< October 18	October 20 >

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. Star Mississippi 15:50, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bojan Mihajlović (fighter)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. His highest ranking by FightMatrix was 102th in the light heavyweight division, which is far short of being in the top 10 needed to pass. As for GNG, I couldn't find any significant coverage to satisfy, just routine coverage for mixed martial artists. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 23:39, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Serbia. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 23:39, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. Three TKO losses in three UFC fights doesn't show notability as an MMA fighter. The sources I found were either MMA databases or typical reporting of sports results, nothing that shows significant independent coverage that wouldn't apply to most pro fighters. Papaursa (talk) 01:43, 21 October 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 Ahir clans#Clans#Majhraut. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Majhraut[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was deleted by consensus last year, yet the issues raised in that discussion still prevail on this version of the article. There seems to be an issue of WP:REFBOMBing as many of the sources barely mention, if at all, the subject matter and those that do are so insignificant to be too far from being the needed WP:SIGCOV. Portions, such as the entire culture section, are largely irrelevant, especially if trying to assert notability. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Bihar. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article seems encyclopedic as it is about a Hindu Caste. This article is about a division in Hinduism Religion. Contributor008 (talk) 08:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article is about one of the notable clan of Hindu Ahir caste, I think, it just needs some improvement. Yadupati (talk) 07:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Going by the nominator's points. If this was deleted earlier by a consensus, and the same issue persists in this article then I think the only step here is deletion. The argument made about it being caste article is not completely true, it is about a division of a larger grp (the article for the community is already there) and here it doesn't seem to be having enough reliable sources on the topic. Even most of the references used on the article doesn't even talk about it in more than two lines, except mentioning the word "Majhraut". Akalanka820 (talk) 16:03, 3 October 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, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is also a draft, Draft:Majhraut. Please compare this article and the draft and determine whether any information from the draft can be added to the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ahir clans#Clans#Majhraut per WP:ATD. No reason that the content could not be easily covered in that article.4meter4 (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to consider option of Merging this article and also considering the fate of the draft version of this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ahir clans#Clans#Majhraut per WP:ATD and 4meter4. I don't know why we have Draft:Majhraut and an article but the areas that might be significant for incorporating into this article (like "Origin" and "History") are unsourced so not plausible. While creating standalone articles are commendable sometimes they just do not merit one. -- Otr500 (talk) 10:37, 23 October 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 12:44, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2004 FCSL season[edit]

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

Oops! I nominated three other seasons of this league, but forgot this one. The reasoning from the other discussion apply here: these seasons don't meet WP:NSEASONS and doesn't meet WP:GNG. Mikeblas (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 22:32, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:21, 13 October 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, 19 October 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 is abundantly clear. BD2412 T 02:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022 German railway attack[edit]

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

It's just a news story but not notable in an encyclopedic sense. It should therefore be deleted due to missing notability. --TheRandomIP (talk) 19:49, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Not worthy of its own article. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 21:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unencyclopedic. This attack falls below the standard of notability that is given to other attacks, such as the Nashville bombing in 2020 and the 2022 New York City Subway shooting, both which have significant background where the perpetrator had a complicated motive that is almost at, but falls below, the line at which media would call it "terrorism". A lot of cyberattacks also are quite notable because of the sheer scale of destruction they usually cause (WannaCry and NotPetya). If this got international news coverage because of the serious political or large-scale societal implications this had it would almost certainly be worthy for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 21:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable event of sabotage on large-scale public infrastructure. International coverage is already cited in the article; about a dozen more sources given in the German wiki article. -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:32, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The highest german criminal investigation authority just took over the investigations. Add reactions of many security experts like AG KRITIS (documented here (german laguage) and german politicians. Clearly notable. - Thylacin (talk) 16:29, 13 October 2022 (UTC) Addition: German Wikipedia decided to keep: [1]. - Thylacin (talk) 09:05, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:12, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has plenty of international coverage, as suggested as a measure of importance by WP:NEVENT. I suggest we at least wait before deletion. Ovinus (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The event recieved worldwide coverage, including, among other publications, Trains Magazine. This was no run-of-the-mill event that befell Deutsche Bahn. TH1980 (talk) 03:39, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NOTNEWS. This is a encyclopedia and not an AP wire service even though we do report on current events and "Breaking News", we should be careful when editing, especially when a living person is named as this invokes the BLP policy even if not noted on the talk page. A consideration, as WP:ATD, would be merge (where content is not based on more stringent policies and guidelines) or even redirect to Deutsche Bahn, where I missed any mention. Furthering sensationalism and unsubstantiated comments made by one person, echoed by news agency, about a rather current event steps outside the line of encyclopedic. The best support for my opinion is from two "keep" !votes above: "The highest german criminal investigation authority just took over the investigations" (link left out)", and "I suggest we at least wait before deletion.". With only vague mentions, suppositions, and comments that the Russians may be involved, this does not appear to be encyclopedic content for a stand alone article, and shows it is too soon. We are not under any timeline so getting it right is better than just reporting it. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:50, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was an unprecedented act of sabotage on a nation's critical infrastructure that attracted global attention and is notable on those bases. It was not an event that happens periodically and has no lasting implications. Rather, it raised the issue that attacks on a nation's civilian infrastructure outside of a war zone may be a new tactic of international conflict. The attack sparked widespread discussion in Germany and elsewhere about the need to protect vulnerable infrastructure, an issue gaining greater attention as a result of this attack. It has lasting notability for that reason and is not a transient news item. Marco polo (talk) 18:00, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article needs to be updated but AfD is not cleanup, WP:GNG is satisfied. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:01, 26 October 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 and I don't see an additional relist solving that with well-reasoned opinions from both POVs. If editors find merit, a discussion as to whether a redirect is appropriate can continue editorially. Star Mississippi 01:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nazanin Ash[edit]

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

~~Notability is not evident. Lack of reliable independent of the subject sources with good coverage. Driodr (talk) 17:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC)~~UPE spammer strike. MER-C 19:14, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As article creator. Notability is established in the following, independent, reliable sources, as per WP:GNG:

She is spoken about four times in Bass, E. (2021). To End a Plague: America's Fight to Defeat AIDS in Africa. United States: PublicAffairs.
She is written about three times here: https://www.niskanencenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Salehyan-Niskanen-Center_September-2019.pdf

She's an expert that is often quoted in the news, you can find many examples of this in news, via Google books and via Google scholar. CT55555 (talk) 17:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Health and fitness. TartarTorte 18:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She's quoted as an expert on xyz topic as here [2] but nothing is about her. Rest are PR sources. Oaktree b (talk) 23:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Reviewing GNews, she is quoted a lot, in a variety of roles. And she was named one of "DC's Most Influential" by The Washingtonian in 2022. Beccaynr (talk) 01:09, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to add on top of this, she has also worked in very senior public roles for many notable organisations/government bodies:
- Nazanin Ash is the vice president of policy and advocacy at the International Rescue Committee (IRC), overseeing the organization’s global policy and advocacy efforts.
- She was a policy fellow at the Center for Global Development
- Previously, she served as deputy assistant secretary in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, leading the US government’s Middle East Partnership Initiative.
- Serving as chief of staff to the first director of Foreign Assistance, administrator of the United States Agency for International Development
- Nazanin also worked for ActionAid Kenya, one of the largest rights-based non-governmental organizations in Kenya.
- https://www.cigionline.org/people/nazanin-ash/ GR86 (📱) 21:19, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. CT55555 (talk) 13:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A reliable source mentioned her as one of the most influential, so that's something. Finding anything about her is difficult since searching her name shows so many places that just quote her. Dream Focus 09:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:24, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect As per Oaktree b, the individual lacks the in-depth coverage in independent sources needed to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to Welcome.US, as suggested by CT55555, seems like an appropriate WP:ATD. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:53, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep CEO of a notable organisation and has at least 3 RSs and I have also contributed to 2 additional sources which cover her notability. GR86 (📱) 10:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of course we now know that the nomination was undertaken by a spammer, but there is indeed one good faith argument for delete and one other good faith echo of that point. However, it just occurred to me that WP:ATD applies here, for example alternatives to deletion should be prioritized, and while I remain arguing to keep, Welcome.US would be a sensible redirect target, as she is the CEO of the org. i.e. I'm saying the most drastic solution here should be a re-direct. CT55555 (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Welcome.US - while it would appear she should be notable, there's not enough in-depth coverage to show that. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:05, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or WP:ATD Redirect to the not that notable 2021 Welcome.US. Fails WP:NBIO. Wikipedia is not a "Whos who in the business world, nor a company list of CEO's of the corporate world. Every single company produces PR news on corporate personel. Read the Washingtonian's list of the 500 most influential people in Washington, DC, in 2022 about her. There is absolutely nothing as to why she would be influential in Washington or Wikipedia. Her "favorite Washington restaurant", "Professional challenge you’re overcoming", and other personal perspectives. One can find 748 Chief Of Staff jobs in Washington DC-Baltimore Area alone. One can find "11,000+ Chief Staff jobs in United States". Deputy Assistant Secretary is just a job, so is Vice President of Global Policy and Advocacy at the International Rescue Committee, while noble it does not reach the level to pass WP:NBIO. Wikipedia is suppose to be an encyclopedia not a business or job directory (what Wikipedia is not), Linked in, or Indeed. "A biography, or simply bio, is a detailed description of a person's life", not their college and business accomplishments. What we have is "Ash was born to parents from Iran", so maybe it is just too soon for her to have a biography of a living person article. -- Otr500 (talk) 10:14, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment Of two remaining delete votes (one changed, one was stuck), one of them was made when the article was 5.3k in length. It's now 9.1k in length. It's obviously not WP:HEY territory, but I felt it worth mentioning that at least three editors have improved the article since the deletion suggestion. CT55555 (talk) 00:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - although the sources don't strictly meet the GNG, this is one of those very rare cases where we can just say "it's just a guideline" and let common sense take over per WP:IAR. As User:Onel5969 said above it appears she should be notable but there's not enough in-depth coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. The content is all well referenced and in my judgement is of sufficient volume to justify a stand-alone article. Waggers TALK 13:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the sources do not meet GNG, BASIC or other notability guideline. Substantial content is referenced to employer profiles and her statements, which is essentially WP:PROMO that should be excluded per WP:N. There appears to be insufficient secondary support for an article at this time, but I have no objection to a redirect as an ATD. Beccaynr (talk) 13:45, 28 October 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 15:51, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tonto Estate, Arizona[edit]

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

A rural subdivision and church camp, unlabelled on the topos until they picked it up sometime later. At any rate, not notable. Mangoe (talk) 22:04, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found no evidence in historic newspapers, books, or atlases that there was ever a community here, and there isn't one now, either. Tonto Estate pulls up zero hits in Arizona newspapers, nothing in postal histories, and nothing in local Gila County histories. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:11, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.~Pog ing Juan 12:45, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:19, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Terrance Paul[edit]

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

No evidence passes WP:GNG, an obituary in the NYT and the Wisconsin Rapids Tribune are the only sources presented. No notability presented: worked for Caterpillar and backup systems company Best Power. Started a website and a non-notable foundation. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Software. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:BASIC is met by those two, independent, in-depth obituaries. The many mentions of him in news articles and books about his companies, products, and controversies over the years can round out this article a bit. I did a couple of different searches and managed to find additional coverage of him:

[3]: "Read on: Mother creates company that helps readers make the grade", Parks, Dan; Sentinel staff writer. Milwaukee Sentinel; 07 Dec 1993: 1D. Terrance Paul, a former president of Best Power, argued that the company should not go public and filed a lawsuit in February 1992 against his mother, Marguerite, and his brothers, William and Steven.
[4]: "Pair Buys Rights to Name New Library For Ashman", Samara Kalk The Capital Times. Madison Capital Times. 11 Aug 1999: 1A. Business owners Terrance and Judi Paul have bought naming rights to Madison's new west side branch library and turned the honor over to a woman they have never met: civic leader Alicia Ashman. and Terrance Paul said he and his wife "have always been very supportive of libraries." The two founded Advantage Learning Systems Inc. in Wisconsin Rapids in 1986. The company went public in September 1997, employs 667 people worldwide and is now one of the largest educational software publishers in the country.

The main product he created with his wife, Accelerated Reader, is definitely notable as well given our article and significant articles spread over decades about it in reliable sources, that, plus two full obituary means keep to me. Skynxnex (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to cite this source in the article but for some reason (which I don't have time to investigate now) an error was flagged. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:06, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems notable. Search by using "Terry Paul" in Google Books - good amount of coverage like:
- Integrating Young Adult Literature Through the Common Core by Rachel L. Wadham, ‎Jon W. Ostenson (2013)
- Academic and Behavior Supports for At-Risk Students by Melissa Stormont, ‎Wendy M. Reinke, ‎Keith C. Herman (2012)
- Improving Reading Comprehension of Self-Chosen Books by Keith James Topping (2022) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.246.216.238 (talk) 17:52, 21 October 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. Despite the arguments to Keep this article, there is no SIGCOV that is evident, in the article or in this discussion, this article is just another display of an IMDB page and so doesn't meet requirements for articles to be encyclopedic. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overturned to no consensus after DRV discussion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Wilson (New Zealand actor)[edit]

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

Difficult to complete a BEFORE search because of the mix of sources with ones about Patrick Wilson (American actor) but so far as I can tell there isn't SIGCOV for this guy. Clearly other editors have also noticed this given the tags on the page. May just barely meet WP:NACTOR #1 though I'm not too familiar with the work he's done and couldn't guarantee any of it meets the requirements. If deleted, would also recommend moving Patrick Wilson (American actor) to Patrick Wilson (actor) (which already redirects there anyway). QuietHere (talk) 12:53, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and New Zealand. QuietHere (talk) 12:53, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant roles in Rude Awakenings and Second Hand Wedding at good for NACTOR. Coverage in the Otago Daily Times, 10 May 2008, "'Living the dream'" by Shane Gilchrist is a good start. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rude Awakenings' page doesn't cite any sources so it isn't confirmed notable at this time. Second Hand Wedding is good but NACTOR does ask for roles in multiple notable productions and I only count one at the moment. If you know of more coverage of Rude Awakenings (or Mercy Peak since he was apparently in 17 episodes of that show) then please add it and I'll be somewhat more confident in a weak keep NACTOR pass. And do you have a link for that Otago Daily Times article? That would be very useful to have. QuietHere (talk) 12:13, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

updated rude awakenings. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still not fully convinced, especially since you haven't provided links for any of your sources and I can't verify anything. Doesn't quite guarantee Rude Awakenings notability. And that Otago Daily Times article (thank you Dflaw4 for linking it below) is an interview which I believe would be considered primary (see WP:INTERVIEW). Still feels like a stretch to me. QuietHere (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remember there is no requirement that sources need to be online. matt91486 (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of that, but it helps when I can see the sources to confirm their reliability. QuietHere (talk) 22:42, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject's multiple recurring roles in TV series are just enough to get by for WP:NACTOR, and the reference cited above (which can be read here) is certainly a good write-up. Dflaw4 (talk) 14:26, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ′the above discussion and the roles meeting NACTOR. matt91486 (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to having various significant roles in shows and movies that are notable enough for their own Articles. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. While there is a consensus that this actor has had roles in multiple TV shows and movies, that doesn't necessarily translate into SIGCOV. I'm relisting this discussion for another week to leave room for more feedback and possibly improvements to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NACTOR, per his several significant roles in notable films. Moresdi (talk) 13:55, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Policy and guideline reasons that support DELETION or Merge (ATD) over NACTOR, IAR or ILIKEIT: This has been relisted and currently seems to show a majority "consensus to keep". All articles and lists are subject to our policies and guidelines on sourcing (that is the verifiability policy) that involves reliable sources: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. The state of the article in not a determination on notability but there is a criteria of BURDEN (policy) when challenged. According to the challenge(s), current state of the article, and comments, a keep in this state and the article will likely become a perennial subject. This is a BLP (noted on the talk page), yet is really totally unsourced just using unreliable sources in an "External links" (IMDb and TVNZ profile), which Wikipedia-wide consensus has long shown not to be acceptable. What we end up with is actually a list-class filmography that is unsourced. Please note: the criteria of WP:NACTOR falls under the guideline of Wikipedia:Notability (people) that is quite clear in the lead, the WP:BASIC, and "Additional criteria" sections (that includes WP:ANYBIO and WP:NACTOR), on sourcing in an article. This is covered in the not to often mentioned WP:BIOSPECIAL when a subject "meets one or more of the additional criteria" but "lacks appropriate sources". The above information will show the article does not pass the criteria for a stand alone article. Consensus is not a "vote" but Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Arguing that WP:NACTOR is sufficient is taking one part of a whole and arguing that the whole is fulfilled. The article has been tagged since October 2011 for notability and since 2019 as needing more sourcing, or eleven years with no improvement. When Wikipedia was new all was fair to keep growing. At a point reliability became more important and sourcing through "External links" not acceptable, yet we are attempting to show here that sourcing is not really important and by proxy that policies not so important either, --or-- maybe there is more to our inclusion criteria than NACTOR alone. -- Otr500 (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding all of this. QuietHere (talk) 00:33, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To expand on my support of this argument, I'd like to specifically note that as it stands this article is essentially just a list of film and television roles. Whether they are notable or not, the fact that the article lacks any significant biographical information (and that none has been found from reliable sources) means the "article" is essentially a directory. We have WP:NOTDIRECTORY for a reason and this is an obvious failure of that policy. If users want information on this man's acting roles, IMDb and TVNZ already provide that, but if they aren't gonna find anything other than that here then it's not a proper Wikipedia article. QuietHere (talk) 00:44, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on the arguments above. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:58, 24 October 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 15:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Willow, Arizona[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Renominating Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willow, Arizona. There is no basis for the claim of a populated place that meets GEOLAND at this location. –dlthewave ☎ 20:01, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. –dlthewave ☎ 20:01, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete topos show the name being a label for a benchmark or the like (it changes from map to map) and not a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing is known but its location and altitude. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The source sited, USGS, shows this as a campsite. Nothing else here. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:19, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, initial nomination was with valid grounds, not a mere "bad faith harassment". ~Pog ing Juan 16:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Willow Spring, Arizona[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Renominating Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willow Spring, Arizona. There is no basis for the claim of a populated place that meets GEOLAND at this location; maps show ranch buildings and a corral while newspaper searches return a different Willow Spring near Tuba City. –dlthewave ☎ 19:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. –dlthewave ☎ 19:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, initial nomination was with valid grounds, not a mere "bad faith harassment". ~Pog ing Juan 16:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the prior nom was bad faith harrasment by the editor directly above, and the editor was admonished for it. Their lack of understanding is problematic.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A quick look at the map shows this is obviously not a notable populated place. Reywas92^Talk 03:41, 24 October 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. Keep after article improvements.

(Just an aside, Pizzaplayer219, your signature is very distracting.) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Colovatti[edit]

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

Moved from draft space. All of the sources are either unreliable or merely statistics. I was unable to find significant coverage online, and I doubt there is any better offline coverage. Ovinus (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ovinus (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Played in the World Cup. Sourced article.Fleets (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely any reliable sources on both google and in the article. Probably fails WP:NSPORT. I had attempted to WP:DRAFTIFY but the creator simply copied and pasted the draft into Mainspace. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 21:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC) [reply]
NOTE: this is my first time participanting in an AFD Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 21:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I don't think the subject fails WP:RLN, which says "at least one match at a Rugby League World Cup tournament", but that is only a suggestion of notability. Ovinus (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is why I said probably. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 23:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: you should probably nominate the other articles as well. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 21:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If we do delete then we should probably history merge with Draft:Jack Colovatti and allow the author to work on the article there. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 23:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one content author, so no histmerge is necessary. Primefac (talk) 08:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - played at world cup, has sources - some of which are news articles specifically about him, (rather than just team listings/match reports) so looks to satisfy general notability EdwardUK (talk) 18:13, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at the time of the AFD it barely had any sources however, since then, it has much more sources. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 01:16, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn based on fulfillment of WP:HEY. (non-admin closure) InvadingInvader (talk) 03:11, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ted West[edit]

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

Largely relies on a source, notability not adequately demonstrated. Unable to find SIGCOV from RS's. InvadingInvader (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and England. InvadingInvader (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:44, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources already in article which show notability. Professional football with over 200 appearances. Did the nominator even read he article before nominating?! GiantSnowman 18:59, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Did the nominator even read [t]he article before nominating?! – Most of the sources were added after the AFD started. See what it looked like when first nominated. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  OK, let me re-phrase - did the nominator even try and find sources before nominating?! Giant Snowman 20:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - non-trivial sourced info added about subject's early life, playing style, post-playing career which constitutes significant coverage from more than one source Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per everything above. Clearly was significant figure in English Lowe league football, with over 100 fully pro appearances. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes GNG after recent expansion.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:24, 20 October 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Pharwala[edit]

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

Nominated at PROD, article creator deleted template. Looks like a reproduction of a Baburnama passage. Article subject is a minor skirmish with no indication of meeting WP:GNG. Article title inflated to create illusion of importance. Sources are either WP:PRIMARY or do not meet WP:RS. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:29, 19 October 2022 (UTC) Note: most of the article has been deleted because of plagiarism issues. Above issues still remain. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:29, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have concerns about a number of articles created by this editor, which seem to be minor actions expanded into battles, or synthesis of passing mentions, and often other sources either don’t mention the subject or give significantly different details. In this case there was a battle at Pharwala in 1519, but no source other than the Baburnama seems to cover it in detail, and we din’t just copy out slabs of material to make an article. Mccapra (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the arguments of Mccapra and AirshipJungleman29. Have you noticed that all these horrible sourced battle/siege articles always end up with a (alleged) victory for a state with at least some sort of Turkic connection? Perhaps we should begin to ask if WP:POV comes into play here. The creator of this article certainly hasn't tried to hide their xenophobic side, that's for sure [5]. If this editing pattern continues, I don't see why WP:ANI isn't an option. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:27, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly Rename and repurpose -- It is clear there was no battle: the article might properly be called Capture of Pharwala (1518). I see no reason in principle why we should not regard Baburnama as a reliable source. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:25, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Peterkingiron, do you not think point 5 of WP:PRIMARY relevant? ("Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.") ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:28, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:PRIMARY is a concern along with no page numbers. This mass production of "battles" smells of POV pushing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:21, 25 October 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. Previous nomination was procedurally closed due to inappropriate mass nomination (by a different nominator), but there is no information in either discussion to support notability. RL0919 (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wingfield, Coconino County, Arizona[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Renomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wingfield, Coconino County, Arizona. There is no reliably-sourced evidence of a populated place at this location. –dlthewave ☎ 18:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. –dlthewave ☎ 18:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, initial nomination was with valid grounds, not a mere "bad faith harassment". ~Pog ing Juan 16:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the prior nom was bad faith harrasment by the editor directly above, and the editor was admonished for it. Their lack of understanding is problematic.
Delete I did a search, and I uncovered zero information that would establish that this locale is notable. TH1980 (talk) 02:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wingfield, Yavapai County, Arizona[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Renomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wingfield, Yavapai County, Arizona. I could find no reliably-sourced evidence of a populated place at this location. –dlthewave ☎ 18:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. –dlthewave ☎ 18:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ovinus (talk) 22:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, initial nomination was with valid grounds, not a mere "bad faith harassment". ~Pog ing Juan 16:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a search I did turned up nothing that would give this place credible notability. Also, the sources I found said the place was "populated", but gave no number of residents. TH1980 (talk) 02:10, 23 October 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wood Springs, Arizona[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Renomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wood Springs, Arizona. There is no basis for the assertion that this is notable as a "populated place", and my search found no reliable sources that describe it as such. Topo maps show a "Wood Spring" in the typeface used for water features, next to a symbol indicating a spring. Newspaper results are mostly false hits for Glenwood Springs. The only coverage that I could find was for a 2020 wildfire named after the spot. –dlthewave ☎ 18:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. –dlthewave ☎ 18:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, initial nomination was with valid grounds, not a mere "bad faith harassment". ~Pog ing Juan 16:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the prior nom was bad faith harrasment by the editor directly above, and the editor was admonished for it. Their lack of understanding is problematic.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. TH1980 (talk) 02:11, 23 October 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:11, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lyman Drake[edit]

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG. Absolutely no sources found other than obits and MLB stat websites. WPscatter ^t/_c 18:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Baseball. WPscatter ^t/_c 18:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obits are coverage too, and there's other coverage out there that isn't obit.[6][7][8] – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the coverage Muboshgu provided doesn't seem to be significant enough to pass SIGCOV. InvadingInvader (talk) 19:44, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Found "Helping Boys To Help Themselves" from The Des Moines Register which I'd say is SIGCOV of Drake. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sources found above. Spanneraol (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Based on the newspaper articles presented so far and on this bio in David Nemec's Rank and File, I believe Drake meets NBASIC. Hatman31 (talk) 01:06, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm seeing enough coverage for a GNG pass. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:27, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in light of the new sources found. WPscatter ^t/_c 18:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per the sources brought forward at this AfD. Ejgreen77 (talk) 07:31, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of sources to meet GNG. Rlendog (talk) 19:40, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep gng met Bruxton (talk) 21:13, 25 October 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of football seasons involving Coedpoeth and Minera teams[edit]

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

This surely falls foul of WP:NOT, being an exhausting collection of results and statistics of very minor football teams around two villages in North Wales. The villages seem to have competed in minor district leagues only, so would not be expected to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, so I'd be wary about merging this info anywhere else. This is really something that should be on a fan website, rather than hosted on Wikipedia. Time for it to go? Sionk (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sionk (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We would never have articles about non-Anglosphere football teams at this level, and it is a prime example of WP:BIAS that this article even exists at all. It is of hyper-local importance and there are many places online where such a thing can be hosted, but a global encyclopaedia neither wants nor needs it. RobinCarmody (talk) 01:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - bizarre article concept, not notable. Giant Snowman 19:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - each of these clubs played at a level far too minor to justify a "List of seasons" article, and merging them all together on the grounds of geographical proximity doesn't really alter that...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:55, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all the above comments on how this will never pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete clearly doesn't pass WP:GNG JojoMN1987 (talk) 15:00, 21 October 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. Many comments relied on the statement in WP:GEOROAD that state highways are "typically notable", a formulation that is defeasible in cases where no sources can be found. However, editors did find coverage in independent reliable sources to support notability in this case. RL0919 (talk) 18:45, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota State Highway 91[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously kept in 2006 but modern standards were not applied and the article has not been materially improved since. Fails WP:GNG. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Newspapers.com returns 20+ results and it's clear that WP:BEFORE was not performed with this drive-by nomination. Sounder Bruce 17:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide even one of those newspaper sources which give coverage indicative of notability? The article from 1938 you added to the page doesn't do that, the topic of this article only gets a passing mention. This nomination was not drive-by. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:49, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course it was. It was pointed out to you as an example of precedent and you nominated it barely 30 minutes later.[9] Not nearly enough time to search Google, Newspaper.com, and ProQuest for the multitude of terms the route goes by (Minnesota 91, SH 91, State Highway 91, Route 91, Minnesota Highway 91, etc. etc.), let alone to read a couple of the returned articles. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Precedent needs to be based on policies and guidelines, precedent can't be based on precedent. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - Policies and guidelines are written based on precedent, not the other way around, which would be scope creep. See also the definition of the word: "an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances." - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Thats a fundamental misunderstanding of our basic principles... Policies and guidelines are written based on consensus, not precedent. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        And the consensus is that your behaviour is disruptive and these fly-by nominations will mostly be closed as an overwhelming keep. You can bludgeon all you want with your interpretation of policy and guideline, but maybe it's time to back away from the horse (pun unintentional)? - Floydian ^τ _¢ 14:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Unless you can link a diff which says that there is consensus that my "behaviour" is disruptive I suggest you retract that false representation of consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Sure, it's right here - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:16, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        You appear to have mistakenly linked this page instead of one which contains the consensus you claim exists. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:14, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        No, it was very much intentional. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 16:05, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Is this a joke of some kind or are you making a mockery of WP:NPA and WP:CONSENSUS? There is no consensus on this page that my behavior is disruptive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:46, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        There is, whether or not you choose to see it isn't my problem. Feel free to nominate "300-400 articles for deletion" since you're so confident in your blind optimism. Watch out for the boomerang, whatever/wherever your next target might be. This is getting mighty old, and most of us have actual content to add to this encyclopedia. Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:02, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Both of you need to stop. We can tell you despise one another, but this arguing is not going to change the outcome here (I say as the sole dissenting vote). Take it to ANI. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SounderBruce. Also, I was under the impression that roads maintained at the state level were inherently notable, even without references beyond state Departments of Transportation. If not, an RFC is probably in order. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 18:01, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Royal Autumn Crest: not inherently notable, typically notable. Different standard. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I cannot imagine a situation where it is not notable, person who did not sign their name. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 11:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - You can not imagine a situation in which it would have significant coverage in less than three independent WP:RS? You can't imagine the current situation? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - Correct. It meets GEOROAD easily. This discussion is quickly entering a SNOW close threshold. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 03:13, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Meeting GEOROAD =/= notable, thats not ambiguous either. Something can clearly meet GEOROAD and not be notable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:11, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Minnesota. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:GEOROAD, which is part of the notability guideline, “International road networks (such as the International E-road network), Interstate, national, state and provincial highways are typically notable.” The precedent set at WP:USRD/P has illustrated this notability multiple times. In addition, per WP:5P, Wikipedia is a gazetteer, which would include geographical features such as roads. State highways are notable enough for an article as the state DOT deems the road important enough for automobile transportation by maintaining it and assigning it a number. State highways are mentioned in maps by both the DOT and third-party map companies such as Rand McNally and are often mentioned in news sources, some archives of which are not readily accessible to editors. As mentioned above, this road does appear in numerous news sources. Dough4872 19:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOROAD and Dough's reasons. InvadingInvader (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep State highways are presumed to be notable based on GEOROAD. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You misrepresent GEOROAD. "Typically notable" =/= "presumed to be notable" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—according to the Minnesota House Research Department in 2005, there are about 135,000 miles (217,000 km) of roadway in the state of Minnesota. They also report that there are only 11,897 miles (19,146 km) of state trunk highways (Minnesota's term for a state highway) in the state, about 9% of the total mileage in the state. More recently, MnDOT states that the trunk highways are 8% of the roadways in the state, but carry 58% of all traffic. These statistics are illustrative of a key point, that state highways are worthy of note because they're just more important than the rest of the roadways in the state. I would call that notability. This has been the operating precedent for over 15 years as documented at WP:ROADOUTCOMES, and this is what GEOROAD recognizes.
Beyond this, it appears that the nominator didn't conduct a proper BEFORE review if respondents here can find so many news sources to affirm notability under the GNG. I would argue that GNG is just a default, a "when all else fails, this is a good standard to apply", and not the only guideline to apply in dealing with the decision to have stand-alone articles. Sadly, Minnesota doesn't have an article on its system as a system, akin to Michigan State Trunkline Highway System in Michigan, but it does have the lists that form a second tier in the coverage of the indisputably notable Minnesota State Trunk Highway System, and the individual articles exist to provide consistent coverage of the components of the system without running afoul of WP:SIZE and in keeping with our usage of WP:Summary style. Taken all together, this article should be kept both per past precedent and per a proper review of online news sources. (Who knows what's still out there trapped on paper or microfilm?) Imzadi 1979 → 23:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"I would call that notability." well we at wikipedia do not... See WP:NOTABILITY. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speak for yourself and not the whole project. Your interpretation of WP:GNG and WP:V is in the minority it seems (see also, for example, the SNOW closed proposal at WP:VPP#RFC:_change_"verifiable"_to_"verified" from yesterday) - Floydian ^τ _¢ 14:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"This early WP:SNOW close is largely a reflection of the way the question was presented; it should not be taken as prejudicial aginst other RfCs regarding how we handle unsourced content." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW keep per WP:GEOROAD and the nominator's drive-by nominations of similar articles, and per the sources found. --Rs chen 7754 01:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOROAD, and 15+ years and thousands of articles' worth of precedent. The nominator would do well to read and digest some of the feedback they've been getting from the WP:USRD edit community lately. Highway 89 (talk) 03:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of state highways in Minnesota until such time that sufficient sourcing is identified to meet GNG. Straight from Wikipedia:Notability (highways): Interstate, U.S., and primary state highways are generally notable. However, that does not mean an article about them will pass Wikipedia notability guidelines. The fact that the road has been adopted into a major network of highways is the result of a road's notability, not the cause. Well before the article is nominated for Good Article the article should explain what makes this road notable. Specifically, the article should answer the question, "why was this road built in the first place?", and "why are the taxpayers asked to keep spending money to keep the road maintained?" If the article does not answer the question of why does this road exist, that is grounds for deletion of the article. and Secondary state highways and county highways that are part of a statewide system (i.e. the highway numbers do not repeat themselves across the state) are generably notable. These highways are notable enough to warrant their own article, but generally these should be kept to a list if very little information is available.

I'm not a fan of how these AfDs were done to prove a point, but I am also concerned how road editors appear to have decided they alone are the arbiters of what roads are notable. We went through this with train stations, and the resulting RfC revealed that the wider community had dramatically different views on "inherent notability" than the small group of editors who faithfully showed up at every train station AfD to say "you can't delete it because we always keep train station articles". Just the same, the nom should start an RfC on this at WT:N or elsewhere, rather than trying to antagonize road editors. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:14, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I were trying to make a point I would have nominated 300-400 articles for deletion, not three. I am trying my hardest not to antagonize road editors. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly encourage you to start an RfC on this issue. That's the best way to decide this question. Individual AfDs get far fewer eyes and just turn into shouting matches when people try to evaluate longstanding consensus and such. I would know, I've been there and done that myself. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will probably end up taking that advice, seems a simpler route than getting the roads regulars banned from AfD which is the road they are trodding down... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who nominated a road article for deletion earlier this year, I could not disagree more with your assertion that we always vote to keep. --Rs chen 7754 00:20, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "always keeping" was referring to editors at train station AfDs. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage of the highway exists:

Johnson, Brian (2019-02-25). "MnDOT saves by bundling on Highway 91 | Finance & Commerce". Retrieved 2022-10-20.
"Highway 91 paving project finished". go.gale.com. - Use WP:GALE
"MnDOT removes Hwy. 91 detour south of Russell, but work continues". go.gale.com. - Use WP:GALE

I also note the other keep voters notes about this article meeting WP:GEOLAND, my interpretation of "typically notable" is to allow the exceptions of short 3-digit highways and the like, not for 2 digit state highways. If 2 digit state highways are trending not-notable an RfC is in order. Jumpytoo Talk 19:36, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've added some content to the article based on the above sources (at least, the ones I could access), along with a few others. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:09, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep of course. State highways are generally notable and it makes sense to have articles for all of them, instead of having articles for most but redirecting some to lists. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:47, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Dough4872 at this and the other similarly-nominated state highway articles: State highways are notable enough for an article as the state DOT deems the road important enough for automobile transportation by maintaining it and assigning it a number. Per WP:5P, Wikipedia contains features of a gazetteer, and an article containing textual information about a roadway deemed of importance on the highest subnational level is such a feature. Quoting WP:ROADOUTCOMES: Most numbered roadways are acceptable if they can be described beyond the route itself. It is customary for this and other articles supported by WP:USRD to indicate information about not only the route itself (e.g., major intersections), but also its history and upkeep. This information can be compiled not only from primary sources (e.g., the respective state's transportation authority), but also from secondary sources (e.g., coverage from newspapers). I concede that some articles about highways do not presently contain this information, and that sourcing for the early history of a highway may be somewhat difficult to find for a highway designated in the 1930s. However, "difficult" is not "impossible", as has been shown by the providing of relevant sources above. Such issues are WP:SURMOUNTABLE and are not reasons for deletion, as noted at the discussion of many similar articles that have been kept as listed at WP:USRD/P. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:34, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This might be the single worst AfD argument I have ever encountered from an admin, congrats (just FYI the former record holder is Rschen7754). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Without a rationale, why should the closing admin care that you think this way? WP:BLUDGEON. --Rs chen 7754 06:21, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious bait is obvious bait. You know better than that, disappointed in you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:13, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So can we add entrapment to your list of WP:NOTHERE? - Floydian ^τ _¢ 16:04, 24 October 2022 (UTC)*[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOROAD Bruxton (talk) 21:17, 25 October 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022–23 Bath City F.C. season[edit]

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

Article on a football club season at level six of the English football pyramid – fails WP:NSEASONS. Prod removed without explanation. Number 5 7 17:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Bath City are currently not a professional football club and season articles at this level are very hard to find, probably as hard as themselves winning the FA Cup. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:01, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of in-depth coverage from sources independent of the club about this specific season Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Best of Sony Tropical: 20th Anniversary[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. Seems to have been created in good faith by a new editor, but this appears to be a non-notable compilation album. None of the sources mention the album at all... they highlight the chart positions of various songs, which are already mentioned in the articles for those songs, and the album's notability is not WP:INHERITED from these songs. Doesn't appear to have charted anywhere, even on Billboard's specialist Latin charts, and as it's a various artists compilation, there is no obvious redirect target. Richard3120 (talk) 16:46, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 07:51, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Comps like these are a dime a dozen. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:55, 25 October 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adebisi Balogun[edit]

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

The sources only contain fleeting mentions of the subject. Most of them are faculty or membership listings. Notability is not asserted and the article was moved to draft. The creator simply moved it back to mainspace. Any other sources out there seem to be mainly social media. Fails WP:NPROF Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Nigeria. AllyD (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and source. The vice-chancellor is the highest position in Nigerian institutions: therefore, it meets the WP:ACADEMIC#6 as the head of a major institution. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The citation profile on GS looks healthy (196,182,159,76,70); I doubt fish nutrition is a particularly high citation field. The vice-chancellor position looks to be the highest academic administrator (chancellor being ceremonial), so whether that criterion of WP:PROF is met depends on whether Federal University of Technology Akure is considered a sufficiently major university; I think PROF could do with more clarity as to where the cut-off applies. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Subject passes NPROF#6 Princess of Ara 11:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes NRPOF c.6 as VC of FUT Akure, a major university in Nigeria. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C6. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:43, 25 October 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. Disruptive conduct is a problem, but no evidence has been put forward for notability, and I cannot close this any other way. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aponi-vi, Arizona[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Renomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aponi-vi, Arizona. Here's the Google Maps view showing a butte: On what basis was this article created to say it "is a populated place"? The topo is labeled with "Po Ni Vi (site)" at this location, with no indication of it being a community. The National Gazetteer calls it a locale. I can't find any other results in Google Books or newspapers.com. Onel5969 Mangoe dlthewave Reywas92^Talk 16:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Reywas92^Talk 16:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Topos show this as one of three "sites" along the ridge leading to Oraibi Butte but I can't find any coverage explaining what would have been there. Absent significant coverage or legal recognition, there's no basis for the claim that this meets GEOLAND or any of our notability standards. –dlthewave ☎ 17:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, initial nomination was with valid grounds, not a mere "bad faith harassment". ~Pog ing Juan 16:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the prior nom was bad faith harrasment by the editor directly above, and the editor was admonished for it. Their lack of understanding is problematic.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:21, 26 October 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barak Rosen[edit]

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

Running this as AFD as PROD is contested. Sources given are about the work of the routine work of his companies, not about himself. He owned a company that is notable, but in my opinion, that does not confer notability to him. No sources were given to show that he is notable per WP:BIO. A Google search of his name shows more about a man with the same name killed by gunshot in June 2018. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 16:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 16:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 16:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NOTINHERITED. There's probably an article about Israel-Canada Group that could be written, but Rosen does not seem independently notable and I do not think there is a good merge/redirect here. W 42 18:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED, I concur with what Winner 42 said. He doesn't seem to be notable independently. Moresdi (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Interesting case that is ripe for AfD, not for prodding. Examining the Hebrew sources, there is a lot of WP:SIGCOV that follows this WP:BLP person and his partner as investors, their company, or both. Since the discussion of Barak Rosen is not entirely individual, the main investment vehicle should have a clear preference over the individual at Enwiki, even where the WP:RS chose to highlight the partners over the company. Otherwise we just rehash the same content over and over again. gidonb (talk) 15:04, 22 October 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. It seems like there is some possibility for a redirect, but two different targets were suggested. I will leave creation of a redirect to editorial discretion. RL0919 (talk) 18:56, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apache Flats, Arizona[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Renomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apache Flats, Arizona. Apache Flats is an RV resort near Fort Huachuca [10][11]. The name appears to also apply to that area of the Fort, but I see no basis that this is a separately notable populated place. At best it can be redirected there. A GNIS listing does not pass GEOLAND. Onel5969 Mangoe dlthewave Reywas92^Talk 16:31, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Reywas92^Talk 16:31, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable RV park and housing. –dlthewave ☎ 17:49, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete This seems to be an area within the fort which has mutated several times over in the last sixty-odd years, not even a "neighborhood"; one passing reference was to it as a "housing area". Mangoe (talk) 17:57, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sierra Vista, Arizona, of which it's sometimes listed as a neighborhood. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:31, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's the nearest city, but it's not part of it or actually that close since the fort is a bit out of town. Reywas92^Talk 02:17, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sierra Vista annexed ft. Huachuca in 1971. Firsfron of Ronchester 11:09, 24 October 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:14, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

William (Bill) McRea[edit]

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

All sources in the article are primary or are not significant coverage, and a WP:BEFORE search pulls up unrelated and unreliable results. Subject fails WP:GNG. Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Businesspeople. Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. On a side note, I did find a bit of coverage about Bill McRea, pirate entertainer, who may pass GNG, but I'm confident this is a different person. W 42 17:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet basic notability. NenChemist (talk) 09:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources provided are not credible under WP:SIGCOV & WP:RS. Moresdi (talk) 21:59, 21 October 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:14, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cui Lin (Hong Kong footballer)[edit]

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

Article about former footballer which fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. The only online English and Chinese-language coverage is trivial, such as transfer announcements and entries in statistical databases. PROD was contested without providing any evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Jogurney (talk) 16:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Hong Kong. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:01, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I did not find sufficient coverage in my searches for sources to allow Cui Lin (Chinese: 崔琳), a footballer for Happy Valley AA during the 2009–10 season, to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. I found passing mentions in 1^{Internet Archive}, 2^{Internet Archive}, 3^{Internet Archive}, and 4^{Internet Archive}. Cunard (talk) 01:17, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cunard's thorough searches. Lack of any suitable redirect or merge location so deletion is the only real possibility. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:14, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2026 Swedish general election[edit]

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

An election four years in the future, fails WP:TOOSOON. Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:07, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, Europe, and Sweden. Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:07, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seeing as the 2022 election has recently concluded, this is now the next Swedish general election, and so is a valid container article for information that will slowly be published as we get closer to 2026. While there aren't a whole lot of sources yet (though I'm unfamiliar with Swedish-language source that may be more pertinent), there's probably already enough for a stub (regarding the current system, incumbents and possible reelection, current political parties, etc.), and I believe it's common practice to keep articles about next national elections on these grounds. ^Complex/_Rational 17:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a List of next general elections which lists several articles about 2026 elections, and I believe that shows that it is OK to create an article about the next scheduled election. It is clearly a notable topic. Sjö (talk) 17:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the 2022 election is over so this one should remain. Notable topic.BabbaQ (talk) 17:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not unusual for us to have articles about the next general election in a country, as Sjö has shown above. The parliamentary foundation for the current government could be steadier, but even in the case of a snap election there will be a general election on September 13 2026, so I don't think this is premature. /Julle (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We already have opinion polls for the next election.[12][13] Number 5 7 20:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created this article. I mainly did it because we already had a 2026 opinion poll page, so it made sense to have a main article as well. Perhaps we should change the title to "Next Swedish general election" as the Swedish constitution allows for snap elections. / Spaastm (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Spaastm: I think it makes more sense the way you phrased it from the beginning, the current way. As far as I know, the last snap election in Sweden was in 1958 so it's not a regular occurance, and if we need a new article, let's create one when we need it. Either way, there should be an election in 2026; I think it makes a lot of sense to create an article now for the election we know will happen, planned to be the next one. /Julle (talk) 21:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. No evidence of copyvio. Wasting people's time. —Dark 01:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1989–90 Real Madrid CF season[edit]

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

Season-article without any sources for the season (matches) itself. Suspicion of copyvio due to unsourced copying. The Banner talk 16:01, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. The Banner talk 16:01, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep this article meets WP:NSEASONS requirements since three years ago. Also, nomination is flawed, biased, and with false claims of being unsourced even when everybody who reads the article can verify it that is properly sourced with several references. I wrote the article three years ago and I've never received this false-based nominations by the same user who is clearly not acting in good faith. He nominated to delete my 10 articles with false claims of being unsourced and not reaching any consensus with the same user voting in every AfD. It is unbelievable consensus against my articles is 1-0 in the 10 Afd discussions. The decision to nominate was inconsistent with the treatment of the articles for all NSEASONS and as such appears capricious in nature. The article should be published status without delay. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 16:04, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A season for an international football power such as Real Madrid is highly notable, and the nom cannot possibly have satisfied WP:BEFORE -- I would be startled if there were as few as a thousand sources (and a casual GNews search in Spanish turned up over seven thousand). Nor do I see any attempt by the nom to source it or tag it. Beyond that, an accusation of copyvio based on nothing more than a lack of sources is poor faith, and should be stricken immediately. Ravenswing 19:09, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Silly nomination as this article covers an unusual season where the club won a domestic double, finished runner's up in the domestic cup, and set the single season goal-scoring mark in the league. There is WP:SIGCOV on the season, such as these recent articles: [14] and [15]. Based on the number of similar poor nominations today, I think the nominator ought to perform WP:BEFORE searches or seek input from more experienced editors before making additional similar nominations. Jogurney (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Same reasons as above. Gusfriend (talk) 10:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, borderline speedily. There is zero scenario wherein I see this being deleted as sourcing about this very successful season does indeed exist. I'm unable to identify any evidence of copyvio. Star Mississippi 16:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ludicrous nomination. Prominent sports team, playing in Spain's top football division - and the sources are there to support that. Might need improving, but not deleting. Giant Snowman 18:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, passes NSEASON.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. No evidence of copyvio. Wasting people's time. —Dark 01:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1988–89 Real Madrid CF season[edit]

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

Season-article without any sources for the season (matches) itself. Suspicion of copyvio due to unsourced copying. The Banner talk 16:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. The Banner talk 16:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep this article meets WP:NSEASONS requirements since three years ago. Also, nomination is flawed, biased, and with false claims of being unsourced even when everybody who reads the article can verify it that is properly sourced with several references. I wrote the article three years ago and I've never received this false-based nominations by the same user who is clearly not acting in good faith. He nominated to delete my 10 articles with false claims of being unsourced and not reaching any consensus with the same user voting in every AfD. It is unbelievable consensus against my articles is 1-0 in the 10 Afd discussions. The decision to nominate was inconsistent with the treatment of the articles for all NSEASONS and as such appears capricious in nature. The article should be published status without delay.
HugoAcosta9 (talk) 16:04, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Silly nomination as this article covers an exceptional season (the club won a domestic treble!) that is certainly the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. I added this recent coverage (not in-depth) that was the first Google search result in Spanish. Once I have some time, I'll go through the digital archives to flesh it out. Jogurney (talk) 16:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's some more coverage: [16], [17] and [18]. Jogurney (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Jogurney. Plenty of coverage in news sources of this season. Treble-winning season for arguably the most successful club in the world's most popular sport. Article needs improving but deletion is not necessary. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seasons for one of the most prominent and successful sports teams in the history of the world are highly notable, and the nom cannot possibly have satisfied WP:BEFORE; I would be surprised to find fewer than hundreds of reliable sources covering this season. We'd trout slap a newbie making multiple AfD nominations this bad; for a highly experienced editor whose infoboxes indicate an understanding of sport, this is utterly unacceptable. Deletion is not cleanup. Given numerous other wretched nominations -- all targeting similar season articles created by User:HugoAcosta9 -- it's hard not to have some sympathy for HugoAcosta9's argument at ANI today that there's some ulterior motive or animus at work. Ravenswing 23:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ludicrous nomination. Prominent sports team, playing in Spain's top football division - and the sources are there to support that. Might need improving, but not deleting. Giant Snowman 18:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, passes NSEASON.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. No evidence of copyvio. Wasting people's time. —Dark 01:57, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1987–88 Real Madrid CF season[edit]

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

Season-article without any sources for the season (matches) itself. Suspicion of copyvio due to unsourced copying. The Banner talk 16:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. The Banner talk 16:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article meets WP:NSEASONS requirements since three years ago. Also, nomination is flawed, biased, and with false claims of being unsourced even when everybody who reads the article can verify it that is properly sourced with several references. I wrote the article three years ago and I've never received this false-based nominations by the same user who is clearly not acting in good faith. He nominated to delete my 10 articles with false claims of being unsourced and not reaching any consensus with the same user voting in every AfD. It is unbelievable consensus against my articles is 1-0 in the 10 Afd discussions. The decision to nominate was inconsistent with the treatment of the articles for all NSEASONS and as such appears capricious in nature. The article should be published status without delay.

HugoAcosta9 (talk) 16:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article about a season when the club won the domestic title and reached the semi-finals of the domestic and European cups. There is WP:SIGCOV available if only the nominator had looked first: [19] and [20] are examples. Jogurney (talk) 22:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seasons for one of the most prominent and successful sports teams in the history of the world are highly notable, and the nom cannot possibly have satisfied WP:BEFORE; I would be surprised to find fewer than hundreds of reliable sources covering this season. We'd trout slap a newbie making multiple AfD nominations this bad; for a highly experienced editor whose infoboxes indicate an understanding of sport, this is utterly unacceptable. Deletion is not cleanup. Given numerous other wretched nominations -- all targeting similar season articles created by User:HugoAcosta9 -- it's hard not to have some sympathy for HugoAcosta9's argument at ANI today that there's some ulterior motive or animus at work. Ravenswing 23:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per above "Keep Votes". We can also find more coverage as well 1, Fifthapril (talk) 05:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ludicrous nomination. Prominent sports team, playing in Spain's top football division - and the sources are there to support that. Might need improving, but not deleting. Giant Snowman 18:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, passes NSEASON.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:11, 20 October 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aboubacar Soumah[edit]

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

Article about semi-pro footballer which fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. The only online English, Albanian- and French-language coverage is trivial, such as transfer announcements and entries in statistical databases. PROD was contested without providing any evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Jogurney (talk) 15:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:01, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find any significant coverage about the semi-pro footballer. Aboubacar Soumah (politician), however, is clearly notable and would be what people expect to find when searching 'Aboubacar Soumah' so should be moved to this article's location following the deletion of the footballer's article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:35, 23 October 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 is that the subject passes GNG here. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Cowan[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NCOLLATH. WP:BEFORE has a few hits, such as this, this, and this, but in my opinion not meeting of WP:SIGCOV. No claim to notability outside of being one of the hundreds of thousands of NCAA collegiate athletes. GauchoDude (talk) 15:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject has received WP:SIGCOV in multiple, reliable sources, such that WP:GNG is satisfied. Examples include:

"Cowan Lets Play Do His Talking", Los Angeles Times, Nov 12 2002 (feature story on Cowan)
"Cowan makes it known he's back", Los Angles Times, Sep 2, 2007 (feature story on Cowan)
"Quiet receiver turns up his game", Daily Bruin, Nov 2, 2005 (feature story on Cowan)
"Cowan Pulls a Fast One on Defenders", Los Angeles Times, Nov 1, 2005
"UCLA Report", Los Angeles Times, Sep 14, 2006
"Brothers display passing familiarity: UCLA's Cowans hope to show off connection against WSU Cougars", The News Tribune, Oct 25, 2007 (feature story on Cowan and his brother)
"Cowans hope to hook up on fly pattern", The Seattle Times, Sep 20, 2007 (feature story on Cowan and his brother)

Cbl62 (talk) 21:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Cbl62's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 07:32, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His claim to notability is that he received significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, thus meeting GNG. Rlendog (talk) 13:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per all above. Sportsfangnome (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Treating as a speedy since there was minimal discussion and no non-disruptive user requesting deletion. RL0919 (talk) 19:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response Dynamics[edit]

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

~~The page does not provide reliable media coverage. Washington Post link has only one humble mention. Driodr (talk) 15:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Companies, and Virginia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Spammer nomination. I'll leave it open to be considered on its merits. MER-C 19:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a bunch of references, just what I found in about half an hour tonight. The spammer didn't do WP:BEFORE. -Apocheir (talk) 03:24, 23 October 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rajat Kumar Sharma[edit]

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

I'm doubting about this article if it's notable though any pro chancellor is notable to include in Wikipedia I didn't find the school university that says he is pro chancellor of that university, if there is ping here in the discussion please to make Wikipedia credible. Benue Links (talk) 16:16, 19 October 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 October 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:31, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACADEMIC. He is vice-pro chancellor.^[1] NACADEMIC requires "highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society" and he doesn't fulfill that with either vice-pro chancellor position (which is not highest) of an academic institution that is not major. The UNaccc is also not a major academic society, and the membership application there allows you to become a board member if you pay enough,^[2] which is not a hallmark of a reputable organization. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The pro-vice-chancellor role does not meet WP:PROF #6, and in any case Crown University International Chartered does not appear to fall under major university. The citation profile is difficult to see because of others of the same name, but highest cited paper in GS appears to have 25 citations, with four coauthors, in clinical medicine, which is a high-citation discipline; I couldn't locate any others that appeared to fit the subject's profile. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:12, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reviewing this page shows that there is no such proof anywhere he is a Notable person.Lionfox0909 (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even reading the article made me wonder - what is notable here? --Suitskvarts (talk) 10:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Aremu commends Dr. Rajat Sharma effort on presentation global recognized certificates of Crown University". Crown University. Retrieved 19 October 2022.
^ "Apply for Membership - UNACCC". 26 July 2021. Retrieved 19 October 2022.

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

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

The result was keep. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:31, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio State Route 328[edit]

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

Lacks even a single independent reliable source and it would need multiple to be notable. Can't find any in an offsite search either. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Ohio. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:GEOROAD, which is part of the notability guideline, “International road networks (such as the International E-road network), Interstate, national, state and provincial highways are typically notable.” The precedent set at WP:USRD/P has illustrated this notability multiple times. In addition, per WP:5P, Wikipedia is a gazetteer, which would include geographical features such as roads. State highways are notable enough for an article as the state DOT deems the road important enough for automobile transportation by maintaining it and assigning it a number. State highways are mentioned in maps by both the DOT and third-party map companies such as Rand McNally and are often mentioned in news sources, some archives of which are not readily accessible to editors. Dough4872 19:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"typically notable" =/= automatically notable, if the sources exist please present them. WP:5P does not say that Wikipedia is a gazetteer, it says we have features of a gazetteer. Please do not misrepresent one of out core pillars. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep State highways are generally considered notable based on GEOROAD and precendence as Dough points out. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are misrepresenting GEOROAD, it does not say that they are generally considered notable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOROAD and the nominator's drive-by nominations of similar articles. --Rs chen 7754 01:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks any significant sources establishing notability. Wikipedia having features of a gazetteer (not that it "is" one) still does not mean that any geographic place or stretch of asphalt inherently must have a stand-alone article. Wikipedia:Notability_(geographic_features)#Sources explicitly says that maps are excluded from establishing notability, so the above statement about being marked on them is useless. GEOROAD says that state highways may be "typically notable", NOT that they are inherently notable and exempt from needing substantive sources. Reywas92^Talk 02:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of state routes in Ohio. While there is not sufficient coverage to support a standalone article, the route is a valid search term and should be retained as a redirect to the appropriate list article. The keep votes are simply "keep it because we say it's notable" rather than any real evidence this route meets GNG. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GEOROAD; the general consensus is that state highways are notable. If that guideline should be changed, then AfD isn't the right venue to do so. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:49, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what GEOROAD says... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

International road networks (such as the International E-road network), Interstate, national, state and provincial highways are typically notable. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:27, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Typically notable =/= "general consensus is that state highways are notable" completely different in fact. Typically means that some of the time (as here) they aren't notable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The general consensus at previous AfDs has been to interpret GEOROAD as primary secondary highways being presumed notable. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That interpretation is incorrect, anyone who has made such an argument has competence issues and should not be contributing to AfD. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:53, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable people can disagree as to the interpretation of something, especially on Wikipedia, where what is written in policies and guidelines often trails what de facto consensus is. Attacking anyone who disagrees with you as having competence issues is not constructive. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:37, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable people can disagree, but they aren't allowed to tell bald faced lies about it... The AGF alternative to them telling lies is them having a competence issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a fan of presumptive notability, but going as far as anyone who has made such an argument has competence issues and should not be contributing to AfD is not helpful. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Dough4872 at this and the other similarly-nominated state highway articles: State highways are notable enough for an article as the state DOT deems the road important enough for automobile transportation by maintaining it and assigning it a number. Per WP:5P, Wikipedia contains features of a gazetteer, and an article containing textual information about a roadway deemed of importance on the highest subnational level is such a feature. Quoting WP:ROADOUTCOMES: Most numbered roadways are acceptable if they can be described beyond the route itself. It is customary for this and other articles supported by WP:USRD to indicate information about not only the route itself (e.g., major intersections), but also its history and upkeep. This information can be compiled not only from primary sources (e.g., the respective state's transportation authority), but also from secondary sources (e.g., coverage from newspapers). I concede that some articles about highways do not presently contain this information, and that sourcing for the early history of a highway may be somewhat difficult to find for a highway designated in the 1930s. However, "difficult" is not "impossible", as has been shown by the providing of relevant sources during the course of the current discussion related to MN 91. Such issues are WP:SURMOUNTABLE and are not reasons for deletion, as noted at the discussion of many similar articles that have been kept as listed at WP:USRD/P. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:34, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is insane: "Most numbered roadways are acceptable if they can be described beyond the route itself." No part of this article is anything beyond the route. You can say "oh but there's a history section." No, someone just took the maps and saw that on an earlier dated map the route was a certain length, and in a later dated map, the route was longer. Again, without non-map sources, this is unacceptable. Reywas92^Talk 14:39, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article now contains information about the route's designation as a memorial highway and a recent construction project. There are also other sources which are paywalled. I will attempt to expand the content further. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:15, 25 October 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 Kuşadasıspor. Viable ATD Star Mississippi 20:39, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Özer Türk Stadium[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. The article's sources were examined in trwiki 10 months ago, we realized that the stadium wasn't notable. (Link) Kadı Message 15:20, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and Turkey. Kadı Message 15:20, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:01, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kuşadasıspor as possible search term, not independently notable. Giant Snowman 19:00, 20 October 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. Star Mississippi 20:35, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio State Route 325[edit]

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

None of the sources currently on the page give any indication of notability and I can't find any offsite which do. There are no approved additional notability standards for roads so we are to judge this by WP:GNG and on those grounds its a hard fail. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the notability is indicated by the Ohio Department of Highways assigning a state route number to this road. This is well-established precedence. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 16:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just found 150 matches on Newspapers.com through WP:TWL? Nova Chrysalia (Talk) 17:12, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thats wonderful! But do any give the sort of coverage which can establish reliability? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Ohio. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:GEOROAD, which is part of the notability guideline, “International road networks (such as the International E-road network), Interstate, national, state and provincial highways are typically notable.” The precedent set at WP:USRD/P has illustrated this notability multiple times. In addition, per WP:5P, Wikipedia is a gazetteer, which would include geographical features such as roads. State highways are notable enough for an article as the state DOT deems the road important enough for automobile transportation by maintaining it and assigning it a number. State highways are mentioned in maps by both the DOT and third-party map companies such as Rand McNally and are often mentioned in news sources, some archives of which are not readily accessible to editors. Dough4872 19:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't a gazetteer. If its typically notable then a large amount of the time its not notable... Typically notable =/= generally notable. You are misrepresenting the precedent at WP:USRD/P in addition to misrepresenting the weight that precedent holds. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:14, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep State highways are generally considered notable based on GEOROAD and precedence as pointed out above. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Typically notable =/= generally notable. Precedent is worthless unless based on policy and guideline, which this precedent is not. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:14, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW keep per WP:GEOROAD and the nominator's drive-by nominations of similar articles, and per the sources found. --Rs chen 7754 01:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No sources have been found which contribute to notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:14, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks any significant coverage establishing notability. Wikipedia having features of a gazetteer (not that it is one) still does not mean that any geographic place or stretch of asphalt inherently must have a stand-alone article. Wikipedia:Notability_(geographic_features)#Sources explicitly says that maps are excluded from establishing notability, so the above statement about being marked on them is useless. GEOROAD says that state highways may be "typically notable", NOT that they are inherently notable and exempt from needing substantive sources. Reywas92^Talk 02:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The idea conveyed is that state highways generally do have enough (usually newspaper) sources out there to establish notability. In fact, given the comment about TWL above I suspect that your comment is a premature declaration. --Rs chen 7754 00:22, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of state routes in Ohio. I cannot find anything more than passing mentions. This route does not meet our notability guidelines, but is a valid search term and should redirect to the relevant list article. Keep votes are simply "keep per GEOROAD" which is not an absolute and leaves room for editorial discretion, such as redirecting to an appropriate list article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:49, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reasoning as at Ohio State Route 328; AfD is not the proper venue to modify WP:GEOROAD and per that guideline state highways are generally notable. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- "Generally notable" does NOT mean "screw non-map sources (which the sources section on the same page explicity excludes), these are automatically notable." This AFD does not modify Georoad, it enforces it. Georoad even links to Wikipedia:Notability (highways), which says "If the article does not answer the question of why does this road exist, that is grounds for deletion of the article." Since this only describes the route with no non-map sources, this is not satisfied. Reywas92^Talk 14:47, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Dough4872 at this and the other similarly-nominated state highway articles: State highways are notable enough for an article as the state DOT deems the road important enough for automobile transportation by maintaining it and assigning it a number. Per WP:5P, Wikipedia contains features of a gazetteer, and an article containing textual information about a roadway deemed of importance on the highest subnational level is such a feature. Quoting WP:ROADOUTCOMES: Most numbered roadways are acceptable if they can be described beyond the route itself. It is customary for this and other articles supported by WP:USRD to indicate information about not only the route itself (e.g., major intersections), but also its history and upkeep. This information can be compiled not only from primary sources (e.g., the respective state's transportation authority), but also from secondary sources (e.g., coverage from newspapers). I concede that some articles about highways do not presently contain this information, and that sourcing for the early history of a highway may be somewhat difficult to find for a highway designated in the 1930s. However, "difficult" is not "impossible", as has been shown by the providing of relevant sources during the course of the current discussion related to MN 91. Such issues are WP:SURMOUNTABLE and are not reasons for deletion, as noted at the discussion of many similar articles that have been kept as listed at WP:USRD/P. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:34, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- This is insane: "Most numbered roadways are acceptable if they can be described beyond the route itself." There is literally not a single word here not about the route, so by your own admission this is not acceptable. Without non-map sources or content, there is no policy-based reason to keep this. Reywas92^Talk 14:47, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article now contains information about the route's inclusion as part of a state scenic byway and a proposed construction project. There are also other sources which are paywalled. I will attempt to expand the content further. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:14, 25 October 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. As noted by User:Pppery, a lot of the "keep" comments are pretty weak, but among them they accumulated several pieces of coverage that appear to be independent and reliable. RL0919 (talk) 19:09, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nextcloud[edit]

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

There is precious little to suggest this software is notable (see also WP:NSOFT). No awards, I only foudn two possibly reliable reviews ([21], [22]), and maybe this from the article. Most references are to the company itself. This is pretty borderline. Let's discuss :) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:18, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:18, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nextcloud filed a complaint with the European Commission last year which is fairly significant ([23] [24]). I'd vote against deletion as the sources in the article also appear fine if one ignores the non-independent ones listed. 2601:584:C300:57E0:B65B:C76C:24C8:CE4A (talk) 19:49, 20 October 2022 (UTC) — 2601:584:C300:57E0:B65B:C76C:24C8:CE4A (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - Hello @Piotrus, the Nextcloud project has millions of users around the globe. Schools, human right activists, commercial, governments, cities and more. I do not fully understand the deletion request. What exactly should be improved? Links to external resources? Mark Ziegler (talk) 12:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC) — Mark Ziegler (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - Hello @Piotrus, Since one the reasons to be deleted is that Nextcloud hasn't won any award, actually yesterday they won as the best "Cloud Content Management" [25] from Cloud Computer Insider, they got first place (Platin). They competed against Dropbox and Onlyoffice. What makes Nextcloud less reliable than them?

Last year they won Platin again in the "File-sharing" category. [26] (slide nr 18). I also have the same questions as Mark, I dont understand why this article is for deletion. --Margott (talk) 13:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Margott Is this award significant? Does it have its own Wikipedia article? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:13, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Hello @Piotrus this software is notable enough as Gartner is listing it in their Content Collaboration list: https://www.gartner.com/reviews/market/content-collaboration-tools together with IMHO less notable software. The software runs German government's "Bundescloud" https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundescloud and used by many other institutions.

300 avg daily visits in the last 90 days shows continuous attention (compared with 500 for Microsoft and 1500 for Google) 2A02:1205:5006:7161:5975:E15A:8B6D:318F (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC) — 2A02:1205:5006:7161:5975:E15A:8B6D:318F (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Handelsblatt reports 250000 Nextcloud installations: https://www.handelsblatt.com/technik/it-internet/cloud-dienste-eu-staaten-setzen-auf-deutsches-start-up-nextcloud/24942352.html 2A02:1205:5006:7161:5975:E15A:8B6D:318F (talk) 15:44, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily passes WP:GNG. [27][28][29][30] 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I go to https://github.com/search?q=nextcloud I get 4,954 repository results. For free software code development - this seems rather substantial and notable. These are references to whole repositories, not individual items !

Since the original software author for OwnCloud is the same person as the lead developer for NextCloud, perhaps the articles would be merged or, alternately, delete the article on OwnCloud also ! Wikijmartin (talk) 16:09, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - see above Wikijmartin (talk) 16:18, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is also for sale as a commercial product NextCloud Enterprise - see the pricing page here: https://nextcloud.com/Pricing/ Wikijmartin (talk) 16:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The brigade of weakly-argued keeps from SPAs and otherwise-inactive accounts certainly does not help their case, however I see sufficient sourcing here with 0xDEAFBEEF's second ZdNet article (the first source is not independent and the third one is redundant to the second) and the reviews in the nomination to warrant an article. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:55, 25 October 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 Wikt:democratism. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:29, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Democratism[edit]

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

Article is an incoherent, barely-English mess, that despite the title is actually about Turkish populism. The topic seems to be already addressed, coherently, at Kemalism#Populism. Zaathras (talk) 15:18, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, and Turkey. Zaathras (talk) 15:18, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to Wikt:democratism: as an alternative to deletion. Agree with nomination. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I would have expected this article to concern the principles of democracy. In fact it is about an aspect of Kemalism and its origins in the preceding period. Since the word is being used in a narrow context of what might be one aspect of the subject, the best solution is deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:18, 23 October 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 Whitlock Valley#Parks Lake and Whitlock Cienega. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:18, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whitlock Cienega, Arizona[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I redirected after the procedural close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whitlock Cienega, Arizona, but the redirect was reverted, so here we go again. Available sourcing indicates that this is probably a literal Ciénega. Redirect to Whitlock Valley#Parks Lake and Whitlock Cienega.

Pinging participants of the prior AFD: @Onel5969, Dlthewave, and RecycledPixels:. Hog Farm _Talk 15:07, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Hog Farm _Talk 15:07, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. This appears to be another name for the valley, not a settlement. –dlthewave ☎ 17:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Hog Farm. It's an alternate name for Whitlock Valley. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect The revert of the redirect restored blatantly false information that this "is a populated place". Looking at the aerial map or topo before mass-creation wouldn't have us be here in the first place. Any historical events that happened there or the presence of a stage stop can be included at Whitlock Valley#Parks Lake and Whitlock Cienega. Reywas92^Talk 22:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Whitlock Valley#Parks Lake and Whitlock Cienega where it makes broader sense. Just because it technically can have a page doesn't mean it should. Star Mississippi 19:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Also salted. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 21:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Dorian[edit]

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

Subject failed general notability guidelines, No single reliable source from Google. The subject also fails music notability. It looks like the editor creator of the article seems to have a conflict of interest about the subject. So many issues on editor’s talk page. If the result comes out to be Delete, I suggest the page should be protected from creation because it has a deleted Draft:Vladimir Dorian in the year 2020 which I don’t know who created it due to limited user right. Gabriel (talk to me ) 14:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Music. Gabriel (talk to me ) 14:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete speedy delete under G11 Driodr (talk) 15:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11 for being a promotional article without assertion of importance or notability. The fact the links are all to social media is an indicator of the creator's intentions. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the author has created, recreated, created, and recreated the article many times. Perhaps admin intervention with the author is warranted. It's me... Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 16:32, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt fails WP:GNG and is unlikely to be a valid article in the future. W 42 18:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tropical Storm Dorian is about as close as I can get in GSearch. Delete and salt as above. Oaktree b (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G11 and Salt, I've added a CSD request, fails WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. VickKiang (talk) 21:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Now speedily deleted. VickKiang (talk) 21:26, 19 October 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. Evidence has been put forward of the subject meeting NAUTHOR, and has not been rebutted. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Speake[edit]

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

Extent of notability unclear. Seems to be an accomplished but non-notable editor. - Mooonswimmer 14:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, United Kingdom, and Canada. AllyD (talk) 14:31, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: what Speake has accomplished makes her notable imo. (Though I should declare an interest as the WP editor who created a page for her.) The reference books which she has edited are extremely prominent in libraries (see her worldcat page) and regularly used as wikipedia sources (there are ~130 links to her page). Dsp13 (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources provided amount to a forum post about her father that mentions her birth, a marriage announcement, an article about her husband that mentions her in passing, and a PDF about someone she worked with. Unless better sources can be found, there is nothing here to demonstrate notability. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably delete - on the one hand, the subject of the article appears to have been the author or editor of some popular reference works, specifically dictionaries of English idioms and phrases. But that doesn't appear to be enough to infer notability here. The usual standard of the GNG doesn't seem to have been met. Even just considering WP:AUTHOR in isolation, there's not enough to meet any of the criteria. It's just too thin. JMWt (talk) 15:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Good points made by Escape Orbit. I've added further references (reviews in journals, and an award won by her book on travel writing. Dsp13 (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have added multiple reviews, for multiple publications, of her work. Her work is quite widely reviewed, though I have had trouble finding details about her life. DaffodilOcean (talk) 11:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:HEY and WP:AUTHOR#3. Details about her life are not necessary to establish her notability as a creative professional, and this has been discussed in recent AfDs, e.g. Lalita Iyer and Rimi B. Chatterjee. Beccaynr (talk) 15:34, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the details are not necessary, I should have been clearer that I was posing that search as a challenge for future editors. DaffodilOcean (talk) 15:38, 21 October 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!} 07:19, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Samvedana[edit]

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

Non-notable organisation . Nizil (talk) 13:11, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Nizil (talk) 13:11, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:VAGUEWAVE.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see some sources that appear to be mainly about their founder Janki Vasant or interviews with her. I've not been able to fully investigate the non-English sources, but I haven't yet found anything substantive about the Trust. JMWt (talk) 14:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Gujarat-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A long-term WP:SPA article about an non-profit initiative. As others have said above, the coverage that is available (including the Awards and recognition section on their website) are predominantly about Janki Vasant rather than specifically about the organisation. I am not seeing the coverage needed for WP:NORG. A redirect to the Janki Vasant article could be possible, though there are other initiatives using the "Samvedana" name so this may be inappropriate. AllyD (talk) 16:49, 20 October 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 Croatia–Serbia border dispute#Liberland and other claims. To be blunt, the activity in regard to this article has been very shady. Articles about this subject have been deleted twice previously, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Republic of Verdis and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verdis. At the second AfD there was consensus to WP:SALT the title due to repeated recreations (including multiple times it was speedy deleted at various titles). User:MicroSupporter requested lowering of the protection for the purpose of creating a redirect based on discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 25#Princedom of Ongal indicating openness to a redirect. But when protection was reduced, it was only a redirect for one day before the same user restored it as a full article.

Turning back to the present discussion, the only non-canvassed "keeps" are from the page creator and a blocked sockpuppet account, with other contributors converging around the option of a redirect. Based on that and the previous history, I am returning this page to a redirect and restoring the page protection to prevent further shennanigans. RL0919 (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Verdis[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I've been unable to convince the user called "MicroSupporter" that this article gives undue weight to this topic compared to the redirect, and they seem intent on edit-warring about it instead of providing a policy-based rationale on Talk, so I'm using AFD to try to gather a better consensus. I still think that the onus should be on the person proposing the addition of this kind of an article to present their case, but whatever. The references in the article are not a proof of satisfying WP:GNG at all, a few examples of which I've shown on the Talk page. This is fundamentally a case of using Wikipedia to promote a novel, fringe concept. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Internet, Croatia, and Serbia. Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. As discussed in Talk:Verdis between you and another admin, Verdis definitely does have some mainstream media attention, especially since 2021 (the previous deletion was 2020 where Verdis was not notable). Whether that media is taking Verdis seriously or not is another story. Verdis is indeed very clearly not a real country, but it doesn't mean it has to be deleted off Wikipedia. You don't seem to understand that micronations are often made in bizarre ways. Austenasia has similar notability to Verdis and response in media but claims a house and a few other homes of other 'members' or 'citizens'. With your point of view, its almost as if every micronation, especially Liberland and Austenasia should be deleted off of Wikipedia but you don't seem to understand that these are not real countries regardless. It doesn't meant they shouldn't have an article. Verdis has received plenty of coverage from La Nacion, Pagina 12, Vecernji List, b92 and other sources which I've used as references on the wiki page. I reverted your edits because you were not willing to have a proper consensus on the talk page and instead reverted the edits out of bias. Your original reason for revert was undue weight violation as you said that Verdis didn't have a real status and wasn't a real country (which it isn't, but once again, no micronation is a real country). With that terminology, you are basically saying that every micronation should be deleted off of the Wikipedia platform.

MicroSupporter (talk) 17:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A few eyebrow-raising articles do not constitute "plenty of coverage". My original revert said "revert article, not notable, undue weight violation" - a redirect is more appropriate than an article when the topic is not notable; giving a non-notable topic an article over a redirect (as discussed the earlier RFD BTW) is giving it undue weight. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Verdis had near to no notability at all in the previous deletion. Today it does - which even Rosguill pointed out the La Nacion article. If you think that Verdis should be turned into a redirect, then Austenasia, Republic of Molossia, Royal Republic of Ladonia and all other micronations should be turned into redirects to micronation too for undue weight violation and lack of notability as they have a very similar amount of notability to Verdis. MicroSupporter (talk) 18:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting since I've been mentioned in this discussion and participated at Talk:Verdis, and participated in the prior AfD, that I'm currently undecided on the merits of this article, having noted that while there is coverage in generally reliable news sources, the quality of such coverage is somewhat less-than-serious and deserves closer evaluation before being dubbed significant. All of the discussion of the relative merits of micronations is a red herring, we should be looking at the quantity and quality of sourcing alone, and MicroSupporter is doing a disservice to their own case by repeatedly making WP:OSE arguments after their irrelevance has been pointed out. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:14, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if I'm repeatedly pointing it out, I just don't think it makes sense for the micronations article to be removed because articles 'arent taking it seriously'. Almost every reference on every article about micronations make fun of the micronations they are writing about as most micronations are not meant to be taken seriously and are not real countries. It's probably not a strong argument but its just a point that I want to make clear. My apologies on the repetitiveness. MicroSupporter (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First, it is not to be seen on Verdis and other micronations as being subject to international law, but as part of folklore. In this context, the article seems to have sufficient sources, sure has 3 secondary sources. Unfortunately, the article doesn't really say anything else about Verdis, except that it is. Therefore, I do not see the point of having an article in this shape. But instead of deleting this article, I think you should create one article for the three very similar micronations that have articles in French. (fr:Royaume d'Enclava, fr:Principauté d'Ongal, fr:Verdis) All three are ecological projects, have a clearly different purpose than Liberland, issue their own postage stamps and coins, and are on the banks of the Danube. Normally, in such a situation, I would suggest connecting with an article about the area where such micronation is located, but here it would not be a good idea, so the idea of one article about three objects for the only sensible solution. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 19:16, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think Enclava should definitely have an article made and I have started making a draft for one, but theirs is complicated as they seem to have split their territory with other micronations which are not notable. I think Enclava is notable enough, but definitely not Ongal. Ongal has almost no coverage and I think the founder might have passed away as it says on his Ongal/also personal Facebook page. There's also at least 4 secondary sources that are written all-about Verdis. Vecernji, Pagina 12, La Nacion, and b92 are written all (or mostly) about Verdis. Can use parts of that micronations 'national' website too for info? Articles should remain separate though. Judging from Verdis's website, I think it is the most different out of those 3 ecological micronations as it has claimed to actually have built a bit of presence on the land and claims that it is seriously working towards international recognition, even though its highly unlikely a micronation would ever become recognised. Enclava and Ongal seem to be extremely inactive with no posts or news from them in a long time. MicroSupporter (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

also another note from reading more about Verdis, it seems to be more focused on reconciliation of ethnic groups than the environment according to their site. MicroSupporter (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: generally I am supportive of Micronation articles, on the provision that the way they are written clearly explains that they are only aspirational (as distinct from genuine sovereign states), and that they are properly sourced. It makes Wikipedia a more interesting place. A general, personal observation on this Verdis article is that it lacks historical background beyond the 1947 dispute. My question as a neutral reader is: did Verdis (or indeed Liberland) have any historical significance prior to 1947? The general impression I get from this article is that it is relatively recent (WP:RECENTISM?) and needs more depth to establish notability. That said, I hope the authors succeed, as it could be an interesting article worth retaining if it has more historical background. Good luck. Cnbrb (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can add a bit myself right now. I have been researching quite a bit about this micronation recently. MicroSupporter (talk) 20:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did some more research and added a bit of info that I could find. I also added a photo that I found on their official website of the 'President' visiting the micronation. I think the article needs a bit of reconstruction over time though to sound more aspirational. I mainly looked at how Liberland's article was written and used that as inspiration to write this one due to their close proximity. MicroSupporter (talk) 21:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The AfD nominator also listed Liberland, a neighbouring micronation for deletion MicroSupporter (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was asked to comment here by MicroSupporter, though they then removed their request.([31]) I'm not certain whether this article meets general notability criteria, but if it does not, highlights of its content (which is actually somewhat interesting) can be merged into Croatia–Serbia border dispute. -- Beland (talk) 23:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that! I wasn’t aware of WP:CANVASS until being told by someone and removed my request MicroSupporter (talk) 23:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep It has sufficient notability from news sources, albeit not in English. AWESOMEDUDE0614 (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After some research about Verdis, I can see there has been more media attention towards the project since the last proposed deletion which I believe has established some notability on the subject. Micronations are interesting internet culture and not too fringe, and this specific project seems to have some notability. DominusVilicus (talk) 02:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Verdis is notable throughout the micronational community AND has references to back it up, including mentions in several non-English sources. There's no reason for this to be deleted, and I believe that some users proposing deletion should research what a micronation is. Seungri400 (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Verdis maintains a high degree of professionalism, definitively proven by the visiting of its territory, which the vast majority of other micronations that claim outside territory can't claim (claiming Antarctica, land between Egypt/Sudan, Mars, etc.). In my opinion, it is pedantic to keep gatekeeping Verdis from having a page when it has clearly gained enough notoriety to place it firmly in the top tier of micronations. Further potential for development and growth means that a redirect could be a mistake. TNebula (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is this now a new kind of a meme, to create WP:SPA on Wikipedia to troll these discussions with these nonsensical arguments? What's next, declaring this a form of performance art, getting journalists to write about that, and then writing an article about that in turn? :D --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How is he trolling? Just because he doesn’t agree with your opinion on Liberland and Verdis being deleted as they have enough notability? Most on both AfD’s have said to keep. MicroSupporter (talk) 08:20, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also how is he WP:SPA? MicroSupporter (talk) 08:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Accounts with less than 100 edits showing up at AfD discussions (especially for articles they did not edit prior to the AfD) are frankly very suspicious. Verdis and Liberland have historically been the focus of an LTA with a penchant for sockpuppetry, so there is valid cause for concern. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I see. His account age is quite old though. MicroSupporter (talk) 17:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Based on the canvasing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Micronations - "A user nominated Verdis for deletion. Please help defend case to keep as it has plenty of notable secondary sources." - I am assuming the discussion above is tainted. I would like to see opinions from people outside of the micronation enthusiast sphere.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - Reposting my statement because I came across Verdis through google searches and noticed the AFD and decided to vote to keep it - I was not canvassed

DominusVilicus (talk) 13:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid making two bolded votes, whether or not you were canvassed. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:18, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero, I don't think many have come from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Micronations since its an extremely inactive WikiProject. There hasn't been much discussion either in the past few days on this AfD unfortunately. If anything, I'd just close this as 'No conensus' or 'Keep'. No one has stated to delete but there are a lot of neutral(ish) comments. MicroSupporter (talk) 09:59, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this appropriate WP:CANVAS btw? As it says on WP:CANVAS for appropriate notifications: "The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion.". MicroSupporter (talk) 14:45, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the keep argument would be a lot more persuasive if editors were able to provide citations to coverage in peer-reviewed academic publications; such coverage is available for notable micronations such as Liberland ([32]) and Sealand ([33]), but I have been unsuccessful in finding any for Verdis; in the absence of such coverage, merging may be more appropriate than a standalone article. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added one([34]). Regardless, most micronations on Wikipedia do not often have peer-reviewed academic publications, just the most notable of all. (Liberland and Sealand). I don't see any for Republic of Molossia, Aerican Empire, Principality of Freedonia, etc. They only really have news articles. Remember, most micronations are fantasy. Liberland and Sealand are debatable on whether it is fantasy or a serious entity. A merge would not be appropriate as Verdis has enough sources and information for its own article, especially because of the visits and tourism. A good reason is stated above by TNebula. MicroSupporter (talk) 15:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The extent of coverage in that cited source is Moreover Croatia and Serbia cannot agree on several areas that none of the two countries claims, two of which have been even proclaimed Free Republics (Liberland and Verdis). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
True, but I'd still argue that that's still a valid reference. I think the amount of news article coverage is enough though. MicroSupporter (talk) 15:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's realistic to expect a subject such as this to have "peer-reviewed academic publications" - plenty of topics are not something that you can simply write a proper academic article about. It's more of an social idea or movement than something scientific or academic in nature. DominusVilicus (talk) 04:56, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's abject nonsense. There's scholarly coverage for a lot of topics that are not conventionally associated with being "scientific" or "academic". This is a fallacy where we're supposed to treat the absence of real sourcing as proof of a topic being so sui generis that it doesn't need real sourcing. Unfortunately, that is a slippery slope into madness. WP:FRINGE exists to prevent this, but nobody seems to care. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:21, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that micronations are somewhat of a fringe idea, however, anyone that has any desire to start a nation is undoubtedly fringe, however, those who have succeeded, have certainly had a profound mainstream impact on the world - we all happen to exist in nations today that were merely an idea in some person(s) head sometime ago. DominusVilicus (talk) 09:46, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's just an essay, but I think we would do well to follow WP:HISTRS here. Not relying on academic press is fine for topics that aren't primarily-and-best covered by those sources, such as sports biographies or recent events and media. Long term questions of of international sovereignty and self-determination, however, are very much academia's bread and butter, and with them micronations--the fact that peer reviewed publications have covered other micronations in detail but not Verdis is significant. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill Most micronations on Wikipedia do not have peer-reviewed academic publications. Only the most notable of them all (such as Liberland and Sealand). A micronation is a fantasy state, not a subject of international law. It's folklore. I can't find any academic publications for Republic of Molossia, Principality of Wy, Aerican Empire, Austenasia or Empire of Atlantium for example. Most micronations on Wikipedia are not covered by any academic journals, but instead normal news outlets just like Verdis' coverage. Micronations are not real countries therefore are not often subject to such academic reviews. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be on Wikipedia. So I don't really get what you mean on the last line that Verdis has had barely any peer review publications when almost no micronations on Wikipedia have them anyway except for the really, really known ones. Please remember that micronations are not an object of international law. It is just some folklore movement. It is LARP. People keep forgetting that a micronation is not a microstate and should read the Wikipedia page about micronations. MicroSupporter (talk) 14:34, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to Austenasia et al, they have been subject to quite well researched and reviewed books and some academic papers (as you can see on their respective articles in citations). Micronationalism itself has been addressed academically somewhat extensively and is studied by, for example, Harry Hobbs at UT Sydney and George Williams. I agree with Rosguill that Verdis not receiving any such attention yet is significant by itself.

I do not see why the merits of micronationalism or other micronations are discussed instead of the article itself. I agree that the coverage isn't by the best sources and usually isn't quite thorough, so perhaps shortening the article or keeping the redirect and including it in the border dispute section is the best compromise for now. LuxorCZ (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It has national coverage in Argentina, Croatia, Serbia and North Macedonia. If anything, the article should just be shortened. MicroSupporter (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd also throw Wirtland into that discussion, it was certainly one of the ones with the "highest ideals" at least in my experience, til the owners decided to just put the webproject/web site up for sale... It gathered a bit of traction in the media. This one being discussed now in AfD had media coverage, maybe wasn't as lofty an idea as Wirtland. Oaktree b (talk) 15:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or covert to redirect: fails GNG. I did not wish to participate at first but I feel compelled to due to this AfD being overtaken by micronationalists (see WP:ILIKEIT) and COI editors—possibly as a result of off-wiki canvassing—with no previous interactions at AfD. Most of the sources, regardless of the language they are written in or whether or not they describe Verdis as a serious venture or a joke, are either unreliable or do not count towards establishing notability anyways:
Espreso looks like a tabloid as can be accessed through its use of clickbait and sensationalist wording with all capitals, exclamation points, and language such as "SHOCKING:" (ŠOKANTNO:);
Total Croatia News appears to hire amateur/casual writers without any mention of editorial oversight;
Večernji list is okay as a source however as the article is an interview and the author declares "They [Verdis] contacted us through social networks [Obratili su nam se putem društvenih mreža]" this does not count towards establishing notability due to the article being non-independent of Verids;
Página 12 is also an interview; see above;
Liberland Press is self-published and the "national newspaper" of another micronation, Liberland;
Medium features self-published writers and is unreliable; cited article fails WP:SPS as the author is not an expert in geopolitics or even anything closely related to the field, their bio stating that they are "an entrepreneur, investor, and executive coach … also a single dad who writes about philosophy and self-improvement;"
Vecer, tabloid-y;
B92 itself looks useable but at the top of the cited article it says source: Sputnik [Izvor Sputnjik]. I am not sure what this is referring to, but if they mean the Russian state-owned Sputnik than it is unusable per WP:SPUTNIK and should probably be removed from the article;
The Ague Journal on the Rule of Law (citing the aforementioned article from the unreliable Total Croatia News) is only a passing mention thus not contributing towards notability;
Telex also only a passing mention as above;
Glas Slavonije does not mention Verdis.

There are only two clearly RS sources that contribute towards notability in this article—La Nacion (obviously) and El Periòdic looks okay with a staff consisting of journalists, editors and administration. Unfortunately, I could find nothing on Buzzara.hr (hosted on the RTL news agency), although it generally looks okay despite some of the wording and headlines of other articles on the site using sensationalist wording. Completely lost on Aha Moment but it looks possibly like a blog of some sort. Also per the rationales of nom and LuxorCZ, the other micronations that MicroSupporter mentions have individual coverage from several RS sources unlike Verdis which only has two at the least and four at the verrryyy most. Regardless, per WP:WHATABOUT just because article A exists does not mean that article B should as well. It needs coverage from reliable sources, which Verdis simply does not have. 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 06:11, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While it seems Verdis reached out to Vecernji, it clearly isn’t self promotion as the editor took the mick out of Verdis. It doesn’t look promotional at all. MicroSupporter (talk) 07:26, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant—interviews are not independent from the source regardless of content. In the article all the relevant information on Verdis is coming from Jackson himself, so, the source is not one that is independent from an article about Verdis. 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 13:27, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, "Buzzara.hr" seems to be some sort of a section of RTL's website that covers random funny topics. Using it as a source for an encyclopedia would be eyebrow-raising to say the least. I still don't think it's irrelevant to consider the way sources cover the topic, and continuing to appease this apparent loophole of "hey look, an otherwise reputable publication published an idle article about this, hence it's not just newsworthy, it's an encyclopedic reliable source to prop up our nice little fun article!" is just going to enable further WP:GAME. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:58, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Kuru: CSD G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Larze (Singer)[edit]

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

Not yet notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:57, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Puerto Rico. AllyD (talk) 13:56, 19 October 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. Sockpuppetry concerns are left to be considered elsewhere as appropriate. RL0919 (talk) 15:26, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Global Legal Media[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a place to promote things or publish your thoughts. From a Google search about this subject, it’s not suitable to be on Wikipedia. Gabriel (talk to me ) 11:33, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Companies. Gabriel (talk to me ) 11:33, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Event management and consultancy company. No notability. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per norminator. Clearly not notable and fails basic WP:GNG. Jamiebuba (talk) 12:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete clear non-notable subject. Morpho achilles (talk) 13:12, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources are PR press items and many hits from Legally India for some reason. Long way from GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 18:01, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 05:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:I made the stub because its a resource used in my field (law), but I also couldn't find that much information and hoped others might know it better. Not sure the best way to expand it, but if it's deleted it's deleted. Lambdull (talk) 12:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC) Lambdull (talk) 07:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments : It looks like Lambdull is connected to the account QuicksmartTortoise513 and Vivek Thazhathattil as they help to improve the article while looking new to Wikipedia. I think I have to ping @Liz: to check on those accounts.--Gabriel (talk to me ) 15:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While I am new to Wikipedia, I am not connected to the account, and simply accessed this page through suggested edits on the user page. QuicksmartTortoise513 (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I got this article in 'suggested edits' to 'add links between articles'. I'm not connected with any user. Kindly exclude me from your speculative nonsense. Vivek Thazhathattil (talk) 16:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppetry : We now have five new wikipedia users working so hard to build up the article. This looks so ridiculous I have to be pinging @Bearcat: as well.
Lambdull
QuicksmartTortoise513
Vivek Thazhathattil
TradukasKlare
Akhil sachin --Gabriel (talk to me ) 20:40, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just know that we are not sockpuppets, and are currently learning editing techniques. One cannot simply call an account a sockpuppet simply because an account is trying to defend themselves. QuicksmartTortoise513 (talk) 21:16, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Though I am fine with allowing the article to be deleted if found as faulty or inaccurate by the Wikipedia community. QuicksmartTortoise513 (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The nominator, Gabriel601, has been blocked for sock-puppetry. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:13, 23 October 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!} 09:01, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Linus Chinedu Okorie[edit]

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

I have gone through the sources only to find that they are interviews (probably self written interviews). A WP:BEFORE does not bring forth anything credible to support that this entity meets the general notability guidelines. PS: There is a Hon. Linus Okorie from Ebonyi state that is not this entity. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 11:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, and Nigeria. Reading Beans (talk) 11:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interviews - www.ycbf.org is a parked page, so that source is useless, interview, interview. Relatively minor outlets, too. Yes, agree tone is consistent with written interviews. Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sourced to primary and unreliable sources. Princess of Ara 11:14, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Nominator is correct. --Gabriel (talk to me ) 11:49, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient nsufficient significant coverage for notability. Moresdi (talk) 22:40, 21 October 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!} 09:01, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lyndon R.T. David[edit]

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

A relatively minor civil servant in the Philippines. He is already noted on Internal Affairs Service of Philippine National Police seems more than enough. Not notable, no refs showing notability, probably don't exist. JMWt (talk) 10:44, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, uncontroversially fails WP:GNG; WP:NPOL. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 13:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 07:44, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Already obvious why. Ploreky^{Have a problem?} 02:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LesserEvil[edit]

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

I proposed this page for deletion for not establishing its notability under WP:ORGCRIT last week but recently another user objected by removing the tag. Nonetheless, all the sources, as can be seen from the table below, fail to meet the necessary criteria because they are almost all press releases or otherwise non-independent. I've looked for other sources that meet the required standards but found none.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Press Release 1	Press releases are not independent sources	Press releases are non-reliable		✘ No
Stub in local news	Relies almost exclusively on company filings	Relies almost exclusively on company filings	~ The whole stub is dedicated to the company but it is barely two short paragraphs.	✘ No
Just-Food article	Relies on press releases and quotes	Relies on press releases and quotes		✘ No
Press release 2	Press releases are not independent sources	Press releases are non-reliable		✘ No
Dr Oz	? Link has WP:ROTd away	? Link has WP:ROTd away	? Link has WP:ROTd away	? Unknown
Rachel Ray Show	? Link has WP:ROTd away	? Link has WP:ROTd away	? Link has WP:ROTd away	? Unknown
Hungry Girl Blog	No apparent connection with company	It is a blog dedicated to promoting dieting methods and recipes.	Only mentions one WP:PRODUCT of the company's	✘ No
Inc List	? While the link has WP:ROTd away, it seems to have been a mere inclusion in a profile list	While the link has WP:ROTd away, it seems to have been a mere inclusion in a profile list	While the link has WP:ROTd away, it seems to have been a mere inclusion in a profile list	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Jtrrs0 (talk) 10:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Connecticut. Jtrrs0 (talk) 10:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:NCORP. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:07, 19 October 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!} 09:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TLC Books[edit]

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

Small Australian bookshop that closed at some point before 2015 with another, apparently unrelated bookshop taking over the premises. Strongest source given is the local business website wynnummanly.com.au, and I am not able to find any press coverage from the shop's lifetime. Lord Belbury (talk) 09:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lord Belbury (talk) 09:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We live in a world where every bookshop is not inherently notable and that's a hard, cruel world but those are the breaks we've been given. Fails WP:NCORP. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A book launch and Maisie the Mouse aren't notable. It's been closed for almost 10 yrs and zero sources found regardless. Oaktree b (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You leave Maisie the Mouse alone, you bully. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. No evidence of copyvio. Wasting people's time. —Dark 01:56, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1986–87 Real Madrid CF season[edit]

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

Season-article without any sources for the season (matches) itself. Suspicion of copyvio due to unsourced copying. The Banner talk 09:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. The Banner talk 09:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article meets WP:NSEASONS requirements since three years ago. Also, nomination is flawed, biased, and with false claims of being unsourced even when everybody who reads the article can verify it that is properly sourced with several references. I wrote the article three years ago and I've never received this false-based nominations by the same user who is clearly not acting in good faith. He nominated to delete my 10 articles with false claims of being unsourced and not reaching any consensus with the same user voting in every AfD. It is unbelievable consensus against my articles is 1-0 in the 10 Afd discussions. The decision to nominate was inconsistent with the treatment of the articles for all NSEASONS and as such appears capricious in nature. The article should be published status without delay.HugoAcosta9 (talk) 14:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be a good start when you start reading the nomination to see what I really said. The Banner talk 15:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  It would be a good start for you to read anti-Apartheid books when you start the massive nomination against a Mexican editor of 15 articles and falsely claiming are unsourced. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 15:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seasons for one of the most prominent and successful sports teams in the history of the world are highly notable, and the nom cannot possibly have satisfied WP:BEFORE; I would be surprised to find fewer than hundreds of reliable sources covering this season. We'd trout slap a newbie making multiple AfD nominations this bad; for a highly experienced editor whose infoboxes indicate an understanding of sport, this is utterly unacceptable. Deletion is not cleanup. Given numerous other wretched nominations -- all targeting similar season articles created by User:HugoAcosta9 -- it's hard not to have some sympathy for HugoAcosta9's argument at ANI today that there's some ulterior motive or animus at work. Ravenswing 23:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ludicrous nomination. Prominent sports team, playing in Spain's top football division - and the sources are there to support that. Might need improving, but not deleting. Giant Snowman 18:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, passes NSEASON.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. No evidence of copyvio. Wasting people's time. —Dark 01:56, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1985–86 Real Madrid CF season[edit]

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

Season-article without any sources for the season (matches) itself. Suspicion of copyvio due to unsourced copying. The Banner talk 09:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. The Banner talk 09:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article meets WP:NSEASONS requirements since three years ago. Also, nomination is flawed, biased, and with false claims of being unsourced even when everybody who reads the article can verify it that is properly sourced with several references. I wrote the article three years ago and I've never received this false-based nominations by the same user who is clearly not acting in good faith. He nominated to delete my 10 articles with false claims of being unsourced and not reaching any consensus with the same user voting in every AfD. It is unbelievable consensus against my articles is 1-0 in the 10 Afd discussions. The decision to nominate was inconsistent with the treatment of the articles for all NSEASONS and as such appears capricious in nature. The article should be published status without delay.HugoAcosta9 (talk) 14:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be a good start when you start reading the nomination to see what I really said. The Banner talk 15:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  It would be a good start for you to read anti-Apartheid books when you start the massive nomination against a Mexican editor of 15 articles and falsely claiming are unsourced. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 15:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seasons for one of the most prominent and successful sports teams in the history of the world are highly notable, and the nom cannot possibly have satisfied WP:BEFORE; I would be surprised to find fewer than hundreds of reliable sources covering this season. We'd trout slap a newbie making multiple AfD nominations this bad; for a highly experienced editor whose infoboxes indicate an understanding of sport, this is utterly unacceptable. Deletion is not cleanup. Given numerous other wretched nominations -- all targeting similar season articles created by User:HugoAcosta9 -- it's hard not to have some sympathy for HugoAcosta9's argument at ANI today that there's some ulterior motive or animus at work. Ravenswing 23:39, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with your !vote, but you kind of lost me there towards the end. I don't see any reason to suggest there's ulterior motives here. These articles are all very similar in make up - chunks of unsourced prose combined with a ton of tables that read more like a stats database run by ESPN than an encyclopedia article. And many of the first wave of nominations ended in deletion or relists. I'm not familiar enough with the sports guidelines to weigh in officially, but I can certainly see where a nomination would come from from a quick skim of things at least. Sergecross73 msg me 00:18, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mm, except for a few factors: first, there's WP:BEFORE. "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." The scope and impact of a Real Madrid is worldwide, and finding dozens and hundreds of sources is so ludicrously easy as to guarantee that the nom made no attempt to do so ... and the nom is required to make the attempt prior to filing.
Secondly, attempts to delete related articles for such a club is barely credible for someone completely ignorant of sports. It would rather be like an American seeking to delete articles related to the New York Yankees; even someone disinterested in sports is aware of the Yankees and their impact on sport. Then you have the copyvio accusation, which is barren of actual evidence and frankly is pretty specious.
User:The Banner should not be coming off like an ignorant newbie with a couple hundred edits. They have over a hundred thousand edits and sixteen years of service. Infoboxes on their page set forth a familiarity with sport, and a native European ought to be relatively familiar with the subject. Nor do we have someone unfamiliar with AfD; User:The Banner has made well over a thousand noms over the years. So I leave it to you which version you prefer: that this highly experienced editor is somehow incompetent and careless when it comes to AfD, or that there's some other cause at work. Ravenswing 10:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - obviously the article could be improved (a bit more prose would be good) but this is an article about a season when a globally-renowned team won the championship of one of the top leagues in the world in the most popular sport in the world. So obviously notable I don't know why we are wasting our time here...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a silly nomination as the article covers a season where the club won its domestic championship and the European cup (a highly successful one even by Real Madrid's standards!). There is plenty of coverage of the season such as [35] and [36]. The nominator really ought to search more thoroughly before making nominations like this (or ask for help from experienced editors). Jogurney (talk) 15:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ludicrous nomination. Prominent sports team, playing in Spain's top football division - and the sources are there to support that. Might need improving, but not deleting. Giant Snowman 18:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, passes NSEASON.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. No evidence of copyvio. Wasting people's time. —Dark 01:54, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1984–85 Atlético Madrid season[edit]

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

Season-article without any sources for the season (matches) itself. Suspicion of copyvio due to unsourced copying. The Banner talk 09:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. The Banner talk 09:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article meets WP:NSEASONS requirements since three years ago. Also, nomination is flawed, biased, and with false claims of being unsourced even when everybody who reads the article can verify it that is properly sourced with several references. I wrote the article three years ago and I've never received this false-based nominations by the same user who is clearly not acting in good faith. He nominated to delete my 10 articles with false claims of being unsourced and not reaching any consensus with the same user voting in every AfD. It is unbelievable consensus against my articles is 1-0 in the 10 Afd discussions. The decision to nominate was inconsistent with the treatment of the articles for all NSEASONS and as such appears capricious in nature. The article should be published status without delay.HugoAcosta9 (talk) 14:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be a good start when you start reading the nomination to see what I really said. The Banner talk 15:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  It would be a good start for you to read anti-Apartheid books when you start the massive nomination against a Mexican editor of 15 articles and falsely claiming are unsourced. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 15:46, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is what I said: read the nomination properly. My nominations are only based on the quality and/or sourcing of articles. As stated on my user page: Unfortunately for many people, I do not discriminate. I treat everybody exactly the same, no matter how important somebody is (or thinks they are) or how inexperienced somebody is. I do not care about personal hobbies or local consensus when that is detrimental to the encyclopaedia.... The Banner talk 15:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    False. It is clear your problem, and that is your problem not my problem, no one is following your falsely claims against a Mexican editor, two weeks of discussion and you only got 1 single vote through the 15 articles. Fortunately, You are not the majority in the world, your Apartheid can be functional for 1 giant snow man and that person from Mississippi. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 16:01, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Silly nomination as this is an article about a club that won its domestic cup and finished runner's up in the league and super cup (not your typical season!). The article already had sources covering some of the cup matches (contrary to what the nomination indicates), but I added this on the road to the cup final. Jogurney (talk) 18:44, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seasons for a highly prominent and successful sports team are highly notable, and the nom cannot possibly have satisfied WP:BEFORE; I would be surprised to find fewer than hundreds of reliable sources covering this season. We'd trout slap a newbie making multiple AfD nominations this bad; for a highly experienced editor whose infoboxes indicate an understanding of sport, this is utterly unacceptable. Deletion is not cleanup. Given numerous other wretched nominations -- all targeting similar season articles created by User:HugoAcosta9 -- it's hard not to have some sympathy for HugoAcosta9's argument at ANI today that there's some ulterior motive or animus at work. Ravenswing 23:39, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ludicrous nomination. Prominent sports team, playing in Spain's top football division - and the sources are there to support that. Might need improving, but not deleting. Giant Snowman 18:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, passes NSEASON.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. No evidence of copyvio. Wasting people's time. —Dark 01:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1982–83 Atlético Madrid season[edit]

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

Season-article without any sources for the season (matches) itself. Suspicion of copyvio due to unsourced copying. The Banner talk 09:39, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. The Banner talk 09:39, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article meets WP:NSEASONS requirements since three years ago. Also, nomination is flawed, biased, and with false claims of being unsourced even when everybody who reads the article can verify it that is properly sourced with several references. I wrote the article three years ago and I've never received this false-based nominations by the same user who is clearly not acting in good faith. He nominated to delete my 10 articles with false claims of being unsourced and not reaching any consensus with the same user voting in every AfD. It is unbelievable consensus against my articles is 1-0 in the 10 Afd discussions.The decision to nominate was inconsistent with the treatment of the articles for all NSEASONS and as such appears capricious in nature. The article should be published status without delay.HugoAcosta9 (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seasons for a prominent and successful sports team are highly notable, and the nom cannot possibly have satisfied WP:BEFORE; I would be surprised to find fewer than hundreds of reliable sources covering this season. We'd trout slap a newbie making multiple AfD nominations this bad; for a highly experienced editor whose infoboxes indicate an understanding of sport, this is utterly unacceptable. Deletion is not cleanup. Given numerous other wretched nominations -- all targeting similar season articles created by User:HugoAcosta9 -- it's hard not to have some sympathy for HugoAcosta9's argument at ANI today that there's some ulterior motive or animus at work. Similar laziness seems to be at work for the charge of copyvio: the nom needs to submit evidence of this, or retract the charge with an apology at once. Ravenswing 23:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ludicrous nomination. Prominent sports team, playing in Spain's top football division - and the sources are there to support that. Might need improving, but not deleting. Giant Snowman 18:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, passes NSEASON.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. No evidence of copyvio. Wasting people's time. —Dark 01:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1981–82 Atlético Madrid season[edit]

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

Season-article without any sources for the season (matches) itself. Suspicion of copyvio due to unsourced copying. The Banner talk 09:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. The Banner talk 09:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article meets WP:NSEASONS requirements since three years ago. Also, nomination is flawed, biased, and with false claims of being unsourced even when everybody who reads the article can verify it that is properly sourced with several references. I wrote the article three years ago and I've never received this false-based nominations by the same user who is clearly not acting in good faith. He nominated to delete my 10 articles with false claims of being unsourced and not reaching any consensus with the same user voting in every AfD. It is unbelievable consensus against my articles is 1-0 in the 10 Afd discussions. The decision to nominate was inconsistent with the treatment of the articles for all WP:NSEASONS and as such appears capricious in nature. The article should be published status without delay.HugoAcosta9 (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seasons for a prominent and successful sports team are highly notable, and the nom cannot possibly have satisfied WP:BEFORE; I would be surprised to find fewer than hundreds of reliable sources covering this season. We'd trout slap a newbie making multiple AfD nominations this bad; for a highly experienced editor whose infoboxes indicate an understanding of sport, this is utterly unacceptable. Deletion is not cleanup. Given numerous other wretched nominations -- all targeting similar season articles created by User:HugoAcosta9 -- it's hard not to have some sympathy for HugoAcosta9's argument at ANI today that there's some ulterior motive or animus at work. Similar laziness seems to be at work for the charge of copyvio: the nom needs to submit evidence of this, or retract the charge with an apology at once. Ravenswing 23:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ludicrous nomination. Prominent sports team, playing in Spain's top football division - and the sources are there to support that. Might need improving, but not deleting. Giant Snowman 18:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, passes NSEASON.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:09, 20 October 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!} 08:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Panchdara[edit]

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

Disputed draftification. Unreferenced, Fails WP:GNG. No evidence of satisfying WP:GEOLAND 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and West Bengal. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nommed. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It looks like a small block Contributor008 (talk) 12:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nice and clear. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:07, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication that it meets guidelines, or of amenities or even population; delete as nom. and others. Eagleash (talk) 16:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tehatta II. The full name is Panchdara Abhaynagar, and it is listed there. Cullen328 (talk) 18:48, 19 October 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. Despite a request for more time to find sources, in the past week, no improvements have been made to the article nor sources brought into this discussion so I'm closing this discussion as Delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Xavier Institute for Tribal Education[edit]

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

Only a single source which is the organisations own web-site. Searches reveal very little better with a few mentions such as this but which do not establish notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Christianity, and India. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And in Hindi? Cardofk (talk) 08:28, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment could not find any coverage to meet WP:SIGCOV in English. If RS were found, please ping me. Otherwise Delete. ZanciD (talk) 15:08, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete Fails WP:GNG. Lorstaking (talk) 16:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article creator was a COI editor eventually topic banned from school articles. Most of them were dealt with several years ago. Guess this got missed. 174.212.224.22 (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This appears to be a tertiary college, offering degree courses. WP would normally regard such as notable. It claims to be affiliated to Kolhan University, but is not listed on its WP page. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment searches for "XITE College Gamharia" and in Hindi reveal much more on Google. Could we postpone any decisions on this article for a week or two, as sifting through sources in Hindi is not exactly straightforward for anyone who not familiar with it. Also, the identity of the person who initially created the article is not grounds for deletion, especially as it has been edited so much since then. Cardofk (talk) 08:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted on request.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete How, HOW does stuff like this seep into mainspace? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:08, 19 October 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. It seems like a rename is also appropriate, but I leave that to the usual editorial processes. RL0919 (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohan Baral[edit]

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

No reliable source for WP:Verifiability. ~ Yeti Dai (talk) 08:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Politicians, and Nepal. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verifiable member of parliament passes WP:POLITICIAN,[37][38] whatever this person's notability as an entertainer. Please note that the nominator removed a reference as "unreliable" before taking to AfD for lack of sources. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This source [39] from DCnepal.com has no content in it. That's why I removed it. ~ Yeti Dai (talk) 13:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep and rename ~~As entirely unverifiable.~~ Agree now passes WP:NPOL. I can find a Mohan Baral who is leader of the Nepali Congress party, ~~but can't find any governmental post.~~ As leader of a political party, he is not automatically notable. You could redirect to Nepali Congress Party as an alternative to deletion. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: May be a hoax. I am unable to find any source in English or Nepali (it is also very suspicious that he doesn't have an article on ne.wiki, as that is one of our more active projects) that shows he was appointed to the ministry. In fact, the reason I say it is possibly a hoax is because the ministry he was purportedly minister of (Ministry of Urban Development (Nepal)) was already occupied from Feb 2014 to Oct 2015 by Narayan Khadka, and then was disbanded for the following two years. Curbon7 (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Found the election results [40] which show he was indeed elected to parliament. The reason we were unable to find him when searching for Mohan Baral is because that is not his name, it is Mohan Prasad Baral. Thus, keep and rename. Curbon7 (talk) 19:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still no verification on the ministerial post however. Curbon7 (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Curbon7. Passes WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 04:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did find his appointment to Chairman of the Agriculture and Water Resource Committee here and that article and this one confirm he was indeed elected as a parliamentarian representing Sindhuli-2, but as a Nepalese parliamentarian, without proof of a ministerial role, is he notable? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:09, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NPOL: "...national, or ...state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels." The SNG expressly includes all members of parliament and state/provincial legislators, not just the front bench ministers. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Curbon7. Passes WP:NPOL. Djflem (talk) 11:16, 25 October 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 lack of significant coverage in secondary sources. RL0919 (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy (1787 ship)[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability, just primary sources, passing mentions, or databases (which aren't significant coverage). Nothing in the article indicates why this would be a notable ship either. Fram (talk) 07:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Economics, Transportation, France, and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 07:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are just registries rather than significant coverage, so I'm baffled as to what made the creator think this was a notable ship among the thousands listed in them. "Although by one report Lucy was a whaler in 1793–1794, the ship arrival and departure data in Lloyd's List does not support this. Instead, she made at least one voyage to Barbados, possibly sailing as a government transport." and "Unfortunately, there is too little information to determine whether the captured Lucy was the Lucy of the present article." read as original research, or at the minimum evidence that you shouldn't create prose articles from only database sources! Reywas92^Talk 13:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Leading off with "Lucy was possibly built in France" is likewise bad, and I'm disturbed by this user's other creations that are similarly based on such primary sources. Wikipedia is not the place to play historian like this, and I guess the answer to my bafflement is that this creator doesn't think GNG applies to them, with pages like Nine Sisters (1785 ship), HMS Olive Branch (1794), and Ann (1801 Fowey ship) among countless others similarly lacking any substantive coverage. Reywas92^Talk 13:32, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing but interpretation of registries. When the article begins "Lucy was possibly built in France." and also says "Unfortunately, there is too little information to determine whether the captured Lucy was the Lucy of the present article." you have to question why we even have an article on the subject. At best this might merit a brief mention in a list article somewhere. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:23, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as there is separate coverage of the 3 whaling voyages. Or at least Redirect to Whaling in the United Kingdom as an alternative to deletion. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is not mentioned at the target (nor should it be) and is not a plausible search term. Redirecting would be pointless. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would like to make three points concerning databases, categories, and selection bias. I focus my editing on the period of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, creating articles primarily on unrated Royal Navy vessels, East Indiamen, whalers, slave ships, and convict ships to Australia.

First, the databases I use are all reliable, some online and the older ones in the form of books or appendices in books. In the case of Lucy the coverage is not tangential. Each of her three voyages has its own pop-up window in the database. At its best one of the beauties of WP is that one can often link databases via the vessel histories as the vessels move through roles. In the case of Lucy I can at least shed light on her history after she ceased whaling. I can also supplement the database with material from both primary and secondary sources. Thus the WP article is more comprehensive than the sources that make it up. I am in frequent contact with the person who maintains the whaling database and we maintain a symbiotic relationship, exchanging information. My work has resulted in the addition of voyages to the database, and the removal of others that turned out to be spurious. When I do so, the database references WP as a source.

Second, WP uses categories. My hope is that someone looking up a more famous whaler, or other ship, will explore further by clicking on the category, and then look at a random sample of the histories and so learn more about the topic, or perhaps another topic. (For instance, a reader finding a whaler that had been a warship or a slave ship, perhaps will explore those topics.) If the reader is not interested they will never find the other, related articles; as an economist would put it, disposal is costless. One of the commenters above objected that WP is not the place for history. I would suggest that it is uniquely suited to this sort of history and that we should be encouraging innovative uses. My analogy would be to the IPhone, which originally was an IPod combined with a cell phone, and now does things Steve Jobs never envisioned.

Third, we should try to avoid selection bias, both macro and micro. WP has been, correctly, accused of neglecting many topics, something I would call macro bias. I am not suggesting that this is deliberate, or a conspiracy. It is simply an artifact of editors being volunteers, and following well-trodden paths. I do not write about the Baltic trade, the West Indian trade in sugar, rum, cotton, coffee, etc, or the lumber trade that brought wood from what is now Canada to Great Britain. Though these were important industries, the last being vital to shipbuilding both commercial and military, I have been unable to find databases that could give me a foundation. Micro selection bias is where overemphasizing notability is most distorting. By definition, the notable is egregious, or atypical; man bites dog rather than dog bites man. But many vessels have minimal careers, foundering or being wrecked on their first voyage, or being captured. In some cases apparently owners quickly realized that the trade was not profitable and left it. Lucy's owners stopped after three voyages; clearly they thought that there were other things to do with her that had a higher expected value. If one is interested in getting a sense of the profitability of whaling or slaving, or the careers of mariners and owners, or maritime entrepreneurship, one has to take into account these vessels and their histories. Successful vessels and voyages offset the unsuccessful. By reading about a sample of vessels one can get a sense of the mean and range of outcomes, not just an extreme.Acad Ronin (talk) 01:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice and all, and I'm glad you're helping a ship database, but much of what you have written here is synthesis or original research. That's fine if you want to run your own blog on ships, but at Wikipedia we expect subjects to show significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. That is still not met here. A database is not a secondary source, nor does it provide significant coverage, and Wikipedia:NOTDATABASE exists for a good reason. The article as it stands now is lots of minutia and irrelevant detail, but there's nothing showing significant coverage or even a reasonable claim to encyclopedic significance as it is defined on Wikipedia. Notability on Wikipedia is not the same as the dictionary definition of notability, do not conflate the two to argue that deleting a database stub on a ship is somehow systemic bias. Especially alarming is When I do so, the database references WP as a source. This is WP:CIRCULAR and means we cannot treat the database as automatically reliable, either. This ship is worth only a namedrop in a list article on Wikipedia, nothing more. The ship still fails GNG and you have not made any arguments otherwise. If you wish to persuade others, you need to explain how policies and guidelines support retention of this article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:09, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also quite alarmed by the idea that your source database uses WP as a source in turn. If you find something in another primary source that supplements or corrects what the database already has, they should source that, not WP. Otherwise this really is original research and even citogenesis! Moreover it's unclear why it's encylopedically notable to compile these voyages if they're sourced to the Lloyds Register rather than more independent reporting that actually asserts significance with coverage. It may be hard to compare 18th century history to today, but it wouldn't be right to list the voyages of MSC Gülsün because they're in the MarineTraffic database either. Reywas92^Talk 03:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ––FormalDude (talk) 08:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have seen much sound, excellent work from Acad Ronin in articles that touch on the British Navy in the Persian Gulf (one of my areas), but can't support using registries, databases and other primary sources to stand up whole dedicated WP articles on ships. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: there's very little information; there's the pollution of the database by WP articles, leading to circular references and citations. I'm not even clear whether it is really known with any level of certainly that the information we have relates to the 1787 or later ships of the same name. JMWt (talk) 15:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whaling ships were a major enterprise, not just a rowboat trying to catch crabfish. SpinningSpark 15:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The community has repeatedly rejected the idea of inherent notability, so I hope the closer will give no weight to this drive-by vote. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not claim, nor do I believe, that all ships are inherently notable so that retort is a strawman argument. As for accusing me of a "drive-by vote", since I have more edits in the article than you (exactly none), then your vote is even more drive-by than mine, so yours should also be given no weight. Pot calling the kettle black I think. SpinningSpark 13:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware that number of edits to the article in question was the only thing that mattered at AfD, as opposed to, say, analysis of the sources or looking for instances of significant coverage, both of which I did, and you did not, in favor of simply saying "it's a whaling ship so we must keep it" with no further thought or explanation. Astounding level of cognitive dissonance on your part. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Chaps, chaps! Can we please focus on the substantive issue in front of us and stop flicking plasticine at each other? #BlessedAreThePeacemakers Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More straw man – I never claimed that number of edits had any bearing on the weight of ones comments at AFD. I assumed that is what you meant by "drive-by" and answered to that point. But apparently you mean it is drive-by because you don't like my rationale because it does not include any analysis of sources. I don't see how that is drive-by, but whatever, your deletion rationale includes no analysis of the sources either (other than the disparaging "just registeries"). It is entirely analysis of the prose of the article. Taking on your points directly, you complain the article says "Lucy was possibly built in France" but the Clayton source says she was built in France without equivocation. The current version of the article now does not equivocate on this point either. That the article points out a discrepancy in the sources (Clayton source vs. Lloyd's Registry) is not an indication of lack of notability. Rather it is an indication of good article writing with WP:NPOV. Coming back to "just registeries", the Clayton source is not a registery. It is true the bulk of the book is a list of ships and their histories, but that is not the same as a registry. There are also lengthy chapters in the book on the industry and ships generally. Similar comments could be made on the Clayton & Clayton source; and the Richards & Pasquier source is a scholarly paper consisting nearly all of prose. SpinningSpark 15:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article still fails GNG, because no significant coverage has been identified. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clayton is a self-published book though, of very limited impact outside its use in these Wikipedia articles. Fram (talk) 16:07, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clayton wrote her PhD thesis on the same field which gives her a WP:SPS pass as previously published in a reliable source. We mostly accept PhD theses as peer reviewed and therefore reliably published. I don't see any cause for making Swansea University an exception. SpinningSpark 16:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's hardly "published" though, it was good enough to be awarded the PhD but no one could be bothered to actually publish it. Fram (talk) 16:35, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the key thing here was the peer review that made it reliable. SpinningSpark 16:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Limited impact, true, but not totally ignored by academia, her book does have some citations on Scholar. SpinningSpark 16:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two points. First, the Wikipedia article being cited in the whaling database is not circular. The database does not cover a vessel's history before and after her whaling voyages. The article does. Often the database voyages mention that the vessel was built in a "King's Yard", i.e., a Royal Navy dockyard. What I have been able to do on a few, too few occasions, is to track down the naval vessel, sometimes through name changes. That has given me the opportunity to combine info from the whaling database to a key database (in book form) on Royal Navy vessels. This enables people interested in either world to learn a little more about the other, and a connection between them. Second point. I am an "Eventualist". In 2021 I put up the article Morning Star. It was even less notable than the Lucy article as Morning Star wasn't a whaler. Today, fortuitously and fortunately, another editor discovered it. He found that it was related to an existing notable article in Wikipedia, and using a book published in 2022, wholly about an incident involving Morning Star in 1828, is adding the information, making Morning Star notable even by the strictest standards of the people voting to delete Lucy. Given that the cost of retaining an article is zero, it would seem to be a shame to impede the possibility of such an occurrence. Acad Ronin (talk)

That's all very nice, but have you identified sources that show this subject meets GNG? I'm assuming no. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Material based on contemporary sources is likely to be right, provided it is not conflating detail on different ships of the same name. However there were 1000s of merchant ships in service at any one time. I would question whether most of these were notable. We have a similar issue with local churches (usually deleted) and local high schools (often kept). In this particular case, the primary sources are newspapers and other contemporary material, which have been compiled into database. These are thus RS. The fact that a database also cites WP is not essentially circular. However, should we have an article on every ship? I have material that I extracted from the Port Books of Hull relating to voyages importing iron from Sweden and Russia. This may cover 50 or 100 ships for each year sampled. This of course does not include ships to/from other ports or the trade of other ports. If we have an article on every British merchant ship, of which a record can be found, we could easily end off with 10,000 articles; even 100,000. Is that what we want? Peterkingiron (talk) 13:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good question, but I don't think an AFD on an individual ship is the place to raise it. I'll respond anyway, but will be happy to have my comment moved if you open a discussion elsewhere. Firstly, Wikipedia has never had a problem with number of pages per se so 100,000 extra pages is not ruled out (although I doubt we are really talking about anywhere near that many, or even 10,000). Coverage of these ships in some form on Wikipedia would be justified, however, I would not be in favour of creating individual articles. Iron ore trips between Britain and Sweden are pretty routine – there would not be much to write about here. A list of ships with their vital statistics in another article is all that is needed. The expeditions of whaling ships, on the other hand, are highly dangerous and anything but routine. SpinningSpark 17:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except that this article is nothing but routine reports and statistics, with the most exciting tidbit happening in, er, Sheerness. Fram (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how "The expeditions of whaling ships, on the other hand, are highly dangerous and anything but routine" is consistent with policy and guidelines about notability, rather than I think it's important. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:05, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My basic point is that the voyages of whaling ships to the Southern Ocean are much more likely to be notable (and eventful) than voyages of iron ore ships on a local run in Europe. But as I said above, I was answering to a general point, not to this ship specifically, so no, it is not an ILIKEIT argument. SpinningSpark 14:32, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But you use that general point as the reason to vote "Keep" here anyway... Fram (talk) 14:52, 24 October 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!} 02:49, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jaan Tristan Kolberg[edit]

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

Estonian actor, has had limited youth roles, performed some minor dubbing work. Fails WP:NACTOR "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions or Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." Fails WP:GNG, coverage sourced to drama school website, production websites listing cast etc. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:24, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Estonia. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:24, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ––FormalDude (talk) 08:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actor has had significant roles in major Estonian theatre companies with atleast two leading roles. The references seem to be reliable. Mallberrytrick (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the only sources I could find were from the theatre companies reporting on productions they are hosting, which are primary sources. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:03, 25 October 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!} 08:57, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Htoo Khant Lwin[edit]

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

Subject does not pass WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. ––FormalDude (talk) 08:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Myanmar. ––FormalDude (talk) 08:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. No goal. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:20, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC as sources available online seem to be trivial mentions in match reports or stats database sites. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:18, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:23, 20 October 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!} 08:57, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yaw Myay F.C.[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not pass WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. ––FormalDude (talk) 08:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Myanmar. ––FormalDude (talk) 08:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article has only one source, look on Google and Bing found sources but they all appear to be dumps of stats or databases. There were a few videos on YouTube but they aren't interviews or analysis just game play. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 08:51, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:55, 20 October 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!} 08:56, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksander Olech[edit]

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

Lecturer focusing on terrorism, security and international cooperation, article sourced entirely to primary sources. No evidence academic publications have made any enduring impact, no reviews, no evidence of WP:GNG; WP:NACADEMIC. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Military, and Poland. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. H-index of 3, no evidence of satisfying any criteria of WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 13:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR notability. But the article lists him as an author of multiple books; if published reviews for these can be found (I didn't find any), it could make a case for AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find anything that shows they meet WP:GNG or any of the SNG's.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails SNGs and WP:BASIC and I suspect is related to subject. Mztourist (talk) 02:55, 25 October 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. That's the consensus even after discounting the blocked nominator and their socks. Sandstein 11:01, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of the shortest rivers[edit]

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

WP:NOTMIRROR, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The vast majority of these have no source, no context, and aren't even important enough to be discussed in the article on the river itself. Luckily the list is very incomplete, as the world has more than 10,000 rivers apparently. Alverado (talk) 07:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Lists. Alverado (talk) 07:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Entirely unsourced and without context or indications to a degree of comprehensiveness or meaning. Looking at some of these on the map, there's a real stretch for what actually constitutes a river versus a creek or channel or how human development like dams contribute. I mean a record claimant D River may be more accurately called a drainage ditch. Reywas92^Talk 13:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I really don't see the point of this article. Should we also have lowest mountains, smallest hamlets, and narrowest cycle paths? There are no reliable sources discussing shortest rivers or constructing lists of them. Of the two references in the article, both are refs for specific rivers, one is blatant WP:SYNTH to extract the length, and the other does not give the length (only the length of the falls) and makes no claim to be one of the world's shortest rivers. SpinningSpark 13:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a slippery slope argument which is a logical fallacy. See also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS -- GreenC 22:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poor sourcing, arbitrary selection AFAIK. A random and very, very odd thing. But delete it anyway. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How does this apply here? Dronebogus (talk) 10:53, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was looking for information about rivers, and, despite its incompleteness, this (and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flags of counties of the United States and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fiction set in the 21st century) was one of the best sources I could find. Reworking it to be more encyclopedic or moving it to another wiki might work, but as it is it was already useful to me. 116.206.12.63 (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2022

(

Blocked sockpuppet of Alverado)

IMO this single Keep trumps all. Yes there is WP:USEFUL to consider and a rationale is given: nothing else like it exists, and it has demonstrated social value to one user, and a check of the page views shows many others at least 50 per day for years on end have gained value from it. -- GreenC 22:25, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete The fact that Guinness has given up on the "record" should tell us something, as should the many contradictions within the article. It's impossible to compile a meaningful list. Mangoe (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article could be transformed into a redirect to list of the shortest rivers of the world by continents. The pages then explain the meanings of the shortest river. An example would be: A user goes to this page, chooses "List of the shortest rivers of Asia" then scrolls to Indonesia, which has the length and the meaning of the Tamborasi River. The user is also able to see meanings and other information for other rivers in Asia that have one. Alverado (talk) 08:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It can be covered somewhere else with a section or a paragraph. Azuredivay (talk) 08:46, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Alverado (talk) 09:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely arbitrary. A ditch is not a river just because you say it is for a made up record. Dronebogus (talk) 10:56, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as TNT. A sourced list should be rebuilt from scratch to replace this unsourced one, if possible. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Due to the reasoning described by SpinningSpark. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:37, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As noted in my comment to 116.206.12.63 above the list is useful for good reasons/rational. The sourcing is trivial to fix, every river has basic length information available online somewhere. We have shortest rivers and longest rivers, do we show bias to long rivers only? Inclusion criteria is simple to fix with talk page discussions. -- GreenC 22:33, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what we have here at present is a total mess that ignores the vast majority of rivers actually with this list. There is potential for exploring the changing ideas of what the shortest rivers would be like and how this has been expressed in this list. We would need sourcing to prose articles that discuss this, not just original research directly connecting to the world's shortest rivers that depict this. To keep this we would need actual reliable source sourcing which we currently lack. Do not get me started on how irregular it is to treat this as a sub-set of a mess of heavily unsourced list. 180.214.233.67 (talk) 00:19, 22 October 2022 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet of Alverado) SpinningSpark 09:43, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rework/retitle per some of the discussion in the article talk. I would support something similar to what I suggested there, with the current article moved to "list of the rivers claimed to be the shortest" and a new article for the list of the shortest rivers potentially created (or maybe not, as that would probably turn into listcruft), or else a merge into a broader "list of the shortest rivers" type article, such as @Eridian314: suggested on my talk page (ping him into this discussion as he seems to have interest). 180.214.233.67 (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2022 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet of Alverado) SpinningSpark 09:43, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You get one !vote. It looks like you !voted twice. -- GreenC 04:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note This has now been canvassed (to both A) a partisan audience and B) with a partisan message) to the Article Rescue Squadron page (with a very non-neutral "I mean this list is very incomplete in 2014, and it was not continued in the same year."). Alverado (talk) 04:49, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mellohi! It is a fact. Your distinction doesn't change the problem. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mexican municipal flags The link speaks for itself. Your gratuitous and unwarranted canvassed claim at the deletion page is b.s. I have no illusions that this posting will change the outcome. No one showed up. But you can spread your poison. Alverado (talk) 05:07, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alverado, you are the one who posted at ARS. Now your saying your post there is canvassing, and your post is very non-netural? It makes no sense. -- GreenC 05:21, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the two ideas are incompatible (TNT-delete the original article, and write a rescoped one as a successor). — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:15, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming that two participants is "no one showed up" is being rather plainly economical with the truth. There was neither A) a need to ask for more participation with a non-neutral message; nor B) post it to a specific partisan group (speaking of "no illusions", I have absolutely no illusions about the Article Retention Squad). Nothing is going to stop me (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC) (

Blocked sockpuppet of Alverado)[reply]

No one from WP:ARS. (Except sleepy amphbian, who hangs out at ARS, and showed up to vote/support/discuss delete – take your pick). You choose to misquote and misunderstand. Deliberately or not. Dona nobis pacem indeed. Nothing is going to stop me (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC) (

Blocked sockpuppet of Alverado)[reply]

Comment This information may be better suited on a draft namespace. Note that being too long is never a valid excuse to delete something. Any section for a continent that was long enough could be split off into a different article. Alverado (talk), 07:27, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If we can say something substantive about the rivers in the articles on the shortest rivers it can be done there. There is no justification for this list article. 180.214.233.76 (talk), 08:15, 22 October 2022 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet of Alverado) SpinningSpark 09:43, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list is just a listcruft, and must be deleted in October 27, 2022. 180.214.233.76 (talk), 12:10, 24 October 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.214.233.81 (talk) ( Blocked sockpuppet of Alverado) SpinningSpark[reply]
Delete I originally suggested moving a few months back. I agree that it could have some use, but "shortest river" is far too arbitrary to be encyclopedic, imo. Eridian314 (talk) 15:34, 24 October 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 Sheba Prokashoni. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rahashya Potrika[edit]

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

Monthly magazine published in Bangladesh. First source talks about Sheba Prakashani, second is an advertisement, third and others talk about authors who were featured in the magazine but NOT in the context of the magazine itself. Fails WP:NCRIT; WP:NCORP; WP:GNG - not notable by any standard. The most telling line in the article is, "The magazine has various regular sections."... Also noting that 'most popular monthly magazine' - like much else here - is unsubstantiated in the article. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Fictional elements, Entertainment, and Companies. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sheba Prakashani Vinegarymass911 (talk) 17:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Fails the WP:GNG but merge seems like a fair compromise and a way to WP:PRESERVE this. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:43, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[[Sheba Prakashani] is a redirect. Did you mean Sheba Prokashoni? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

yes.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 06:00, 22 October 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!} 02:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MORE Electric and Power Corporation[edit]

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

Philippine power utility company serving one province. Coverage sourced to routine company announcements, company owned media. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:NCORP. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Philippines. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me that more news sources (beyond routine press releases) exist. For example this report and this report about a parliamentary debate and this report about a Supreme Court case. JMWt (talk) 07:44, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of electric distribution utilities in the Philippines, where it is mentioned. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 11:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NCORP with sources presented by JMWT, including the ones in the article. They're reliable enough, with most of them being in-depth IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 00:36, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per SBKSPP. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 07:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Liz: Why did you relist the discussion? There are 2 keeps and 1 redirect. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 09:04, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First, SeanJ 2007, a deletion discussion is not a Vote. Plus, not all votes are counted equally, that's why it's not a vote count. Additionally, a Keep opinion is different from a Redirect. Finally, there is an editor advocating Deletion, the nominator. There is definitely no consensus on how this discussion should close. If you feel differently, well, maybe you should consider having an RFA for yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:57, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The deeds of this company are significant enough to those within its service area that there's ample press about what it's doing and how it affects its community. Nearly every action it takes is reported in local press, CNN Philippines, and others. FalconK (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others Goodvibes500 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 23 October 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!} 08:55, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Engirunthalum Vazhga[edit]

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

Cannot find any third-party sources except for the soundtrack. I wonder if the film even released since I can't find it here. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Shellwood (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe Tamil sources? But failing that, delete as unverifiable, poorly sourced, likely not notable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG or WP:NFILM, a WP:BEFORE search didn't find refs that could contribute to notability. VickKiang (talk) 02:04, 20 October 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!} 06:14, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Benham[edit]

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

English businessman owns two football clubs. Sourcing patchy - blogs, passing mentions, coverage of clubs (notability not being inherited) and an interview in The Guardian. Notability not established - was sent to draft, banged right back into mainspace, so here we are. Fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and United Kingdom. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many of the sources cited are strong; they are just very poorly formatted, so they look like they might "just" be blogs (e.g. The Athletic which is owned by The New York Times). Bloomberg.com article mainly focuses on Benham's unconventional data-crunching strategy in turning around Brentford (so you could say it really is about him and his approach rather than about the club). Will take a look at fixing cosmetically, but this article will easily be expanded. IRL, his achievements and his impact on how football clubs are managed are huge. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:20, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes GNG already with sources on page.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources which show notability. Giant Snowman 18:55, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV sources. gidonb (talk) 14:40, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep sources on page indicated it passes WP:GNG. Even after doing a quick search was easily able to find more articles that support the case of notability. JojoMN1987 (talk) 13:34, 23 October 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!} 02:55, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bjørn Ludvigsen[edit]

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

Unable to find significant coverage of the subject, and I'd dispute his notability based on my research. InvadingInvader (talk) 05:44, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sportspeople. InvadingInvader (talk) 05:44, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would that refer to your extensive research of sources from the relevant time period? Geschichte (talk) 06:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:20, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per article improvements and sourcing. Giant Snowman 20:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - would any of [41] [42] [43] count as significant? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:13, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be pretty extreme not to count them towards notability, i.e. in the direction of notability, but that it would be more decisive to implement them (and more) into the article to showcase what information the pieces convey. I'll put it somewhere on my to-do-list, but... Geschichte (talk) 07:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~I would be happy for this to be moved to draft to allow for improvements. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 18 October 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider suggestion of draftifying this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:HEY because of the recent improvements. @GiantSnowman:, @InvadingInvader: and @Geschichte: in case any wish to make any further comments. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:16, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would say Neutral because of HEY improvements. Still not a thorough article, and I'm on the fence when it comes to notability, but much better than before. InvadingInvader (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per even further improvements. Managerial career could probably be expanded upon. Lacks an infobox. Geschichte (talk) 20:59, 20 October 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!} 06:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noodle Factory (AI company)[edit]

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

AI powered teaching assistant/chatbot. Company has raised seed funding. Fails WP:NCORP, also WP:SERIESA. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Singapore. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Also fails WP:GNG. Speedy Delete. SMBMovieFan (talk) 00:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:SERIESA is irrelevant. The relevant guideline is WP:SIRS which it fails horribly. Nothing available in an online search that comes close. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the total lack of significant coverage in reliable sources MaxnaCarta (talk) 12:54, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no-brainer. Deb (talk) 09:20, 24 October 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!} 06:11, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Van Leer Foundation[edit]

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

Not notable on it's own via third party sourcing - merge page with Van Leer Packaging. Bobs at 9 (talk) 05:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is more than enough independent significant coverage. See for example here. and here. and here Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 02:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NORG. Only a beginning of sources is provided above. This is one of the better known foundations in the Netherlands and in Israel. gidonb (talk) 12:05, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that the Bernard Van Leer Foundation article already covers its parent, the Van Leer Group that manages several nonprofits at a strategic level. Merging it with the industrial Van Leer Packaging, as suggested, would be quite the content drift!!! The two are not hierarchal related. On the other hand, it could be debated if the Van Leer Packaging content is best merged into its parent, Greif, Inc., or if this would create a situation of undue. That would be material for another discussion. Either way, the famous Bernard Van Leer Foundation is not part of the packaging industry :-) gidonb (talk) 13:48, 20 October 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!} 06:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Mustafa Haji Ismail Haroun[edit]

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

Somali Islamic Scholar, electrical engineer, mathematician, historian and preacher. Apparently claiming Norwegian citizenship, although this like everything else in the article is not reliably sourced. One possible RS here is the BBC article, but that's an interview. Fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Somalia, and Norway. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Potential UPE to boot.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Copied from talk page: Hi, I am Seepsimon. I have created an article Sheikh Mustafa Haji Ismail Haroun, one of the well known Somali islamic scholars in east Africa. I have added plenty of reliable sources till now. I am still collecting another reliable sources. Feel free to research everything related to the article that I have created. Thanks again. Seepsimon (talk) 05:54, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. Nothing usable, hyperbolic statements. Geschichte (talk) 07:33, 24 October 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!} 05:58, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Thexeira[edit]

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

This article has really done the rounds - deleted, draftified, multi-prodded (second attempt declined procedurally with the suggestion of AfD), the lot. It's currently tagged for notability, the draft having been banged back straight into mainspace (leaving the draft behind, of course) without improvement. It's sourced to the usual mishmash of promo, passing mentions and announcements, while the article is breathless fancruft. "Dragon and Wam Bam Bellows teamed to face Ahmad Arif and GrappleMax's The Wonderboy" we are told, and we are wiser for this knowledge. Fails WP:GNG, delete and SALT. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wrestling and Singapore. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is also a draft. Leave the draft in draft space, and the title ECP protected so that a neutral editor and a neutral reviewer can approve it, if they want to. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All has been said. I PRODed, was dePRODED without explanation, insufficient sourcing. MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:32, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Poorly sourced, fails all the applicable notability tests. Addicted4517 (talk) 10:42, 25 October 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!} 05:57, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Aprhys[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. A search merely comes up with coverage of articles authored by her, not coverage of her as the subject. LibStar (talk) 04:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not a deletionist but while I found many articles by her, I could not find any about her (in either Newsbank or WikiLibrary ProQuest database searches). Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:JOURNALIST. Cabrils (talk) 23:12, 20 October 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 is to Keep plus nominator has withdrawn their deletion proposal. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of senators of Chuquisaca[edit]

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

The main goal here is to actually help WP:DRAFTIFY these articles through a deletion discussion. As can be seen from a cursory look, these articles were all created at vastly different times with broadly ranging time spans; some include just the current delegation, others those since 2010, while two go as far back as the 1970s. They suffer style inconsistencies, have wrong or inaccurate information, and some are even missing data. As the creator of all of them, I ask that they be moved to draft space to be polished. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 04:01, 12 October 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 October 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the topics are notable and the articles are properly sourced and not badly written to the point of being incomprehensible, so there is no need to draftify them. Just go ahead and edit them in mainspace. This isn’t what AfD or draftification is for. Mccapra (talk) 05:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AFD is not cleanup. Draftication does not seem necessary to improve these articles. They are tagged as incomplete lists, so editing in the mainspace is entirely justifiable. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:07, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with above points. I would like to withdraw this nomination if possible. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 06:15, 23 October 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:29, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Willacy[edit]

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

I am the article subject, and I regard myself as a non-notable, private person, and I want the article to be deleted Mark Willacy (talk) 04:18, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that a brand new account knows how to submit an AfD. LibStar (talk) 04:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I followed the the handy guide sent to me by the Wikipedia oversight team. Mark Willacy (talk) 04:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can confirm. Primefac (talk) 08:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep because there's 28 sources. You're notable enough. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 04:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep besides lots of sources, also an award winning journalist on the national broadcaster. LibStar (talk) 04:29, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a request that would follow WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE: Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete. I cannot say that a broadcast journalist who has won major national television and journalism awards, as the Gold Walkley and Logie Awards are, is relatively unknown or non-public. WP:ANYBIO suggests as a general correlate of notability, The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times.
There has also been coverage of harassment of the subject in reliable sources, such as The Guardian, so it is not unthinkable that this could possibly be a bad faith move. No matter if that is the case or not, Willacy is a public figure who meets our notability guidelines. (Note: This discussion was brought to my attention at WP:DISCORD, but my views would have been the same in any event.) (edit conflict) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:31, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Television, and Australia. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:33, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sammi Brie: I mostly agree, but what do you mean by "bad faith move"? To the contrary, perhaps the subject does not want to have an article because of that harassment Ovinus (talk) 06:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Mostly raising the possibility, however minute, that the subject may be being impersonated. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sammi Brie. It hasn't been raised in AfD but editors would be more than happy to fix any BLP issues raised on the talk page. Deus et lex (talk) 06:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but severely trim - I agree the subject of the article is notable, but it seems to me to give too much detail for a living BLP when there are indications that they are not wanted. I also note that the page suggests that there is ongoing litigation, which may or may not be considered relevant to this discussion. JMWt (talk) 07:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per "Sammi Brie" and "JMWt" Fifthapril (talk) 08:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. - nathanielcwm (talk) 09:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but trim per JMWt. In particular the details about harassment are totally irrelevant to his career, and are mostly a product of media hype. I will clean up the article shortly. Ovinus (talk) 16:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ovinus' amendments to page (sort of WP:HEY). Cabrils (talk) 23:18, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep', subject is clearly notable, and whilst he might now want to be a private person in view that he is being sued, he most certainly is not. Article easily passes notabilty guidelines. Not the place for this, but strongly suggest this new Mark Willacy account also needs to be checked for sock puppetry to identify if other ABC-related accounts are being used, has they have previously. Aeonx (talk) 19:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SPI is thisaway. Primefac (talk) 19:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aeonx, I have contacted Wikipedia and provided my bona fides. There is no sock puppetry. Though in your case there is aggressive trolling of this page and the prosecution of a bad faith agenda against me, my reporting and my book. Your obsession with this page is unhealthy Mark Willacy (talk) 20:57, 25 October 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 Nishtar Hospital. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned bodies incident in Nishtar Hospital[edit]

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

Proposed deletion was rejected. WP:NOTNEWS, this would work much better as a section in the Nishtar Hospital article. Partofthemachine (talk) 03:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nishtar Hospital per WP:NOTNEWS. Insight 3 (talk) 14:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Nishtar Hospital. Muneebll (talk) 14:27, 20 October 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 Moot, G5 deleted (sockpuppet creation). (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 03:06, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dzala people[edit]

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

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chali people, the only sources that support the existence of the topic are non-RS Christian missionary material. The rest of the sources cover Dzala language. (t · c) buidhe 02:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this one is quite difficult - it appears to be a language that is spoken in a defined area and in specific villages. Does that mean that the people are themselves a defined group? Isn't a linguistic investigation also a source about the people speaking it? I'm not sure. There are very limited sources, I'll agree on that point - but there would be more if the academic sources on the language were included. JMWt (talk) 08:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ethnic groups should be treated as notable without question. I agree that language alone does not define an ethnic group, but the existence of a language implies that at least one ethnic group exists in it, and the area occupied by these people is so small that there can be no real doubt that it is a single group. Having an article on their language alone is not sufficient – for instance information on the dominant religion does not belong in a language article. SpinningSpark 11:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- This response is based on wrong assumptions. First, there is no reliable source that the article subject even exists. Second, not all languages are associated with a specific, single, or distinct ethnic group. (t · c) buidhe 16:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Asia. Shellwood (talk) 14:52, 19 October 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 02:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmadiyya in Bahrain[edit]

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

The topic of the practice of Ahmadiyya in Bahrain fails WP:GNG. The sole source in the article does not describe the practice of Ahmadiyya in Bahrain at all, and I am unable to find coverage more broadly. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Bahrain. Shellwood (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I love this: "Ahmadiyya is an Islamic branch in Bahrain... The Ahmadi population is difficult to measure, as there are no Ahmadi muslims in Bahrain." Stay with me on this one. If there are no Ahmadi Muslims in Bahrain, I can see we're already having issues holding up the old 'we need an article about Ahmadi Muslims in Bahrain' argument. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the nominator's argument looks reasonable to me. ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This does not appear to pass the general notability guideline or the subject criteria. Numis Zuhair (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this article rather amusingly seems to declare itself non-existent according to its own text. Perhaps some Ahmadi Muslims have been on holiday in Bahrain at some point, but this is clearly not a topic which passes GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:28, 22 October 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. I have withdrawn the AfD, I'm at weak keep and there's clear consensus for retention. (non-admin closure) VickKiang (talk) 20:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nanyue Yuan[edit]

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

Non-notable, fails the artificial guideline requirement of WP:NGEO or WP:GNG. Current refs are non-RS, non-SIGCOV sites, a WP:BEFORE search revealed unreliable sites, 1, 2, 3. Previous convert to draft and tagging were challenged by article creator, who removed to mainspace, stating that cleanup garbage (waste of everyones time) per this diff, and described WaddlesJP13 and mine comments as garbage again, but the article had no active improvement and BEFORE revealed no more refs. VickKiang (talk) 01:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. VickKiang (talk) 01:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no good sources can be found online, as per nom it fails WP:GNG and WP:NGEO. Keep now that references have been found.

echidnaLives - talk - edits 03:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with you people. This is a significant place. It is covered in other language Wikis. I plan to visit soon and can certainly uncover better sources. Deleting things just demotivates contributions. Do something useful and start an article instead of hassling contributors. prat (talk) 03:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Wang, Rui 王蕊, ed. (2012-12-18). ""烧钱宫殿"番禺南粤苑：10公斤黄金打造厕所" ["Palace of Burning Money" Panyu Nanyue Yuan: 10 kilograms of gold to create a toilet]. People's Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-10-19. Retrieved 2022-10-19 – via Sohu.
  There is a copy of the People Daily article on its website here^{Internet Archive}. The article notes from Google Translate: "... but Nanyue Garden in Panyu is even more burned in bundles. Panyu Nanyue Garden is positioned as a characteristic tourist attraction of the top garden treasures in South China. Construction started at the end of December 2007, which lasted one year and 10 months and cost more than RMB 200 million. It was grandly opened on 28 September 2009. The various art treasures displayed in Nanyueyuan are worth hundreds of millions of yuan. It is said that the toilets of Nanyueyuan used 10 kilograms of gold. When you walk into the park, you will see carved beams and painted buildings, treasures in the pavilion, landscape gardens, Lingnan architecture, and rare stone treasures."
2. "800万建个舒心阁其实它就是一公厕" [8 million to build a Shuxin Pavilion. It's actually a public toilet]. Dahe Daily (in Chinese). 2009-09-29. Archived from the original on 2022-10-19. Retrieved 2022-10-19.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "The Nanyueyuan Tourist Scenic Spot, invested by Baomo Garden, is located in Zini Village, Shawan Town, with a total investment of over 200 million yuan and an area of more than 100 mu, which is 'bigger than Baomo Garden'. Nanyue Garden takes advantage of the local landscape characteristics and integrates landscape gardens, Lingnan architecture, and rare stone treasures. There are large arches, Jiulongbi, Yile Pavilion, Huiyuan Pavilion and other gorgeous buildings in the park; There are 20 scenic spots such as Sound and Milky Rock, highlighting the characteristics of surprise, strangeness and danger. Tourists can also take the sightseeing elevator in the park to the highest point to overlook the scenery of the whole park and the scenery outside the park."
3. Huang, Luo 黄骆 (2018-01-11). "宝墨园南粤苑将两园合一" [Baomo Garden Nanyue Garden combines two gardens into one]. Guangzhou Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-10-19. Retrieved 2022-10-19 – via Sina Corporation.
  The article notes from Google Translate about Nanyue Yuan: "The total area is about 9000 mu. The park is composed of lake and flower and tree area, pastoral ecological sightseeing area, Dafu Mountain Range Rover area, central scenic area, lawn and wilderness area, forest fun area, Shuiliao wild area and cultural and recreational area. A modern forest park in one."
4. "8个广东古典园林扑面而的来古朴岭南风(3)" [8 Cantonese Classical Gardens Come to the Ancient Lingnan Style (3)] (in Chinese). Sina Corporation. 2014-11-14. Archived from the original on 2022-10-19. Retrieved 2022-10-19.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "A large-scale landscape garden with fusion, artistic treasures and Lingnan gardens. Nanyue Garden is the "sister garden" of Baomo Garden, a famous garden in Lingnan. It is the deepening and extension of the construction of Baomo Garden. It shows the style of Shawan, a famous historical and cultural town and Yushan Mountain. But the difference from Baomo Garden is that Baomo Garden fully displays the charm of Lingnan water town, while Nanyue Garden focuses on the essence of Lingnan architectural art."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Nanyue Yuan (simplified Chinese: 南粤苑; traditional Chinese: 南粵苑) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 04:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the refs! These might be convincing, echidnaLives and WaddlesJP13, do you think these would meet notability and would make you change your vote to keep? I don't feel as strongly about deletion now, if you all agree with Cunard I can maybe withdraw the nomination. VickKiang (talk) 05:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cunard: I've added a couple of the refs into the article. Thanks for your time! VickKiang (talk) 05:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@VickKiang Now that I've seen these, of course I will change to keep. I didn't find much in an initial search but this is definitely enough. echidnaLives - talk - edits 05:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Keep as there are now references. Gusfriend (talk) 08:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the references in the article. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this draftification was a bit aggressive. Regardless, the article is now much better, thanks to Cunard. Ovinus (talk) 20:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. There is clear consensus to keep the article, and IMO I'm at weak keep and will withdraw the AfD. Thanks Cunard for your work, I've added the sources hurriedly. However, optionally if you have the time to expand the article that would be great! VickKiang (talk) 20:26, 19 October 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.