are some articles about the game on newspapers.com, but none of the "extensive coverage" required by WP:SPORTSEVENT which would justify a standalone article. Hatman31 (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Not enough material to justify a stand-alone article. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 23:51, 6 December 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 and rename to "Deputy Chief Minister of Madhesh Province". Randykitty (talk) 13:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of deputy chief ministers of Madhesh Province[edit]

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

A "list" of one. I tried to redirect it, but was reverted, so AfD it is. Fram (talk) 16:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Lists of people, and Nepal. Fram (talk) 16:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment are deputy ministers even notable in the first place? As they say, one is the loneliest number. I don't think we need a list for one individual at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 17:00, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Deputy Chief Minister of Madhesh Province. This is the simplest solution and if necessary we can procedurally reopen the AfD to debate whether the office is notable. JMWt (talk) 19:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per above. An anonymous username, not my real name 20:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rename As per analysis by JMWt. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 23:50, 6 December 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. Consensus has moved to Keep after recent additions to the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa Suchecka-Nowak[edit]

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

Commendable, but the sources are lacking. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Keep. Not every soldier who wins a few medals merits an article. However, the work done by Piotrus here demonstrates that sufficient sources exist to support this soldier having an article. BD2412 T 16:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Military, and Poland. Shellwood (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 03:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tried to find more sources outside of the ones included on the page... could not find any. Sources provided aren't substantial enough, fails WP:BASIC. HennSw123 (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Consider waiting a bit, I don't see WP:NBIO met here, but I started a discussion at pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2022:11:28:Teresa Suchecka-Nowak. Maybe some Polish Wikipedians can dig better sources or make compelling arguments I'll bring to your attention. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: it has been poined out that Order of Polonia Restituta is Poland's second highest Polish civilian decoration. This could mean she meets WP:ANYBIO ("The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor"). @BD2412, Mztourist, and HennSw123: --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Piotrus: We could merge/redirect to List of recipients of the Order of Polonia Restituta. If nothing more can be found on the subject than what is in the article now, I see nothing worth keeping separate. BD2412 T 17:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @BD2412 Few sentences can be translated from pl wiki, there's a short explanation of why she received the Cross of Valor. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me know if the article is actually improved, then. BD2412 T 17:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @BD2412 I've translated relevant content from pl wiki. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per my comment (update) above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ ~~Very weak~~ Keep @Piotrus- ~~not notable~~ (after reading your rationale there.) I checked what WU museum have to say about her. Yes, keep. Seems to be notable. GizzyCatBella🍁 18:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GizzyCatBella Are you sure? Consider my comments and the discussion on pl wiki. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus Let me check - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if someone would translate the polish article and add the text and citations from there to here. Bearian (talk) 14:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian But I did it, a day before your comment? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Piotrus, for adding the material. See WP:HEY. Bearian (talk)

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. Even after two relists, there appears to be no clear consensus on whether to keep or delete this article. No prejudice against re-nominating this in another few months time if more in-depth sources do not become available. Randykitty (talk) 13:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Coladangelo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject is notable only for her relationship with the politician Matt Hancock which can be dealt with in his article. She has no independent notability. If you exclude her family and her relationship with Hancock, what is left is very minor indeed. This page exists primarily as a coatrack for a politically-motivated attack on Matt Hancock, the former British health minister, who is currently appearing in a reality TV program and has been criticised for his performance during the recent pandemic. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:07, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 09:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Agree with the nominator, subject is not independently notable. Information is already covered in Matt Hancock's article. --92.15.144.174 (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree; continuing coverage and allusions, e.g. Private Eye.

— FlashSheridan (talk) 13:29, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For reasons given by FlashSheridan above. On a side note, Philafrenzy objects to Companies House being cited as the source for her date of birth because it is "a primary source." Surely her birth certificate is the primary source. Yes or no? 91.216.181.11 (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dates of birth at Companies House are self-reported by the filer and therefore are primary sources. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:44, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Has anything changed since the last AFD? It was a clear Keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and create a redirect to a section of Matt Hancock. Not independently notable, and the article borders on an attack on Coladangelo, as much as or more than on Hancock as the nominator suggests. At the previous AfD, much was made of insinuations in the press that Hancock's appointing her as an NHS advisor was sleazy in view of her background as a lobbyist; I see this point is in the article, including discussion of her pay, so if this was indeed big in the press prior to the events that led to Hancock's resignation, perhaps that should also be mentioned in his article and the redirect lead to the COVID-19 pandemic section. But it does not appear to have attracted sufficient coverage among other similar topics alleging sleaze until the June 2021 exposé that led to his resignation, so that section of his article is probably a better target. Nor does that blip of coverage of Hancock's hiring her make an adequate second point of notability, and there do not appear to be any other reasons for notability: her career has not otherwise attracted extended coverage, her father's purported wealth, her uncle, and her marriage are all clearly not points of notability, so what we have is a negative-leaning near-BLP1E. Her name is a legitimate search target but the encyclopaedic information about her can be adequately conveyed at the Hancock article. (In view of FlashSheridan's !vote, I searched for evidence of an exposé in Private Eye covering more than the lockdown clinch; merely being mentioned there, no matter how frequently, doesn't indicate notability. Repeated name-dropping is after all what they do. If there is Private Eye coverage with new information that contributes to her notability, please indicate what it uncovers so that a citeable source can be found.) Yngvadottir (talk) 09:38, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is substantial ongoing coverage specifically about her, e.g. [12] [13]. She is pictured on the front page of today's Mail [14]. The nominator apparently wants to merge the article with another article. So do it. Merge the article and create a redirect, if you think that is the correct editorial decision. No need to nominate for deletion. Cmeiqnj (talk) 01:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All three of those are tabloids whose use as references is deprecated here. Is there any such coverage—of her quitting her job and future plans, etc.—in reliable sources? Yngvadottir (talk) 03:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A couple more sources from the last couple of days here
- https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/gina-coladangelo-the-real-breakout-star-of-i-m-a-celebrity-89h6lbg22
- https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/gina-coladangelo-matt-hancock-celeb-b2236852.html

Cmeiqnj (talk) 13:01, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are both her talking about Hancock - i.e. not really about her in her own right. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOTINHERIT, all the coverage seems to be about her and Hancock. LibStar (talk) 23:56, 8 December 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 Sweden Democrats. Legoktm (talk) 03:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Riks[edit]

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

There is too little here for a separate article. Should be selectively merged (and redirected) into the parent, Sweden Democrats. This article has been created once or twice before by a sockpuppet, as Draft:Riks, and was turned down and deleted. gidonb (talk) 22:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Politics, and Sweden. gidonb (talk) 22:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sweden Democrats seems like a good editorial decision.Draken Bowser (talk) 08:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - two in-depth sources from newspapers meets GNG. It is fine for an article to be a stub, and there's a reasonable expectation it could be expanded in the future as time goes on. matt91486 (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not merge now without prejudice to having an article sometime in the future, if someone would be inclined to write a proper WP:SPINOFF for Sweden Democrats? Are we or aren't we editing the encyclopedia as it is? gidonb (talk) 16:06, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, with no prejudice to have an article once there's actually content. I think Riks is notable enough for an article of its own, but if there isn't enough content, the best editorial choice seems to be to have a couple of sentences in the Sweden Democrats article until someone can write a proper article about Riks. /Julle (talk) 22:19, 7 December 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!} 20:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

M. Dronfield[edit]

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

Source search doesn't appear to indicate a pass of WP:GNG or WP:NBIO, likely related to Draft:Matt Dronfield which was tagged for COI, and possibly created by a related account. ASUKITE 20:52, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, United Kingdom, England, and United States of America. ASUKITE 20:52, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. BostonMensa (talk) 02:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly a completely non-notable person. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Sorry, I jumped the gun a bit on this AfD. The creator was blocked as a sock, so I believe this can be speedied now if anybody wants to skip the afd process. ASUKITE 16:55, 1 December 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!} 20:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tables of thermophysical properties of water[edit]

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

WP:NOT the place for pages full of statistics. While a useful refrence, this doesn't belong here Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 20:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:07, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I counted over 870 pressure and temperature conditions with four to twelve datapoints each. 'Nuff said. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not suitable for Wikipedia. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 01:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DELREASON#14: Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia. Specifically, WP:NOTSTATS. TompaDompa (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above, but specifically we are not a free web host of data regardless of its usefulness. The consensus has been clear for many years, and everyone knows that. Bearian (talk) 15:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTSTAT Lightburst (talk) 02:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOTIINFO, this stuff would be found in most chemistry textbooks. Ajf773 (talk) 09:59, 7 December 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!} 17:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fung Long Hin[edit]

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

Can't find any in-depth sourcing, but might be due to language barrier. Have requested several times through tagging and redirection for it to be improved, but editor refuses to provide enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:34, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:34, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hong Kong FC in the absence of sources that establish that the subject meets GNG. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- We usually don't redirect players to the team article. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Ideally, we should have a centralized discussion on whether redirection to team is appropriate for non-notable players in the aftermath of the removal of appearance-based criteria. I think there's cases to be made both for and against it, and was basing my !vote off of the BLARs in this page's history that led to the AfD. I'm ok with either redirection or deletion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  redirection is not a sensible idea generally, because the vast majority of players play for more than one team... Giant Snowman 19:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, editor here, I've deleted the "style of play" and other "unsourced" information off the page and it remains as it is for now. All references are sourced to the HKFA page which shows his correct statistics and appearances as shown in the Career stats table. I have removed un-cited sources and I've left the reliable sources cited there, I do not see why the page needs deletion. - Tildakcas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tildakcas (talk • contribs) 05:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant guideline has already been linked above, WP:GNG. The issue is not the current content of the article but the apparent absence of significant prose coverage of the subject in independent secondary sources. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make that a bit clearer User:Tildakcas; references to statistics, and even a name-drop in a match report isn't enough. What you need is media coverage (like a newspaper article) that has lots of coverage about this player. You don't need to fix the article at this time; just give a couple of good URLs in this discussion. Nfitz (talk) 23:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As per requested, I've complied a list of media coverage https://www.instagram.com/p/CjkBNC2Pd0K/, https://www.instagram.com/p/Cjmy5bmp8In/, https://today.line.me/hk/v2/article/1D0DN6E — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tildakcas (talk • contribs) 06:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It could possibly goto draft space, but this is really just a stub article. Can always been recreated in the future if need be. Def fails GNG. Govvy (talk) 09:37, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find any significant coverage. Oppose redirect as it will become irrelevant and confusing to the reader when he leaves HKFC. It would be more useful to the reader for this not to be redirected anywhere. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:47, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Bruxton (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

José L. Domingo[edit]

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

Another WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, but unlike WP:Articles for deletion/Mei-Ching Fok, an account bearing the name of the subject is the one who requested deletion [15] [16], stating "José Luis Domingo wants this unauthorised article about him to be deleted". This subject easily passes WP:NPROF on multiple accounts: chief editor of multiple journals, distinguished prof, 38k cites w/ h-index of 97; I figured it better to get community input since he above and beyond passes our criteria. Curbon7 (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I am in favor of keeping for the reasons I outline in the last sentence; this nomination is procedural as in the stead of the subject. Curbon7 (talk) 18:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Spain. Curbon7 (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This fits the definition of articles to keep, he is notable and just because the author is mad doesn't mean it is a bad article. There is no apparent illegal, slanderous or other content that would not be worthy to keep Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 17:26, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. BLPREQUESTDELETE is for borderline cases, not for non-borderline people to suppress recent negative information about themselves. (I removed the information from the article because it had inadequate sourcing for a BLP, but I strongly suspect it to be the cause of this deletion attempt.) —David Eppstein (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Edit warring dramas aside, the subject is not a relatively unknown, non-public figure (WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE). MarioGom (talk) 16:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a WP:FRINGEBLP to a degree in terms of anti-GMO sentiment, so even if the subject wants it deleted, that can't be used to scrub what they became notable for. If anything, the article seems pretty tame right now. KoA (talk) 16:23, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nominator seems to have withdrawn the request as inapplicable post-WP:TNT (non-admin closure) Dronebogus (talk) 15:48, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Schrödinger's cat in popular culture[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Messy list of media mentioning the concept of Schrödinger's cat at a level that would make TVTropes sigh (ex. "In season 10 of Bones, Dr. Brennan tells a joke referencing Schrödinger's cat." or "In the made-for-television movie Mean Girls 2, one of the characters wears a shirt written "Save the Schrödinger's cat"."). Fails WP:LISTN and WP:IPC, as well as WP:GNG. Much of the content, including most of the prose, is unreferenced WP:OR. IF there is something notable here, which I doubt, WP:TNT applies. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Animal, and Popular culture. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 16:48, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but urgh. Schrödinger's cat is a pop-cultural icon, and it would be futile to argue otherwise. This is the type of ubiquitous reference that separate pop culture articles are appropriate for. However, the current article looks like a stinking embarassment out of WP's ancient past (time for that XKCD illustration again?) This should be radically pruned of anything that is not solidly third-party sourced, as per MOS:POPCULT. I suspect the remainder will still be a substantial list. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Solid pruning job done by XOR'easter, and as far as I can see all the stuff that is gone really had to go for policy and MOS reasons, so I hope there'll be no back-and-forth about these removals. Useful stub now. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:20, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The topic may be one that could and should be written about in an encyclopedic manner, but this current list certainly isn't it. As mentioned by the nom, this is not an article about Schrödinger's cat's impact on popular culture, but a list of media mentioning the concept of Schrödinger's cat - a complete mess of an example farm, much of it being extremely non-notable examples at that, that has almost no actual legitimate sources. Pretty much the only decent source being used in the article that discusses the topic is the "100 Cats Who Changed Civilization" book. The "prose" section at the top is deceptive, as it is simply more lists of examples, with the only real difference between it and the rest of the list is that the entries are not separated by bullet points. I am honestly not seeing anything in the current version of this article that would actually be appropriate for preserving for any kind of rewrite or reworking, outside of the single sentence "It was not long before science-fiction writers picked up this evocative concept, often using it in a humorous vein", and I don't think that alone is worth a Keep. Rorshacma (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my above recommendation, as the nominator has indicated they would like to withdraw the nomination if possible. Rorshacma (talk) 03:53, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with Rorshacma. The list is largely uncited, and if it were to be cited as it stands, the citations would basically ALL be WP:PRIMARY, i.e. the list is a) unstructured b) uncited and c) WP:OR by synthesis, a collection supposed by editors to be relevant to the topic at hand, with no evidence that any scholar, journalist, or published author actually thinks anything of any of it. The subject is obviously not without interest, but that would require actually reading articles in popular science magazines and seeing what has been written ABOUT the subject in WP:RS. I suggest we delete this sorry list, and - if anyone wants to do the work - to replace it with a proper, reasoned, cited article that's actually defensible and on-subject. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, how nice to see an AfD being responded to by actually making the appropriate and necessary improvements to the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep despite all the WP:VAGUEWAVE action in the nomination and the above delete opinions, no one has credibly argued that cleanup is impossible, just undone in the ~13 years since the last AfD. That's a reason for cleanup, not deletion. The evidence of notability is abundant, yet still indiscernible to many? Methinks someone needs to open the box. Jclemens (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:07, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The 100 Cats book is one source that can be used to justify WP:GNG, but as is, there is no content worth preserving in the article. We applied a similar precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Far future in fiction, and the article that took its place is decent. Overwriting from scratch without deleting the history, like was done at Earth in science fiction, is acceptable and equivalent but for attribution. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:25, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For future reference, here is the source as cited in the article: Sam Stall (2007-05-01). 100 Cats Who Changed Civilization. p. 34. ISBN 978-1-59474-163-0.. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but overhaul. The topic of Schrödinger's cat being invoked in fiction has received academic study (e.g., [17][18][19]). There's a topic here, to which the current text does not do justice. I sympathize with the desire to blow it up, but I think revising it in situ would be more convenient than deleting and recreating. The current version provides examples that can be looked up to see if secondary sources exist. We could also push it over into draft space and redo it there, but that seems overkill for a page whose crime is just being crufty. XOR'easter (talk) 01:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I stubbified the page, removing the trivia while leaving the opening lines and whatever was supported by secondary sources. I've also added a couple references that weren't there before. The junk is gone, and we now have a sensible starting point to build upon. XOR'easter (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@XOR'easter Excellent job. I think this can be kept now, although I cannot speedy close this myself as long as there are existing delete votes. I'll ping everyone who voted delete to see if they will reconsider their vote. @Zxcvbnm @LaundryPizza03 @Rorshacma @Chiswick Chap _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:02, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that the article as-is is pretty terrible, but the article absolutely could be good if it was re-written. I think the delete arguments are too skewed towards the idea that it's better to delete and start over instead of keep and re-write. I don't think there's a valid policy reason for deleting this article (as I think it passes WP:GNG and the non-notability reasons given are just essays), so in my opinion it's better to keep and re-write. OliveYouBean (talk) 08:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@OliveYouBean " I don't think there's a valid policy reason for deleting this article". The current text fails WP:OR and much of it fails WP:V. It also clearly violates Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:38, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe these problems have been resolved by XOR'easter's recent changes, and the fact that they could be resolved like that are why I favoured keeping the article and fixing it instead of deleting it. Needing improvement isn't a reason for deletion. OliveYouBean (talk) 03:04, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:TNT. While it could potentially be a developed article, in its current state it should be thrown out and restarted as prose. The list content violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:23, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article has since been TNT'd and restarted, I will strike my delete !vote, but still say draftify, because it is too short to be a viable article yet. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:36, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination. The article has been effectively TNTed and rewriten a stub or maybe alraedy a start-class prose article. GNG appears met, and other policies (IPC, OR, VER, etc.) no longer seem broken. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:36, 3 December 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. Star Mississippi 15:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeewan Viraj[edit]

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

Delete. Fails GNG and NCRIC. Seems to have been created by mistake after the author evidently confused him with another player called V. Perera. Article originally said he played at List A level but in fact he is only recorded in one U23 match in 2008. Definitely not notable and does not qualify for ATD. Bc Jvs UTC 16:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Sri Lanka. Bc Jvs UTC 16:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obviously not notable. OliveYouBean (talk) 07:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does look to be a case of mistaken identity. Because of this there's not a suitable WP:ATD so therefore delete. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable Bruxton (talk) 21:47, 6 December 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. Star Mississippi 15:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gustavo Anzaldo[edit]

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

Article about former footballer who once played in the Mexican second tier but comprehensively fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. Best source available is trivial coverage of his promotion from the Puebla youth system here. PROD was removed because article was previously deleted via PROD (although the new version is not an improvement over the deleted version). Jogurney (talk) 16:02, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:09, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:44, 1 December 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 14:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aviajet[edit]

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

Subject of article does not appear to meet the corporate notability criteria (WP:CORP) as there appears to be virtually no coverage in secondary sources, let alone any of significance. What few mentions there are seem to be either user-generated content or unrelated uses of the same name. XAM2175 ^(T) 14:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In my own WP:BEFORE, I found and added a number of refs that (at least) support the existing text. And have allowed for some expansion. As noted in the nom, except in somewhat niche airline/charter/aircraft news sources (like the "Airways: A Global Review of Commercial Flight" and "Aviation News" sources added/linked), most of the coverage I have found falls into the "passing mention" category. The only "mainstream news" source I could find was the coverage of the 2007 aborted landing. And, while used to support the text, it doesn't really support a notability claim. I'll take another look later and see if I find any non-trivial/non-primary/non-UGC ("plane spotters") type content (and, depending on what is found, will update my !vote).... Guliolopez (talk) 16:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Guliolopez: Thanks very much for your efforts. XAM2175 ^(T) 12:01, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, and Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 18:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. I agree with Shellwood above - there's the occasional passing mention or PR but I can't locate anything that contains in-depth information *on the company* and "Independent Content". HighKing⁺⁺ 11:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. It seems somewhat odd to me that a "virtual airline" can exist for 25 years (and can apparently fly hundreds of thousands of passengers in that period and do so using any number of commercial aircraft painted in their own livery), while also seemingly not attracting enough coverage to meet SIGCOV. (And especially odd when a software startup, comprising little more than a loose concept and two people in a garage, can garner excessive amounts of newsprint.) However, while it may seem bizarre and oxymoronic, the fact is that, while my own WP:BEFORE has returned enough sources to support the article text, I'm not seeing enough coverage to support a notability claim. And therefore, if reluctantly, I'm oblidged to err on the side of a "delete" recommendation... Guliolopez (talk) 14:31, 30 November 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 2022 Pacific typhoon season#Other systems. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 13:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Philippine floods[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, at best could be merged with 2022 Pacific typhoon season. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 13:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 13:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2022 Pacific typhoon season#Other systems ~~SeanJ 2007 (talk) 01:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)~~ SeanJ 2007 (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
its not typhoon

however what if we add all the incidents of floods (all ictz's that happens and LPAS) 🌀 SuperTyphoonNoru 🌀 SuperTyphoonNoru (talk) 03:48, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would it more prudent to merge the content to the "Other systems" section of said article. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 13:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hariboneagle927: Sure! SeanJ 2007 (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2022 Pacific typhoon season#Other systems. Fails WP:GNG independently per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Fails WP:GNG per nom. Also, I don't think the JMA ever designated the system as a TD, which is what determines if a system goes into "other systems" in Pacific typhoon season articles. It should be merged into Weather of 2022#November instead. RandomInfinity17 (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with 2022 Pacific typhoon season#Other systems Bruxton (talk) 21:48, 6 December 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 Aam Aadmi Party. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aam Aadmi Party, Goa[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:BRANCH, WP:GNG and WP:ORG.- TheWikiholic (talk) 09:03, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Goa. Shellwood (talk) 10:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect / Merge to Aam Aadmi Party. This is a brand-new state party that won a couple of seats in the state legislature, for the first time, in 2022. A good deal of the article's information is unsourced. Maybe the redirect could be re-expanded if the party becomes more significant in the future. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:07, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested. Mccapra (talk) 13:31, 30 November 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 Aam Aadmi Party. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aam Aadmi Party, Gujarat[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:BRANCH, WP:GNG and WP:ORG.- TheWikiholic (talk) 09:01, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Gujarat. Shellwood (talk) 10:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Aam Aadmi Party. This is a brand new party that first contested elections in 2022. As far as I can tell they won positions only at the local level, none in the state assembly. If they become more successful in the future the redirect could be re-expanded to a full article. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:21, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:07, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested. Mccapra (talk) 13:32, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, this page is too long for a party with 0 seats in assembly holding 0 municipal corporations. Only place where the party has a decent amount of seats would be the Surat Municipal Corporation but they don't even have a majority there. For what it's worth the AAP did contest the 2017 Gujarat Legislative Assembly election, but they got less than 0.1% votes. Overall this page just isn't notable enough and should probably be redirected. Ok123l (talk) 12:38, 1 December 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. Additional sources are found which make it a solid keep (non-admin closure) scope_creep^Talk 03:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

N. Leigh Dunlap[edit]

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

Can find almost no coverage on the subject. Note tag and references are dubious at best. No real secondary sourcing. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 11:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Women. Shellwood (talk) 13:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Massachusetts and Washington, D.C.. Skynxnex (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep per the multiple sources identified in the comments below. Meets AUTHOR. Oaktree b (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NAUTHOR The sourcing is a bit harder to find than usual but there's real material out there:

From the DC Public Library Washington Blade archive: N. Leigh Dunlap: The broad-brimmed Morgan Calabrese retired by Kennedy Smith, December 6, 1991: "Born" in the Philadelphia Gay News, N. Leigh Dunlap's cartoon persona Morgan Calabrese was a pioneer among Gay male and Lesbian cartoon characters, breaking ground in syndication and visibility. Regrettably, Morgan — who bore a striking resemblance to Dunlap herself — bit the dust last year when Dunlap gave up professional cartooning to become a full-time coffee retailer.

Washington Blade apparently reviewed Morgan Calabrese: The Movie positively but I can only find ads quoting the Blade but it's something: [20]: "Morgan is truly the gay movement’s Doonesbury. Dunlap muses over crushes, holidays and breaking up with gentle humor and touching insight."—The Washington Blade

From Women's glib : a collection of women's humor book (internet archive library link), 1998: N. LEIGH DUNLAP is a two-time winner of the International Gay and Lesbian Press Association’s “Outstanding Achievement” Award and the author of two book collections: Morgan Calabresé: The Movie;and Run That Sucker at Six!!!. The second book was a Lambda Literary Award nominee. Her weekly strip, Morgan Calabresé, is syndicated and appears regularly in ten papers around the U.S., with additional biographical details in a few follow sentences.

This review in the Seattle Gay News, Friday, October 9, 1992 of Women's Glib specifically mentions Leigh being included: The Lesbian humor fares best, as with N. Leigh Dunlaps' butch dyke ...

And her bio remains in Women's glibber : state-of-the-art women's humor book (internet archive library link), 1992.

In Outweek, No. 48, "Designing Women: Challenging he rules of aesthetics and property, lesbian cartoonists flourish in the gay press" by Anne Rubenstein where there's a pretty hefty paragraph One comic strip that does not appear here is N. Leigh Dunlap's Morgan Calabrese, which chronicles the adventures of the eponymous dyke and her gay male friend Phil The strip first appeared in The Washington Blade and now runs in eight lesbian and gay papers nationwide. ... Although New Yorkers may not have seen it yet, Morgan Calabrese has won awards from the Gay and Lesbian Press Association, and Dunlap's second collection was just nominated for a Lambda literary Award. Dunlap's work is funny, while "avoiding Gay Humor 101, the same old jokes."

A multi-paragraph review in Gay Community News Vol. 17, No. 03 of Run that Sucker at SIX!!!.

A comic of hers was featured in Breakthrough, Volume XIV, No. 1, Winter 1990.

Her comics were featured in A century of women cartoonists, 1993.

This is mostly just routine coverage of her coffee roasting business she co-started but the Daily Hampshire Gazette did cover it and mention her specifically several times: [21], Monday, January 15, 1990.

It appears there's probably more to find in the Washington Blade archives or other archives of LGBT newspapers of the era but there are enough ads included of her books it's hard to find articles about her, but as you see above they exist. Skynxnex (talk) 17:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Keep - it appears she is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors per WP:AUTHOR, and this article could be further developed with better access to sources. At the Wikipedia Library, I found a citation for a 1989 book review in Booklist (via Gale) titled "Run That Sucker at Six!!!". Accessing sources is a bit of a challenge; for example, the book Gay Press, Gay Power is cited several times in the article but previews are not available via GBooks. Also on GBooks, it is difficult to determine the depth of coverage with the limited previews, but e.g. she is mentioned at p. 147 in Lesbian Studies: Setting an Agenda and p. 248 in Encyclopedia of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender History in America, and several times in Women's Glib: A Collection of Women's Humor (e.g. "N. Leigh Dunlap is a two-time winner of the International Gay and Lesbian..."), also at p.71 in Women's Glibber: State-of-the-art Women's Humor, p.25 of WLW Journal, Volume 14, a description of some of her work in Lesbian Stages: Plays, mentioned in Tales from the Dyke Side, and at pp. 174 and 176 in A Century of Women Cartoonists. Beccaynr (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think thats fine. Nomination Withdrawn. scope_creep^Talk 20:53, 30 November 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!} 08:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tables of thermophysical properties of R134a[edit]

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

WP:NOT the place for pages full of statistics. While such tables for the most common elements may be acceptable, having it for every material out there seems like serious overkill, something better suited for another Wikisite perhaps? Fram (talk) 10:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Lists. Fram (talk) 10:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too technical for wikipedia, this is basically a list of numbers. Anyone needing such info would turn to a specialized reference, not wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 15:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Regasrdless of the substance considered, quoting between 5 and 12 data points across over 360 conditions falls well into WP:NOTSTATS territory. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DELREASON#14: Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia. Specifically, WP:NOTSTATS. TompaDompa (talk) 18:29, 3 December 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!} 08:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

William Prtic[edit]

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

This should be uncontroversial. William Prtic is not a fully professional football player and he has never played in a higher division than the Swedish third tier. He is not a notable player and should not have his own page. Made an earlier attempt for a speedy deletion which for some reason was rejected. BarryHero (talk) 08:28, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 10:48, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You can only PROD an article once no matter how ludicrous the DEPROD rationale is. Not being a player in a fully professional league isn't a reason for deletion anymore. He fails GNG due to a lack of significant coverage. The sources in the article are a mention in a squad list, two press releases from the sponsor of an award he won and a stats page. The Mitt I Täby source is a 404. Dougal18 (talk) 11:57, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Mitt i Täby article can be accessed through Mediearkivet, the dominating Swedish media archive. It's a 274 words long article in a local newspaper, focused on Prtic. I'd suggest you treat it like a print source. I'd say it decently verifies what it's meant to verify. It's not WP:GNG material, though. /Julle (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 22:45, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The old NFooty would have killed this on the spot, even know this player appears in serval databases, this is still a fail. Govvy (talk) 09:33, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm finding so little on this player outside the databases, I haven't even been able to confirm he exists, which is unusual for an article of an active player. (I'm sure he does, given the database sources). The PROD was apparently deleted, because the reason for the PROD didn't address any relevant criteria - but that doesn't seem very pragmatic User:Ortizesp! Nfitz (talk) 17:20, 6 December 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. Feel free to create a redirect from this page title to an appropriate target article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Henderson, Kentucky shelter shooting[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. A sad event, but nothing with lasting coverage or notability apparently. Fram (talk) 08:28, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Kentucky. Fram (talk) 08:28, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree, coverage found is right after the event. No lasting impact from the event, is sadly routine in the USA these days. Oaktree b (talk) 16:02, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MILL WP:POINTyness; please stop trying to hype minor crimes which affected nobody else as world-shaking, when they couldn't even make a local A1 page. Nate • (chatter) 19:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2022. Removing the commentary would give enough to fit something into a cell on that graph in that main article. I would not oppose the article being created again if it could be expanded and it can be shown how its any different from other shootings. Right now, I don't think it meets that threshold and I think it would be tough for it to meet that threshold despite the references, honestly. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Transitory news item.. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - for the closer and other participants in this afd, are the deletes independent of a redirect? I don't know if I would classify removing all the content of the article and replacing it with a redirect to another article as a keep perspective, but figured I'd check. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 12:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For me delete=delete here. Nate • (chatter) 17:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I figure WP:BOLD works here, I remade the article as a redirect to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2022 and put the references at that article. That removes the WP:POINT concerns in the tone and the notability issues. Someone may be looking for this specific incident and it would be helpful for them to get some information, even if the topic is not worthy of an article on its own - I think consensus has been reached on that. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 21:17, 5 December 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!} 08:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Cloyd[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not appear to be notable - lots of sources, but the independent, reliable ones seem to contain only passing mentions and the one or two in depth ones do not appear to be RS. Previously AfD'd and deleted, but the new version has just enough new content & sources to not be G4able. firefly ( t · c ) 08:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Cryptocurrency. firefly ( t · c ) 08:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reference-bombed by a pair of sockpuppets Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jared19921j who avoided the AFC process. Nothing substantive in those references. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 14:43, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreed, most sources are passing mentions and the article is promotional, likely for the NFT as described. Oaktree b (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreed Search Engine Optimization type of marketing Flibbertigibbets (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I looked for sources before draftifying, but couldn't find anything independent that might count towards notability. --bonadea contributions talk 13:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional spam. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Unambiguously promotional. --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 01:59, 5 December 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 14:40, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alaukik Rahi[edit]

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

I was asked to help improve this article; I have cleaned it up a bit, but I find no coverage to support WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. There aren't even any of the usual sponsored gossip style notices in Times of India – only trivial mentions of his name in lists of crew and/or cast of films that are not themselves notable. bonadea contributions talk 08:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. bonadea contributions talk 08:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nommed. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:23, 30 November 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!} 05:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Wedemeyer[edit]

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

Sounds like it was copy and pasted, and could be an essay. No sources on the article either. The article was also speed deleted 13 years ago, but was kept for a unknown reason. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 05:32, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Wisconsin. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 05:32, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Yes it desperately needs cleanup, but he passes WP:NPROF on a few counts. He held a named professorship (William Lighty Professor of Education at the University of Wisconsin Madison), and these three papers, which were found after only a cursory look, show that he had a significant impact on his field. Curbon7 (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons cited by Curbon7. A named professorship at a major university and a long time ago, when they were less common. Jahaza (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There exist entire academic publications about him and his work (doi:10.4324/9780203803738-8, doi:10.4324/9781315296135-3, doi:10.1080/08923648709526573). Additionally his book Learning at the Back Door has big citation numbers and multiple reviews (JSTOR 1084903, JSTOR 40163854, JSTOR 44423575 [22]). Passes WP:PROF (per the named chair above) and likely WP:GNG. WP:AUTHOR is more of a stretch because only one book but still contributes something towards notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NPROF Bruxton (talk) 21:50, 6 December 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!} 05:25, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Areograph[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Mangoe (talk · contribs) considered opening an AfD in 2018, but later aborted. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Technology. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTDICT and WP:OR. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:58, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It looks to be aerial photogrammetry software. Areograph Ltd. is a New Zealand company, and its website has stopped working in 2021 and now a GitHub 404 page. So that's nice. Google Scholar shows some papers, but that's just appears to be including their assistance. SWinxy (talk) 01:32, 5 December 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 Cainta#Basic education. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lorenzo Ruiz de Manila School[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) guidelines Shwcz (talk) 03:36, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 10:39, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This school is clearly notable with its sources, it passes WP:GNG.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 23:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It isn’t even clear if this is a real school or not. There is minimal information - not even the number of students or the school’s address. The school was supposedly founded in 1990, but the article says it is "currently under construction". The only real reference, from the Manila Standard, is not a neutral article but a puff piece. A large part of the article content is about the school’s patron saint rather than the school. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per MelanieN. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 13:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Cainta#Basic_education per WP:ATD. I don't think there's enough material for a standalone article. The Manila Standard article was a PR article and the other live links are about the saint and not the school. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:15, 3 December 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 12:09, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

San Lorenzo Ruiz de Manila School[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) guidelines. Shwcz (talk) 03:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 10:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It could be Retarget to Marikina#Education per WP:ATD but there's no info about this school in the target article. --Lenticel ^(talk) 11:30, 30 November 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 Marikina#Education. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mother of Divine Providence School[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) guidelines Shwcz (talk) 04:21, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 10:41, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Marikina#Education per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 11:28, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Marikina#Education: per nom. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 01:19, 1 December 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 Ottawa-Carleton District School Board. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greenbank Middle School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is promotional. On the Wikipedia:All high schools can be notable, it states that a elementary school needs to be notable, or have a notable event to stay or become a article. This one is clearly not notable, its just a regular public elementary school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL and GNG. Like the other ones I AFD'ed, all of them are unnotable and mostly promotional. Has been AFD'ed 2 other times so far, in 2005 and 2008.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 05:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Canada. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 05:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Ottawa-Carleton District School Board per ATD and the longstanding practice outlined at SCHOOLOUTCOMES. 174.212.227.224 (talk) 01:05, 1 December 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 Mars (band). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Hamilton (musician)[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NBIO. She is most likely an extra for a small band. Couldn't find anything else that gives notability to her. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 04:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 04:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mars (band), which appears to be what she is primarily known for. --Michig (talk) 14:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mars (band). The only noteworthy thing Hamilton has done outside of her main band is the collaborative album with Lydia Lunch, and that does not merit a separate article for Hamilton. Any coverage generated by that album is mostly about Lunch, so Hamilton's involvement can be mentioned at the article for her main band. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:07, 1 December 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 article has received lots of attention since it was first nominated on 11/14/22 and I believe the consensus is now to Keep it. Also, influencing my opinion is the office action on the editor who voiced the solitary Delete opinion but that is a minor factor in this closure. I just thought I'd note it since this is a rather politically charged article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Khodanur Lojei[edit]

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

This is a WP:BIO1E, where this individual is notable more or less only for dying in the 2022 Zahedan massacre that occurred during the Mahsa Amini protests. In these cases, our guideline notes that The general rule is to cover the event, not the person and [w]hen the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate. This is one of nearly one-hundred people to die at that protest, and being one among many killed does not appear to be a significant role in the massacre. As such, this article should be blanked-and-redirected to 2022 Zahedan massacre, where the article subject is mentioned in appropriate depth. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Iran. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The person is not any casualty of the protests. The cruelty of his killing has become a symbol in Iran. Many protesters, celebrities, and players have showed symbols sympathizing with him. The only thing the article needs is more pictures and descriptions. Nicxjo (talk) 11:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although there have been many casualties in these protests, I am leaning towards what Nicxjo is saying here. The article can be improved, and there is enough media coverage to make this notable. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2022 Zahedan massacre as per nom. Case of WP:BIO1E. Outside of this, they are not notable.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article needs to be improved but it has enough notability and media coverage to be on Wikipedia. Iranwatcher (talk) 00:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2022 Zahedan massacre per nom~~, this also falls under WP:BLP1E, which additionally states that The significance of an event or the individual's role is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources.~~ There are indeed numerous WP:RS but almost all of them are exclusively from the last week, I don't think this topic meets the guideline that there would be persistent coverage. I would appreciate some of the keep votes to articulate how exactly WP:BIO1E is passed, as vague statements of media coverage and assertions of notability being passed are unconvincing. VickKiang (talk) 08:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, In my opinion WP:BIO1E is not applicable since Khodanur Lojei's image became a protest symbol after his death (which is supported in the BBC News citations; and as per Nicxjo). This article needs more clean up, more citations (as per Iranwatcher and others), but clean up is not a reason to delete. Part of the issue is the many variations of name (due to transliteration issues), it makes sourcing in English more labor intensive. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article will improve by time. More references will be added. Khodanour Lojei has become a symbol for protesters in Iran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Listenwithme (talk • contribs) 13:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, some clean up efforts have been made and more citations were added to the article since the nomination. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please do not move, merge or redirect the article while it is still being discussed here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable in any way, shape, or form. 4nn1l2 (talk) 04:12, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 4nn1l2, it meets WP:GNG. There are currently 17 citations, many of which are large news sources. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 20:45, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, most of those sources are just crap. CBS does not mention him at all. BBC Persian (which is not on par with BBC World) just mentions him briefly. Better not to talk about Saudi affiliated sources at all. 4nn1l2 (talk) 00:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The citations (see article for all of the links), include many BBC Persian articles,^[1] as well as CBS News,^[2] The Art Newspaper,^[3] Việt Báo Daily News, Hyperallergic, The Times of India,^[4] ANF, Radio Zamaneh, Voice of America, and Iran International, among others. These meet RS source requirements for Wikipedia (despite any theories about Saudi Arabia). PigeonChickenFish (talk) 04:23, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user has been banned as an office action Ladsgroup^overleg 15:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Azar, Masoud. "روایت حکومت از کشته‌ها؛ «رقص مرگ» با گلوله و باتوم" [The government's narrative of the dead; "Dance of death" with bullets and batons]. BBC Persian (in Persian).
^ "Iran protesters defy police to mark 40 days since Mahsa Amini's death". CBS News. Retrieved 2022-11-25.
^ "Mass protest against Iran's human rights abuses staged at Los Angeles County Museum of Art". The Art Newspaper - International art news and events. 2022-11-14. Retrieved 2022-11-25.
^ Kaggere, Niranjan (Nov 18, 2022). "Bengaluru: Two Iranian women protest against brutalities back home, Bengaluru News". The Times of India. Retrieved 2022-11-25.

Sources such as CBS should not be used to establish notability of this subject. This particular source is not even about the subject of the article, and does not mention his name even briefly. Iran International is an antagonistic Saudi-affiliated TV channel which should not be considered reliable for Iran-related subjects, considering the deep enmity between Iran and Saudi: Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict. If English Wikipedia (as a whole) considers that a reliable source, then I feel sorry for it. That's all I can do. 4nn1l2 (talk) 04:52, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

His name is mentioned (keeping in mind various spellings of his name) and if you review the requirements for WP:GNG, having many sources mention someone is one type of notability. The theory of "Iran International as an antagonistic Saudi-affiliated TV channel" is addressed in that WP article as Iranian government-backed propaganda. CBS News is an American-owned news company. You may be correct in your theory, but right now they do not appear supported in fact-based documentation. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 08:52, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That CBS article has nothing to do with Khodanur Lojei. It's American origin is irrelevant. Have you read that article? 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

4nn1l2 Your right, the CBS News article is used to support the claim of 40 days of mourning, and not specifically Khodanur Lojei. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t belong in the article, or it is unreliable because it's American. That being said, there are 18 more citations that do mention him. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 09:16, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioning isn't the same as WP:SIGCOV, especially if they are reporting on the same or similar story. It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. VickKiang (talk) 09:20, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and they are not all mentioning the same story. There have been global protests related to Khodanur Lojei, many days/weeks after the initial event. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 09:23, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While that is true, a couple of stories kind of cover a similar story, e.g., 1, 2 (e.g., Urban Light, 40 days of mourning, 15-year-old-girl event...), so I disagree these should be separately count as WP:SIGCOV. I also am not of the opinion that coverage in a few weeks would count towards sustained coverage that does not violate WP:BIO1E and meet If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, but let's agree to disagree here. VickKiang (talk) 09:29, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 04:02, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect most coverage seems tangential, the individual was at xyz event, so the story covers the event. We can infer what happened to the person, but there is no coverage about the person. No reliable sources covering them as an individual; had they not passed away, they wouldn't merit an article. I don't see them as being any different than another protestor from what sources we have. Oaktree b (talk) 16:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:BIO1E is not applicable. The person's image became a protest symbol. Notability is there. Lightburst (talk) 00:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Beside sources mentioned in the article, there are massive number of reliable sources talking about him in Persian, he became so famous that the search in google brings >280,000 results now. Ladsgroup^overleg 14:13, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I'm not saying the google search result is the reason for keep. I'm saying just by a search you can find many reliable sources about him. Basically any reliable news source in Persian that exists has covered him extensively (plus many English language sources).

I put some here, Factname (part of ASL19), Iran Intl, Radio Zamane, VOA, CBS, etc. Ladsgroup^overleg 20:28, 6 December 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!} 05:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marina BerBeryan[edit]

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

Non notable individuals. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Lots of sources in article but none are good for GNG. Blogs, primary, pr. Claims lots of "Celebrity clients" but notability is not inherited from them (and look at the source that claims to verify Jimmy Carter as a client [23]). With the current sources being all but useless I searched for other sources but found nothing good. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:58, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Fashion. Shellwood (talk) 10:52, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most sources are about the events she's "styled" and not about her. Not much of anything else found, might be some in another language source. Plenty of PR pieces about the CPAP store, which still isn't at GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 16:07, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Armenia, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:11, 30 November 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 Ottawa-Carleton District School Board. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Donohue Public School[edit]

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

Article is just Promotional, no sources, sounds like a essay too. On the Wikipedia:All high schools can be notable, it states that a elementary school needs to be notable, or have a notable event to stay or become a article. This one is clearly not notable, its just a regular public elementary school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL as well. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 03:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Canada. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 03:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Ottawa-Carleton District School Board per ATD and the longstanding practice outlined at SCHOOLOUTCOMES. 174.212.227.224 (talk) 20:20, 30 November 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 diplomatic missions of Australia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Australia, Addis Ababa[edit]

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

No significant coverage to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 23:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 07:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While this topic is not of great significance, I see no reason to delete it. --Bduke (talk) 07:33, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG is a reason to delete. LibStar (talk) 08:07, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I change my opinion. Redirect as suggested below. --Bduke (talk) 05:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Ethiopia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:29, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG, can’t find anything newsworthy or notable. Already listed at List of diplomatic missions of Australia, which I think is sufficient. Equine-man (talk) 09:06, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ––FormalDude (talk) 04:01, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of diplomatic missions of Australia per WP:ATD. I couldn't find anything about the topic in RS. Pilaz (talk) 08:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:09, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails all the points above.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 03:18, 30 November 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 Ottawa-Carleton District School Board. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First Avenue Public School[edit]

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

On the Wikipedia:All high schools can be notable, it states that a elementary school needs to be notable, or have a notable event to stay or become a article. This one is clearly not notable, its just a regular public elementary school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL and GNG. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 03:01, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Canada. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 03:01, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Ottawa-Carleton District School Board per ATD and the longstanding practice outlined at SCHOOLOUTCOMES. 174.212.227.224 (talk) 20:26, 30 November 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 Ottawa-Carleton District School Board. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dunlop Public School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

On the Wikipedia:All high schools can be notable, it states that a elementary school needs to be notable, or have a notable event to stay or become a article. This one is clearly not notable, its just a regular public elementary school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL as well. It was nominated for deletion on 2006. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 02:57, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Canada. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 02:57, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Ottawa-Carleton District School Board per ATD and the longstanding practice outlined at SCHOOLOUTCOMES. 174.212.227.224 (talk) 20:30, 30 November 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 Interaction (disambiguation). I just want to say that this was a difficult discussion to parse as editors were all over the map so I'm going with the nominator's suggestion to redirect which was also supported by another editor. Some discontented editors may call it a "supervote" but the fact is that I have no opinion on what should happen with this article, I just tried to find a resolution to this nomination. One element I did pick up was that this subject has the potential to have an article written about it but this article is not it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interaction[edit]

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

This is a very similar issue to the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mainstream discussion. This is effectively a disambig fork that has grown into a messy, poorly referenced article. I suggest redirecting this to Interaction (disambiguation) (and probably moving the disambig back). There is next to no connection between concepts such as fundamental interaction in physics, aromatic interaction in chemistry, drug interaction in medicine, social interaction in sociology, interaction (statistics) or interaction cost in the economy (although that article is a mess too). I looked at de and pl wiki articles are there are no better. Interaction is arguably an important word that belongs in wiktionary but not on Wikipedia due to not having a single meaning beyond the obvious generic one. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Social science. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with Interaction (disambiguation). I would have preferred it to be boldly implemented, but here we are. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 04:48, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mix of unrelated topics with the same name. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although this page doesn't serve any purpose, that couldn't be fulfilled through the disambiguation page, I'd defer to the judgement of others whether a selective merge is possible here. Biological interaction, Gene–environment interaction, and Cell–cell interaction, for instance, are maybe, plausible additions to the disambiguation page. — hako9 (talk) 22:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've replaced it with the disambiguation and added some of the links that were not present in the previous disambig. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 01:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not change this page to disambiguation during standing AfD. Let's wait for consensus to form and closing. My very best wishes (talk) 02:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reverting. I don't know what I was doing with a cut-and-paste move. But I did want to improve the page through editing. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 00:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this is useful page, and not just a disambig. page. There is a unifying concept here, i.e. "two or more objects have an effect upon one another" as defined on the page, which is simply the dictionary definition [24]. Of course an interaction can be indirect, as in the case of drug interactions, but this is still the case of two or more objects, subjects or variables having an effect upon one another, even in economics. As a side note, nominator is wrong saying "no connection between concepts such as fundamental interaction in physics, aromatic interaction". The so called "aromatic interactions" have an electromagnetic origin. Having also a disambig. page in this case should be OK. My very best wishes (talk) 01:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes But we have to go beyond WP:ITSUSEFUL. I agree there is some potential here, but for now the page is WP:ORish collection of concepts fit for WP:TNT. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:58, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I meant this is a clearly defined and important subject. Yes, perhaps this page can be organized as a list, and in this case we only need a clear criterion for inclusion; that criterion seems to be obvious. My very best wishes (talk) 03:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Defined as what? Can you show me a source that defines interaction and encompasses the meanings we use here? If not, it's OR to connect, in prose, aromatic interaction to social ineraction. That's what a disambig page is for. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:42, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I already gave the link to a dictionary above, but you are right: one needs more than a dictionary definition for a subject to have a page, and this is pretty far from my interests; I can't quickly find a book or a scholarly article on the "interaction" in the most general sense. But this page exists in 30+ WP projects on different languages, most of which are not disambig. pages. For example, according to ruwiki version, i.e. ru:Взаимодействие, this is a general philosophical category serving to describe the impact of objects/subjects on each other, their mutual conditionality and generation of objects by each other, with a reference to an article "Interaction" in Great Soviet Encyclopedia. I can't help more, sorry. My very best wishes (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the most general sense, interactions appear in Systems theory, i.e. as described here [25], for example... My very best wishes (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the disambiguation page, ~~after adding the few things that aren't there: at a glance, aromatic interaction, metallophilic interaction, and biological interaction, and probably others.~~ done ℰmi1y_⧼T·C⧽ 13:57, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . Let a thousand flowers bloom. Interesting subject that could be improved rather than deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:90C5:8000:B11F:818B:48F1:A0FD (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTDICT. A redirect to the disambiguation page is perfectly acceptable, but the article as it stands has no focus and is just a set of dictionary definitions. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:47, 5 December 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 due to an apparent lack of notability-supporting coverage in reliable sources. Our standards for notability have evolved significantly since 2006, so the result of the previous AfD is not especially relevant today. RL0919 (talk) 06:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mistigris[edit]

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

This article was nominated for deletion (as part of a group of articles) on July 28, 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep. When reviewing the deletion discussion some of the parties had conflicts regarding this article. I would suggest that the topic was never notable, that the entry is a fan essay, the topic has no coverage from 2006. The website listed seems to be active (I am removing a section which links to zipfiles) I would also ask if this article would meet today's article standards? Flibbertigibbets (talk) 01:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Findings;

Link https://paleotronic.com/2019/10/16/back-from-the-dead-the-life-death-and-resurrection-of-computer-art-group-mistigris/

Small blurb;

https://www.mobygames.com/company/mistigris Flibbertigibbets (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps List https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_artscene_groups

The paleotronic.com source is not significant. And rest are just passing mentions. Roost^T_C(please ping me when replying) 02:07, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete SOS Mistigris is a thing in France, as are most hits on this name. Not sure what this collective is supposed to be, the article has no inline references and it seems pointless trying to find any if the aticle's been this bad since 2006. Just delete it. They can recreate it using proper formatting and refs and what have you. These unsourced articles from the early wiki days still haunt us. Oaktree b (talk) 03:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Most hits" in what, Google? Notability should not be a function of SEO. People need to be looking into websites that cover an art scene to determine notability within the scene, unless you are arguing that that scene as a whole is not notable enough to have articles on individual artists/collectives - in which case the discussion scope should be bigger than one group's article. HunterZ (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, there is nothing in Google aobut this group, I only get hits on the France group as described. You can try another search engine, but still nothing found. SEO isn't the issue, the lack of sourcing is. We need proof why they are important and I can't find any. Oaktree b (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, friends. Greetings from the Mistigris founder and chief administrator. We enjoy the feather in our cap that a Wikipedia article confers upon our organization, but I see despite our longevity our article is again on uncertain footing. If there are specific issues with the article I'd love to help fix them; if instead the contention is that we are inadequately notable then, alas, I'm not sure anything can be done for us. Tens of thousands of artworks exhibited by hundreds of artists for nearly 30 years... all these moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. I could point to references to us in video documentaries but if you want print acknowledgements we're likely out of luck. Let me know! Pseudo Intellectual (talk) 19:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Artistic contributor to the Mistigris art collection here to confirm it's a real thing. Please inform what is needed to update the article. Please also note that much of the demoscene is not covered in text articles which are easily accessible outside of zip files, bbs boards and demoscene websites. I hope you do not apply this metric to other scener groups - the scene relies on things like Wikipedia for historical documentation. Polyducks (talk) 20:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply Hey HunterZ and Polyducks, take a look at WP:NORG, especially the WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND sections. Can you provide links to any sources that independently discuss this group and provide in-depth information on it? That is the primary criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Was there any coverage of the group in local enthusiast publications or the local computer press? We used to get localized version of Canada Computes back in the day, where all the local computer shops would advertise hardware pricing and the paper would cover tech topics or other computer nerd stories that were only relevant to the local area of publication. Oaktree b (talk) 16:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find significant coverage by any independent reliable sources to support notability. (Note: this afd came to my notice via twitter.) Schazjmd (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They are currently both the featured group on https://16colo.rs and have multiple entries on the front page, so I really don't understand picking on this particular group's article. If you're going to delete this, then the whole category of scene groups that each have their own article ought to get collapsed into a shared article that mentions them all. HunterZ (talk) 21:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@HunterZ, can you provide any sources that meet the criteria of WP:ORGCRIT? Schazjmd (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused - are you asserting that 16colo.rs is unreliable, or are you asserting that it's in a disqualifying relationship with Mistigris? HunterZ (talk) 22:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's an archive, that doesn't contribute to notability. Schazjmd (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You know what? Forget it. I'm tired of this petty gatekeeping garbage and have retired my Wikipedia account. This was the last straw. Do some research yourself to improve the article instead of sitting there and arm-chairing the worthiness of people's contributions. HunterZ (talk) 03:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We judge the sourcing using an established set of criteria, same for all contributions here. Otherwise, this website loses credibility and anyone can write an article about anything. Oaktree b (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
HunterZ appears to have retired from Wiki; the user's been around as long as I have. I would assume they understand GNG and the need for reliable sources. Regardless, I think we would only find coverage of this group in local paper sources published at the time, that likely aren't even online. Oaktree b (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an archive is a publication in the demoscene. The contributions of art by various groups are distributed as zips on a monthly, yearly or adhoc basis. The means of distribution for information is not a criteria for whether or not it's notable. 16colors is a notable, independent publisher inside the demoscene which comments frequently on Mistigris and other demoscene groups. If you do not want to download a zip, they are openly available and readable on the 16colo.rs website.

Also notable is that the demoscene groups are in competition with underlying demoscene drama. Removing one benefits other scener groups, which brings into question why the article is being flagged for deletion in the first place.

Further, I argue that Mistigris is an important scener group that has contributed to the demoscene in multiple ways. It's also one of the last remaining active scener groups that distributes artwork independently through zip archives. It's notable and important in its field. Polyducks (talk) 08:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

there is this book:

https://books.google.com.ar/books/about/Underground_Computer_Groups_Artscene_Gro.html?id=4ZmiSgAACAAJ&redir_esc=y

and huge lots of visual artworks if you write "mistigris ansi" on google images.

Checs / HPM 190.17.188.183 (talk) 02:57, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that book is based on Wikipedia;; it says so right in the description. Schazjmd (talk) 14:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regrettably Delete. In good faith I went to see if I could find anything that would help this article meet the needs of Wikipedia's notability guidelines and regrettably nothing but passing mentions or primary sources. Seddon ^talk 08:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. (Twitter) Seddon ^talk 08:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting even though there is preponderance of editors advocating Deletion as the discussion is still very active today.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:43, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A question being raised here is how can artwork created and stored in a transitory "computer memory and storage" be preserved? Wikipedia seems to be the only remaining pointer to this particular body of work? Wikipedia has about eleven existing articles which mention Ansi art which represent the subject in overview. Any specific artwork including NFT's or ansi can go hard copy; be presented in a media presentation, can be self-published in a book, can find its way into galleries, find its way into the press, can be collected by individuals, and can be curated.

Flibbertigibbets (talk) 23:19, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for sources and support There is a twitter thread rallying folks to this afd - there are two points being made 1) the art speaks for itself 2) the loss of a wikipedia entry equates to the loss of credibility Flibbertigibbets (talk) 01:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Preservation: Preservation of the digital artwork has not been a big issue for the underground PC computer art community as due to the way in which artpack releases are announced, tabulated, catalogued and distributed virtually, the collections enter online archives which are mirrored for redundancy. We maintain a complete list of all of our artpack releases at our homepage at www.mistigris.org -- there are over a hundred of them and they go back to October of 1994. Listings of the artpacks and their contents are also maintained at, among other places, the 16colo.rs gallery (eg. https://16colo.rs/group/mistigris ) and the Demozoo database of demoscene activity (eg. https://demozoo.org/groups/22737/ ) . Virtually all the artwork remains in circulation.

(Wikipedia formerly had quite a bit more than eleven articles on the subject; many of them did not survive the 2006 deletion proposal or were merged into the Minor Artscene Groups article. I can't explain how this article survived at that time, but since reviving in 2014 we have had much more activity and reached quite a bit more people (with thousands of followers across multiple social media accounts) than we ever did during the initial period documented extensively in this article -- which, absolutely, warrants rewriting to place the emphasis more on our second act than our historical origins.)

Art by our contributors has gone hard copy; you can find us mentioned and our artwork shown in "The Masters of Pixel Art vol. 2" artbook. That may not be sufficient for notability but it's a start. (The Paleotronic magazine mentioned and dismissed above was also a real magazine with a subscriber base and a print run.) We have also had work exhibited in real-world gallery contexts -- just a couple of weeks ago, our art was included in an exhibition in Argentina. Several of the artworks in the top-right photo at https://flashparty.rebelion.digital/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=107:flash-expo-en-el-ccgsm-en are from Mistigris artists. If you could zoom in on the artist cards you would see us mentioned and acknowledged. But if this exhibition does not circulate a catalogue online, is that something we can tap to establish notability?

An issue with underground cultural phenomena is that by their nature, they do not receive a great deal of coverage by mainstream media. I can find references to our activities from among our colleagues (who fill stadiums with their "demoparty" conventions), embedded in other computer artworks and online video reviews and documentaries, but without any of us being endowed with honorary notability by a notable media entity from the offline world, none of the references are considered valid: un-notable organizations acnkowledging each other.

Since the deletion notice we have hastily explored our opportunities for enshrinement in print media in eg. (surely highly notable) academic journals etc. by outside parties who believe in our notability. The wheels are in motion but there will be months of waiting ahead before anything goes to print. Maybe it will support the next incarnation of this article.

Pseudo Intellectual (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A very interesting article, and I feel like we'd loose important history of the early internet by removing it. But, since it's not covered by independent sources, it should be deleted. SWinxy (talk) 02:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Obi Charles Nnanna[edit]

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

BLP of a successful businessman who has won some non notable awards. There is nothing here that makes him notable in Wikipedia terms. Mccapra (talk) 02:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Engineering, and Nigeria. Mccapra (talk) 02:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by the way the draft was already speedy deleted under G11 for promotionalism. Then recreated but declined at AfC for promotionalism, but then created a third time directly in mainspace, so I think delete and salt is appropriate. Mccapra (talk) 09:40, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I nominate that the article should not be deleted because the individual is notable enough to be included in the encyclopedia. He and his company are solving waste management and environmental issues in Africa, while also creating wealth for others. I also saw that they have raised up to $4 million in funding and received awards from some notable organizations. If you think it is promotional, you may identify what sections of it and make suggestions to improve it.

Find sources: "Obi Charles Nnanna"

digitalninjahub (talk) 12:41, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. I don't think the individual is notable; the sources provided are almost exclusively about the business, not the person, and even the interviews with him are entirely focused on the business. The business might be notable though. Thparkth (talk) 14:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sounds promotional, not much found for the individual, more for the company as explained. The awards won are non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:49, 30 November 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 00:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orana Australia Ltd[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Found no significant coverage for its current or former name. LibStar (talk) 00:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Australia. AllyD (talk) 07:39, 30 November 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!} 23:58, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Action on Poverty[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Only source provided is its website. Also no significant coverage for its former name Australian Foundation for the Peoples of Asia and the Pacific. LibStar (talk) 00:09, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Australia. AllyD (talk) 07:41, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is occasional mention of the organization in reliable Australian press, but I'm not seeing any significant coverage. It's difficult to wade through the many irrelevant links, given the organization's somewhat generic name, but Google Books also pulls up nothing, as does Google Scholar. Unless sources can be located, no evidence that this group meets WP:NORG. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scissor Fits[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NMUSIC. Only one source is included in this article. Sarrail (talk) 00:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts. Sarrail (talk) 00:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Found plenty of results for knitting-related something-or-other but not much for this band. There's this book which has mentions but nothing else that I've seen. QuietHere (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. Netherzone (talk) 00:53, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources found; nothing online, might perhaps be some in paper sources, but based on the limited information here with no charted singles, I'm doubtful. Oaktree b (talk) 01:12, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An obscure band that didn't really get noticed much, where the only source is a site about obscure bands that didn't really get noticed much. --Michig (talk) 14:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:12, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I also can find no reliable coverage or pro reviews, and even their very distinctly-titled first EP generates no search results except for the usual streaming/retail sites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:00, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as QuietHere has said there is no RS to be found. The book is start but until this band is discussed in RS there is no encyclopedic article to be written. Bruxton (talk) 21:59, 6 December 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.