< January 03	January 05 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cuba, New York#Cheese. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cuba cheese[edit]

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

Lacks WP:SIGCOV. Could not find any references mentioning it other than a company of the same name, which is a primary source. Kstern (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Products, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, agreed with the SIGCOV notion. There are two few mentions of this in RS'es. I chime in for a deletion. TY

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 18:35, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

delete - no coverage. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete I couldn't even find any culinary or historical articles, and the most recent articles are about one manufacturer

Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 21:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak keep There is this mention of the company (see the upper left corner of the page) [1] and this near the upper right of the page [2] and I found this, talking about the cheese market [3]. Oaktree b (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
my issue with that (in the same way as I said) are it seems like its named Cuba cheese after the place in Upstate NY, and not Cuba in terms of a unique cultural item. That is why I am voting delete, there is no coverage that I can even draw besides "there happens to be cheese factories here". I mean even basic American Cheese or Colby-Jack have huge information that you can casually find. Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could possibly merge to Cuba, New York, it seems important enough to be mentioned somehow. Oaktree b (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge with Cuba, New York: There is a little bit of content on the Cuba, NY page about cheese production in Cuba. Merge content to explain what the term means. I'm fine with a redirect as well if closer or other participants find the content on the page isn't worth merging. TartarTorte 18:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm fine with moving the image over, but the (single sentence of) content ought to be verifiable before merging. Same goes for a redirect. The content in Cuba, New York#Cheese is already unsourced. We shouldn't make it worse. I can find no evidence of a product called "Cuba cheese". Kstern (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've added citations to the Cuba, New York#Cheese section. I'm fine redirecting instead of merging if it's determined nothing, other than the picture, is worthwhile having in the Cuba, New York article. TartarTorte 21:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. I can't find anything that confirms this is a recognized variety/classification of cheese. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:00, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge or redirect Bearian (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 22:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge or redirect without prejudice. "Cuba cheese" is not a distinct variety of cheese, but the Cuba cheese industry is very much a notable historical concept, which it makes best sense to cover in the subsection Cuba, New York#Cheese for now. Surely the Cuba Cheese Museum is ripe for a WP:GLAM collaboration!--Pharos (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak keep or merge per above. --Wil540 art (talk) 02:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify. Closed slightly early per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bruce Van De Velde[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This isn't an encyclopedia article. It reads like a bio on his employer's website. And while I'm aware that deletion isn't cleanup, my search didn't turn up convincing evidence of WP:SIGCOV anyway. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Education, American football, Iowa, and Wisconsin. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Draftify or TNT this mess. I think he probably is notable based on the coverage I find, but wow this looks like a website bio. Oaktree b (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete the subject is notable, but the article as written sure doesn't look like NPV or COI or such. Draftify is a good option for an enthusiastic editor to re-write. If someone wants to get super-enthusiastic and edit it right now that could make a difference. I would prefer editing over deletion, but I prefer deletion over nothing.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Draftify although a complete rewrite would be necessary so maybe WP:TNT. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Draftify. The subject has been the athletic director at three Division I programs (Iowa State, Utah State, and Louisiana Tech) and is thus likely to have SIGCOV sufficient to pass GNG. That said, Lepricavark's comments about the state of the article raise valid concerns. Draftification will allow time for the article to be brought up to snuff (including addition of actual SIGCOV), should anyone care to undertake that effort. (Current citations to the Louisiana Tech and Iowa State web sites are not independent and therefore do not count toward GNG.) Cbl62 (talk) 04:17, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Draftify: This is not written in a way that should remain in main space. The subject passes GNG but it needs a major rewrite. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Draftify. Aside from the verbatim copy-paste from his employer's website that was included in the article, this really does fail WP:BLP sourcing standards to such an extent that draftification is warranted. This looks like COI editing, and draftification is warranted per WP:DRAFTIFY#5. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Draftify I see coverage exists for an article, but in the present state, the article is not ready. Since this is the second AfD the article should be sent to draft and then it should be submitted through WP:AFC before a return to main space. Bruxton (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 Thane district. Daniel (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jawhar district[edit]

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

Proposed district that was never created. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete or Merge into the district of Thane as this new district was never created, it doesn't have notability on its own. 06:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as the article subject is not a district. According to Maharashtra government's official website it clearly reads "Jawhar is a small hill station municipal council situated on a plateau of sahyadris between rift valleys in Palghar district."^[1] Twinkle1990 (talk) 08:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

^ "Jawhar Rajwada | District Palghar, Government of Maharashtra | India". Palghar. Retrieved 5 January 2023.

Merge into the district of Thane per WP:ATD. // Timothy :: talk 13:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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. Daniel (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Love Undone[edit]

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

Fails WP:NWEB and WP:GNG, and I can't find any sources. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 21:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Internet. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 21:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - Per nom, no independent sources can be found about this subject and no references are in the article other than the one award they had won. Harobouri • 🎢 • 🏗️ (he/him) 21:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, if I post links to the YouTube Channel, would that count as a source?

https://www.youtube.com/@uloveseries/featured Aquitar94 (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Their iMDB page is also here: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt15545436/ Aquitar94 (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The youtube, no. The IMDB is useful in pointing to other sources that are reliable, but you can't use it for sourcing alone. Oaktree b (talk) 01:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is a feature in Shadow and Act that discusses the series raising money for season 2 count? Also leads to a GoFundMe that was successfully funded. https://shadowandact.com/crowdfund-this-black-retail-criblore-a-horror-anthology-and-love-undone Aquitar94 (talk) 02:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The new sources provided do not meet general notability guidelines still. YouTube is both unreliable and the link provided is primary, which fails the independent from subject criteria. IMDB is independent, but per WP:IMDB, it is generally unreliable due to the fact it is user generated. The Shadow and Act source looks reliable, is independent, but does not significantly cover the subject. --Harobouri • 🎢 • 🏗️ (he/him) 03:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete No sources found for the webseries, there are books mentioned in the New York Times that are unrelated to this series but they share the same theme. Oaktree b (talk) 01:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Article's subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:NWEB. I was unable to find any sources that would show notability. As far as WP:WEBCRIT, it isn't met in this case because an actor won an award, not the webseries itself, so that isn't met in this case. - Aoidh (talk) 18:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Not enough in-depth coverage from independent, secondary, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NWEB.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. I discovered another award for the film ([4]), but it's not particularly significant on its own. Suitskvarts (talk) 11:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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. Daniel (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jeff Hammerbacher[edit]

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

Subject is not noteworthy, original page was created many years ago as fluff, very empty page after spam has been removed Nickgray (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep There are at least two solid sources, the NY Times and Fast Company. The article is a bit sparse but the person meets GNG, IMO. Lamona (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. In addition to the sources provided by Lamona, Hammerbacher is given significant coverage in Automate This: How Algorithms Came to Rule Our World. The three sources that provide WP:SIGCOV are enough to meet WP:NBASIC/WP:GNG. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per above meets WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG Bruxton (talk) 01:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per above. Based on the sources already in the article, it seems as though this nom was misplaced. Bearian (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep meets SIGCOV per above. // Timothy :: talk 13:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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. Fuzheado | Talk 16:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Setiabudi 13 case[edit]

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

I don't think it meets Wikipedia's requirements Opps Noor (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Opps Noor (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy keep No valid reason given for deletion. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy keep - Indeed, no valid reason for deletion given. Sources gives pretty clear notability.BabbaQ (talk) 00:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy keep - It is a notable case, one of the most gruesome unsolved murder case in Indonesia. Gunkarta talk 14:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude (talk) 09:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

01099[edit]

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

I don't think it meets Wikipedia's requirements Opps Noor (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Opps Noor (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy keep The nominator has not given a valid reason for deletion. The sources in the article seem to establish notability, and there's nothing else obviously wrong with it. Opps Noor, if this is your first account, I suggest you spend a bit of time doing content work before getting involved in back-room processes like deletion. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Procedural keep The nom is asked to expand their reason; not liking the article is not enough for a deletion rationale. Nate • (chatter) 21:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy keep Nominator isn't clear about how the article [doesn't] meet Wikipedia's requirements and hasn't given a valid reason. The article is notable enough. --Harobouri • 🎢 • 🏗️ (he/him) 21:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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. Daniel (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arturo Hernández González[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Miguel Garduño

Articles for deletion/Arturo Hernández González (2nd nomination)

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

Article about former footballer which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. The only online coverage is incredibly trivial stuff like [5]. Article previously kept at AfD due to being part of a messy bundled nomination long before WP:NSPORTS2022 made it clear that the GNG must be met. Jogurney (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Mexico. Shellwood (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Yes the previous AfD was poorly done as you should never bundle different people together. This player never met GNG then and doesn't now. It could have gone back on the wheel last time but escaped. As for analysing what is available, soccerway which extensively coverages a huge array of players shows us 2 games back in 2012-13 and that hardly helps any player with so little football past his career to show anything beyond WP:ROUTINE. Govvy (talk) 09:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment This player, who plays for Reynosa should not be confused with Arturo González who is from Reynosa. Nfitz (talk) 08:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom --Devoke water 14:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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. Daniel (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lancaster, Arizona[edit]

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

Searching is hopeless with 5M-plus GHits even with the county included, but maps and aerials show nothing except a small area which doesn't appear to belong to the surrounding federal land. No evidence for notability. Mangoe (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Lots of false positives is all I found at Google search and Google Books Elinruby (talk) 11:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. The location definitely is an actual name for a place (see map), but looking at an aerial view I really don't see any evidence of inhabited structures in the area. I see a cable cut for high-voltage wires that ends about where Lancaster is, but merely having a cable cut does not suffice for WP:NGEO. It's quite remote, with two dirt forest roads being the only ways in or out, so I very much doubt that it is currently inhabited. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:00, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's also listed in the 1987 National Gazetteer as a "locale", but I'm doubtful that meets the threshold of "legally recognized populated place". I will keep looking. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:25, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's the USGS map from 2014, which contains Lancaster. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for that. Google gets hung up on Edwards Air Force. Can you tell if that's between I-40 and the Grand Canyon? By eyeballing the map, I think so. If so it's in a national forest, so we can quit looking for settlements. I am also quite certain (which is OR and anecdotal, yes) that it does not have an exit off I-40. Elinruby (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scratch that, it's south of Flagstaff in the Pine Mountain Wilderness. Only been through there once, on the interstate, but based on Google Maps, it's on a forest road that looks like it probably closes in the winter, so I am strongly inclined to say there is no settlement there. Elinruby (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's in the Tonto National Forest and near the Coconino National Forest, per the USGS map. If you see the location where I-17 intersects with State Route 69 and head due East until the edge of the county, you'll see it labeled on the state land management map. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:55, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. While this is definitely a named locale, I see no evidence of WP:SIGCOV an no evidence that this is a legally recognized populated place after conducting a search for sources. While it exists in GNIS, GNIS is unreliable for feature classes, and it plainly appears to be wrong regarding the feature class in this case. There is nowhere reasonable to merge this to and no place to redirect this to; no article appears to cover this locale on Wikipedia, while the coverage in sources appears to be entirely maps and GNIS-sourced Gazetteers. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:58, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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. Daniel (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

VIS Limunada[edit]

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

I don't think it meets Wikipedia's requirements Opps Noor (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Opps Noor (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy keep No valid reason given for deletion. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: Notable musical group passes GNG. Tictictoc (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/01099 from the same nominator, which got a "speedy keep" due to poor reasoning in the nomination. Opps Noor, see WP:BEFORE and Wikipedia:Deletion policy for the evidence that needs to be collected before a nomination. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:48, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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. Daniel (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Checker Book Publishing Group[edit]

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

Non-notable publisher Mooonswimmer 18:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Companies, and Ohio. Shellwood (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: Unable to find sources that suggest the topic passes WP:NCORP. ––FormalDude (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. The publisher did some pretty famous comics, but that doesn't give it any notability itself. Suitskvarts (talk) 11:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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. (non-admin closure) Skynxnex (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cinnaholic[edit]

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

Non-notable bakery franchise. Mooonswimmer 18:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Mooonswimmer 18:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aviv (restaurant)[edit]

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

Non-notable restaurant. Most references are solely routine coverage from local Portland media. Mooonswimmer 18:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Oregon. Shellwood (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per GNG (disclaimer: article creator). Re: "Most references are solely routine coverage from local Portland media" -- The article was based on Eater Portland coverage but has been expanded significantly. Consider googling before jumping to AfD? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per Another Believer. The article was created over a year ago by an autopatrolled editor, it was nominated today for deletion, and already said editor has doubled it in size with plenty of added references. StonyBrook _babble 22:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak keep Hyper-local coverage were it not for Guy Fieri, but it's just at GNG with the tv show appearance. Oaktree b (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: sufficient proof of notability. having sufficient coverage to support GNG requirements. Tictictoc (talk) 14:17, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per Another Believer passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 118th United States Congress#House of Representatives leadership. This redirect can be re-targetted to a different article (eg. the one mentioned by Esolo5002 and suggested by Timothy) at normal editorial discretion. I deliberately didn't delete the history behind the redirect to allow a merge to a target article, should any editor wish to do so. Daniel (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2022 United States House of Representatives Democratic Caucus leadership election[edit]

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

This does not pass WP:NEVENT. It is a WP:ROUTINE event that happens behind closed doors every two years. Even with the change in speaker nominee from Pelosi to Jeffries, there was no intrigue that would rise above the run-of-the-mill level of coverage for it. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Muboshgu: where would you prefer we cover the content this article has? Elli (talk | contribs) 17:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Each members' individual articles. It's a sentence at most for each involved member. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Muboshgu: it seems like it's useful to collect all this information somewhere though? Only putting it on the members' articles does our readers a disservice. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think having an article for a non-notable event is a disservice to our readers. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The point of our notability guidelines is to make sure we can write a meaningful article on our subject, not to arbitrarily exclude things because they're "not notable enough". How does having this article do a disservice to our readers? It collects relevant information that otherwise would be scattered across multiple other articles. I'd be fine with a redirect or a merge, as long as we found a good location for the same information. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom. There was no significant coverage about the election itself, as Jeffries and others were chosen unanimously. Natg 19 (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete/Redirect to 118th_United_States_Congress#House_of_Representatives_leadership. I noticed this one last week and thought the same as Muboshgu. These races weren't even contested for the most part, so it's pretty lame to have such a long article with photos and election results boxes when the section in the main article says all the same thing. Same thing goes for the mostly useless 2006 United States House of Representatives Democratic Caucus leadership election. Reywas92^Talk 18:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, per nom. Probably discussed enough already at 2023 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election#Democratic nomination. ‎Jefferies was also chosen unanimously. Esolo5002 (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep, Important leadership election, new gen of leaders for the dem party. I agree that it needs a lot of work though. Rushtheeditor (talk) 02:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Pelosi and much of the democratic leadership for the past 20 years standing down is important for the party. The election of a new generation of leaders will also be important, plus with all the drama surrounding the speakership election this seems like it leans keep. Estar8806 (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete/Redirect to 118th_United_States_Congress#House_of_Representatives_leadership Per precedent, this election is WP:ROUTINE and similar elections have not received articles in the past. All people elected were elected by voice vote, all of this information could very easily be displayed in another article.DHSchool2003Student (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge information into section [[2023 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election#Democratic nomination at an WP:ATD. // Timothy :: talk 13:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to 2022 Cardiff Council election. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Plaid Cymru, Green Party, Common Ground[edit]

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

Judging by the name this article has been created under, it suggests it's been created by someone from either Plaid Cymru or the Wales Green Party. The Common Ground Alliance was created to field joint candidates in a 2022 local election. I looked myself at the time, to try and find something more than the one Wales Online news article, whether the alliance was notable enough for its own article and decided it wasn't. There's a redirect (Common Ground Alliance) which points to the paragraph in the 2022 Cardiff Council election article. My opinion is that the alliance isn't notable enough for its own Wikipedia article, hence this AfD nomination. Sionk (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Wales. Sionk (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Sionk

I created the article so that ward results on other pages could successfully reference the alliance. As it stood all other parties had links to their party pages, while Common Ground candidates could not. MeurigRogers (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've added a citation to the BBC report of the initial announcement. It is worth noting that the alliance is ongoing, and both councillors sit as Common Ground councillors. MeurigRogers (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The link in the election results worrks well using Common Ground Alliance. Sionk (talk) 19:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are 2 Common Ground councillors - which is not noted in the Common Ground Alliance paragraph. There are ongoing joint meetings of the parties under the alliance. Given that, I think it deservers more than a throwaway paragraph. MeurigRogers (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your participation. Maybe there will be some wider participation and I'll find I'm completely wrong. Sionk (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to Cardiff Council elections. This is an otherwise-insignificant electoral alliance at the local council level which has only contested the most recent elections. It does not merit an article in its own right. Crucially, you can keep the political party functioning in Wikipedia as it should (the premise cited by @MeurigRogers above) without the alliance needing its own article. Instead, the alliance would be more appropriate as a subsection in Cardiff Council elections. For a template, I recommend checking the entry for Merton Park Ward Residents Association in Merton local elections, which I created years ago. The MPWRA is a local residents association that contests elections in one ward in the council, and it has fully-functioning links as a political party (see, e.g. the infobox at 2022 Merton London Borough Council election). _MB190417_ (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, I think the current inclusion in 2022 Cardiff Council election (the one you get via the redirect at Common Ground Alliance) is sufficient given there is not currently good reason to think that the alliance will contest the next set of elections, and all the apparatus needed for a political party can be set up at the 2022 election page as it is in the MPWRA example above. _MB190417_ (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In contrast to the Merton Park Ward Residents Association, the Common Ground Alliance contested all wards. There is a larger significance given the Welsh Green Party's change to support Welsh independence, and the potential for the alliance to be rolled out nationally at a later date.

I regard it as significant as it was the first time an alliance of independence supporting parties beat one of the main UK based parties in a Cardiff election - a city which has historically been wholeheartedly unionist. If it proves to be the only time that happens it is still of significance in highlighting the peculiarities of the time. MeurigRogers (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All notable information that can be added to the main parties' respective entries, supplemented with reliable, secondary sources to prove that it is as significant as you say. But WP:ORGDEPTH, which I believe covers political parties, specifically labels 'coverage of purely local events, incidents, controversies' as trivial coverage. The event really isn't notable enough beyond the level of the local council at this one election, so a redirect is right per @DankJae. _MB190417_ (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to 2022 Cardiff Council election (in line with the other redirect and they have only contested 2022), unlikely to meet WP:GNG, and seems too early to consider whether it will contest the next local election, if that should be the case a redirect and section to Cardiff Council elections or Politics in Cardiff can then apply at that time. The recently established localised party of currently only two councillors is unlikely to justify an article nor significant coverage, particularly at this stage, nor does this article provide any necessary context that cannot be explained at 2022 Cardiff Council election in its current form. Formatting can be done to address concerns on result articles as mentioned above. Dank Jae 20:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: Just to note that a person with the same name as the AfD contributor and article creator stood for election for the alliance. The conflict of interest hasn't been declared here. _MB190417_ (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Their other contributions are only on the elections/wards they potentially (based on username) contested in, and Billy Rogers (footballer) which they stated was their grandfather. Indicating a COI would need to be declared here and there. Dank Jae 23:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for letting me know about the COI requirement Dank - how should I go about it? Is there a standard format? MeurigRogers (talk) 12:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MeurigRogers, notifed you on your talk page, links there should help answer any queries. Thanks Dank Jae 17:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Dank - having read the CoI guidelines I agree that this page should be deleted. Can I do that myself? MeurigRogers (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Follow WP:AFDFORMAT for this discussion, simply add a bold comment stating either Keep, Delete, *Merge or Redirect etc. to state your opinion in this discussion and state your COI. Thanks for your efforts, and we welcome any other contributions that you may have on non-COI articles (electoral wards are fine) or requested edits on ones that you do, as long as following COI guidelines. Thanks Dank Jae 17:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge the content in the article will fit into 2022 Cardiff Council election as an WP:ATD. // Timothy :: talk 13:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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!} 17:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Georgina Rodríguez[edit]

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

Famous for being a footballer’s girlfriend. She cannot have an article until she is independently notable. The subject clearly fails the notability criteria. Thesixserra (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fashion, Football, and Portugal. Thesixserra (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy delete A7. You beat me right to it. I was moments away from nominating it myself. Redirect to Cristiano Ronaldo#Personal life as it was before if no other options. Trillfendi (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy keep I wish editors would understand the subject's notability is not as a "footballer's girlfriend", or in even more demeaning terms as some edit summaries have described. This article needs to be considered in terms of a highly popular social media personality, whose subject is notable enough to have an entire Netflix documentary about them (I Am Georgina), and over 40 million Instagram followers. Many other internet celebrities are notable enough for articles despite having much fewer followers than Rodriguez, much less coverage than her, though are clearly more likely to be male, whereas Rodriguez is female. The article needs work, but there are at least ten other Wikipedia projects having articles about this subject, including Arabic, Chinese, French, German, Persian, Portuguese and Spanish. Given the subject's independent notability, it would be strange if this was redirected to the subject's husband. Onetwothreeip (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have added a reference from El Mundo, a high-quality newspaper source from Spain. The most rigorous sources are in Spanish, and the bulk of high quality sources for this subject will be in Spanish and Portuguese, as the subject's popularity is greatest across the Latin-speaking world. It would be especially helpful if a fluent speaker of Spanish could add references and help to build the article. Rodriguez may be seen as equivalent in notability to Kim Kardashian, who also has an overwhelming social media and celebrity presence in their own right, despite connection with their male romantic partners. Onetwothreeip (talk) 19:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I’m semi-fluent in Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese. In one of the sources in Spanish where she is actually interviewed she said she only wants to talk about cuidados físicos y de belleza (physical care and beauty) and rejected any questions her personal life with Ronaldo or family besides where she was born and raised and her previous jobs. That source itself ([xlsemanal.com/estilo/gente/20180327/georgina-rodriguez-cristiano-ronaldo.html XL Semanal]) wasn’t of high quality. Other sources lean into tabloid-ism and give the same Cinderella story of how she met her partner but the idea that she is equivalent in notability to Kim Kardashian is mendacious. Kim Kardashian is on the list of TIME’s Top 100 Most Influential People. She is the standard bearer of the construct of modern beauty and fame. Even if she never met Kanye West she would still be famous by herself because she’s been on her own TV show since 2007. And now the current show broke records for Hulu. Trillfendi (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If we are to read anything from that interview, it should be that her notability does not rely on her spouse. It may be more appropriate to say she is analogous rather than equivalent to Kim Kardashian, for the Spanish-speaking world. As you mention that Kardashian has a TV show of her own, so does Rodriguez herself. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Forget Kardashian... Geirdina Rodriguez should never be mentioned in the same sentence what Kardashian even in terms of "(read false) anology". Karsahian already beame very promient figure before Cristiano Ronaldo started his career, not to mention, Critiano was also her parthner in 2010 but noboday talk about it given how big and notable is Kardashian lol. If ever then Georgina Rodriguez is infinietly less notable than Darya Dugina which does not have article on Russia Wikipedia but is redirect to his father. She is anology to her beause of Georina is gfamous because of her parther, and Darhya because of her father. Regardless WP:recentism and regardless Pageviews means nothing; if we are going by that logic then if we exclude English, Spanish, Poortuguese and Arabic Wikipedia (Georgina is Spanish, Cristiano is from Portugal and now plays in Saudi Arabia) Georgina last two weeks gets she has only 131 949 pageviews meanwhile Darya Dugina during "peak media coverage had 1 122 268 pagevies but does not have article on home/Russian wiki as I said before. People who defend by WP:Otherstuffexist do not ralise that other people nominated for edeletion mostly are muh older than 1994 year birth and are not nominated during peak of media cverage. El Mundo and El Pais are not also reliable source, certainly not enough to get significant coverage. By all that mean, per WP:Not !Voting and WP:Consensus I am pretty sure discussion shows that article should be delted per WP:common sense most people who !vote for keep said nothing other than weak soiurces and WP:I like it.Dawid2009 (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DarkSide830, Oleg Yunakov, Tambor de Tocino, Zaathras, Wikisaurus, and Alsoriano97:} Sorry for spam ping but I noted you all six were supporting Daruya Dugnova as merge into article about her deah (or eventually father), do you have any eventual comment about people who !vote for keeping Georgina Rodriguez due to "just being famous thank to wp:recentism"? If article about Georgina Rodriguez was delted then mabe could be bit more chance to article about Darya Dugina was merge - just saying. @Spartaz, Wm335td, Gene93k, Johnpacklambert, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Novemberjazz, and BananaFiend: I noted you seven were !voting to support removing Alexis Texas despite fact she is atually mentioned in print books and independly far more popular than eorgina Rodriguez (however not sure how it was during time of nomination), out of curiosity what do you think about that nomination? WP:otherstuffexist could work or not? I only ping more people to reeach wieder consensus and to closer of discussion make longer rationale (not speedy keep a ka other language versions are). Dawid2009 (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I will say, as is, this article should be merged, but I think there's merit for a standalone article upon expansion. Personally, I think the true "notability" of someone like Rodríguez (who, even besides her relationship to Ronaldo, is mostly for being an influencer) really isn't Wikipedia-worthy, but then again we have plenty of such individuals with pages and presumably several less notable than Rodríguez. This and the amount of material present in her pages on some of the other Wikis leads me to feel more neutral to her being noteworthy of having a page. Going back to my original point, I can't see how this article is acceptable for the mainspace in it's state. As is it does nothing to show Rodríguez's notability. Reeks of just another article shoved into the mainspace half-baked. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I wish people would use just a tidbit of common sense here. There are two sentences in this article that which you are asking for the speedy keep of… one sentence is that she is an Argentine-Spanish model and influencer and the other is that she is the life partner of Cristiano Ronaldo, obviously a famous footballer. That’s it. There is nothing inherently notable about these two sentences to have a Wikipedia article about. Having 44 million Instagram followers does not create notability for a Wikipedia article per any Wikipedia standards on notability. Other languages of Wikipedia have their own standards for inclusion that have no bearing on English Wikipedia. Trillfendi (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notability for an article should be assessed among reliable sources, not the article itself, although interestingly the article itself already has over 40,000 views in less than a week. I thought that other language Wikipedia projects having their own inclusion standards would come up here, but this is actually an indication to support inclusion, as generally their inclusion standards are higher than that of English Wikipedia, and that we have their content and references to draw from. Along with being among the most followed people on Instagram, these do not necessarily mean the subject has met notability criteria automatically, it requires some investigation, but these should indicate to editors that it is worth assessing the subject's notability, and not simply dismissing the subject as the female spouse of another prominent person. However, I do agree that the article should give a better indication of the subject's notability, which is currently lacking from the article, which is a very new stub article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We also have to remember that social media numbers can be boosted by bots; until some of the sites can guarantee they've gotten rid of bots, we can't use likes/followers/stream numbers as any sort of proof of "notability". You can pay people that guarantee to boost your followers/stream numbers/likes, making these numbers unverifiable and untrustworthy, so we can't use them for notability standards here. Oaktree b (talk) 02:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think we should use social media statistics as evidence of notability, they can be an indicator for us to investigate notability further. Bots are less relevant at over 40 million followers, and bots are unlikely to be involved in this article now having 60,000 views since being created less than a week ago, about 6,000 times more than the amount of views most deleted articles get. Not necessarily evidence of notability itself, but an indication for us to look further. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete We don't even have her hometown, life history or how she came to meet her partner. Usually that would stretch this towards a keep, but as-is we're asking for an infobox and an Instagram account to count for WP:N, when the article lacks anything else. As usual, I am inclined to change my rationale if the article fills up further. Nate • (chatter) 21:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MrSchimpf: The subject's place of birth has been added to the article. I can add biographical background to the article unless somebody else does. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MrSchimpf: Do you think the article has these details now? Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment It does, and plenty of sources. I'm convinced to keep now. Nate • (chatter) 01:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Plenty of coverage about the couple, but they had a still-born infant recently, so I don't think that meets GNG for her alone. I tried French sources, but it's all celebrity fluff but lots of coverage about the death of their son. Sad as it is, that alone is not enough for GNG, models aren't automatically notable. Oaktree b (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are certainly many celebrity-related magazine articles about the subject, but there are also news articles from more substantive sources. I will find the sources that are more suitable for Wikipedia and add them to the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge/redirect to Cristiano Ronaldo#Family, children, and relationships. Not independently notable. Giant Snowman 21:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per El Pais and El Mundo pieces located and linked below. Giant Snowman 16:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per es:Georgina Rodríguez and pt:Georgina Rodríguez, There seems to be plenty on the Spanish and Portuguese wikipedia's, although thin on what I call good content, there is enough there to tell me GNG shouldn't be an issue. @Trillfendi, MrSchimpf, Oaktree b, and GiantSnowman:, did you peeps not consider whats on the other language wiki's? Govvy (talk) 09:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, it's all fluff. Oaktree b (talk) 12:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Quoting myself above; 'I am inclined to change my rationale if the article fills up further.' I apologize if I my knowledge of Spanish and Portuguese is rudimentary, but I wouldn't know where to start to search for es/pt sources. Please don't get mad at me, or others who speak primarily English, because we don't hold that knowledge. I good-faith believe the nom did BEFORE in English to an acceptable degree and shouldn't be attacked for not considering es/pt sources. Nate • (chatter) 23:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment @MrSchimpf: I often check other language wiki's to see whats there when articles come up for AfD. There is nothing wrong with not checking them (so don't beat yourself up over it), but that option is there to discover on the navigation tree. Also I don't know what browser you're using, but a good few have the option to translate a page. Regards. Govvy (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I stated above that I am at this point in time semi-fluent in Spanish (I’ve made multiple Wikipedia articles in Spanish from the top of my head including the Spanish article for Silk Sonic) and Brazilian Portuguese so yes, I read the tabloid fodder on the other articles and would like to believe English Wikipedia has higher standards than “she is the partner of Cristiano Ronaldo”. Outside of her relationship with a super famous man she has done nothing independently notable to make an article about. Irina Shayk has. Just mi opinión. Trillfendi (talk) 05:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The notability certainly isn't on the basis of being the spouse of someone notable. It is largely about her social media presence, which is quite significant. Other stuff aside, we rightfully have articles about people many times less influential. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The subject meets WP:GNG, regardless of the state of the current article, as the subject regularly receive[s] significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The trouble for English Wikipedia is that there is extensive coverage of the subject in low-quality sources in English. There are some high quality sources on the subject in English, but these can be obscured by a search engine with the lower quality ones, while the quality of sources is relatively higher in the Spanish language. The two largest Spanish newspapers, El Pais and El Mundo, regularly report on the subject as an independently notable person [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To the current article, WP:ARTN states even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. Onetwothreeip (talk) 12:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep the sources on the Spanish and Portuguese articles ( es:Georgina Rodríguez and pt:Georgina Rodríguez) are sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Article could easily be expanded by a fluent speaker of one of those languages. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, ton of notable coverage online and in other Wikis, BEFORE wasn't done properly.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep lots of coverage. Passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:54, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy Keep The article seems notable, she is a influencer and model before Ronaldo even met her.[11] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylorlee44 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually she was an au pair and then Gucci shop assistant before Ronaldo met her. The influencer role didn’t come until their relationship started. Trillfendi (talk) 05:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But she is a influencer now that really even make her notable.
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Spain and Argentina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:44, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. While indeed she may not have been notable prior to meeting Ronaldo, we're evaluating based upon her current notability. And, the sources on the Spanish and Portuguese Wikipedia articles are more than sufficient to show that she meets WP:NBASIC in her own right; her coverage includes Spain's largest general-interest newspapers El Mundo and El País. I am surprised that these did not come up before nominating this for deletion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment The article now has over 120,000 views from the last week-and-a-half of its existence. Is this a record for an article nominated for deletion? Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anecdotal evidence but usually when a new article is linked to an article that gets millions of views per month like this guy the views skyrocket like that. Trillfendi (talk) 04:59, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Still many more views than most articles linked to that one. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:RECENTISM Can effect notability. Govvy (talk) 10:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Closer of discussion should take into account that Cristiano had better hits than article on United States recently due to his transfer, and should take into account Georgina even is not most promient "parthner of sportpwrson" due to recentism. We ate going to keep Georgina but delte article about Pele's death because of wikipedia is not print? What willl be next? Delting article on funreal of pope but creating another articles about sportpeople' wifes? Dawid2009 (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy merge to Cristiano Ronaldo. Redundand. We are not print encyxlopedia but if article on Pele's death and funreal is going to be merge due to overlap, then Georgina Rodriguez must go as far as possible to Cristiano's article as well. It would be far too big disgrace for Wikipedia if we keep article with no wp:anybiibut but mergre article with encyclopedical, heritage and history value. Dawid2009 (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe the death and funeral of Pele should be its own article, then... — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:42, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tell that to that discussion here then (I hope closer of that discussion will takre that othestuff exist into account as well if defenders arguments via other wikipedias have it). Dawid2009 (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is about how "other stuff" existing (or not existing) does not mean that an article being discussed, such as this one, should also exist or not. This article isn't about a footballer's spouse, it's about an influential social media personality. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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!} 16:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vladimir Pavlov (mountaineer)[edit]

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

First, a confession - it was me as a novice AfC reviewer that accepted this from a draft. I am now revisiting that review after another editor tagged the article for notability. My reassessment is that the sources are all either interviews or articles that Pavlov has written about his adventures. There is a lack of WP:SECONDARY coverage. The author is a single-purpose account that has not edited again since, and their name implies an auto-biography. This appears to be self-promotion - explorers need publicity to fund their lifestyle. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Bulgaria. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I lean towards delete, but it would be good to have someone who can effectively search in Bulgarian check it. His assent of Manlasu is at least verifiable[12][13] (to the extent high altitude mountaineering feats are verifiable at all.) Jahaza (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete I was the editor who first raised the notability and UPE concerns. I have been going through the WikiProject Climbing BLPs. 30 years ago, climbing an eight-thousander made you notable with coverage in the main climbing media (Climbing, Rock & Ice, Alpinist, AAJ etc.). Now, you need to climb all 14 to get enough GNG for notability (and it is still not guaranteed). Tourist-climbers can ascent Everest, Cho Oyu and Manaslu for circa $20,000 with minimal mountaineering experience. This BLP appears in none of the main climbing media; being in the climbing media does not guarantee notability, but not being in any of it, and trying to have a platform for notability on WP based on climbing is a problem. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 13:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marianne Schwankhart is another classic example of a SA Times journalist/photographer (her name appears as a credit in Times articles), with a WP BLP for climbing notability, and yet she has never appeared in any of the climbing media (because, from a climbing perspective, she is not notable); but references to low-grade climbing/outdoor blogs have been used to try a "sustain" a notability on WP. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 13:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now summarised at Wikipedia:WikiProject Climbing/Article recommendations. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: Per Nom. There is just not enough sourcing to pass any notability criteria -- Otr500 (talk) 05:49, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:39, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 Cumbernauld Line. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:30, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Allandale railway station (Scotland)[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Nowadays articles need a good number of secondary sources to pass AfC; this has an FOI request, an Edinburgh Trams pdf and a couple of doc's from the Scottish Parliament, which is just not enough to support the amount of information on the page. Already been PRODded at least once afaik. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Scotland. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep, highly likely to have been covered in the press at the time. It’s unfortunate that most newspapers don’t keep archives online and so the coverage has likely now been lost. Garuda3 (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So, how do we go about sourcing local news sources which have no archives? And are there actually any? Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge to Cumbernauld Line. There's no need for a separate article about a railway station that never ended up existing. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree with merge as above. The discussion is largely historic at this point and it never got built. Could be a few lines in the article about the line. No stand-alone notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge to Cumbernauld Line per Pi.1415926535. Also, the Bannockburn article makes reference to what I presume is the still-unbuilt park-and-ride facility project. _MB190417_ (talk) 23:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge - as suggested above. The proposal to build a station is a notable part of the history of the Cumbernauld Line, but it does not need its own article. Dunarc (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge to Cumbernauld Line.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 15:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Beckett Comics[edit]

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

Non-notable publishing company. Mooonswimmer 15:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Mooonswimmer 15:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fails WP:NCORP, article currently doesn't have enough sources for notability, and I couldn't anything of use online. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 16:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 15:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Comics Group[edit]

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

Non-notable publishing company. Mooonswimmer 15:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Companies, and California. Shellwood (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 15:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Print Media[edit]

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

Non-notable publishing company. Mooonswimmer 15:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Mooonswimmer 15:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 15:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Cadre[edit]

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

Non-notable comic book Mooonswimmer 15:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Mooonswimmer 15:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 15:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nifty Comics[edit]

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

Non-notable publishing company. Mooonswimmer 15:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Companies. Mooonswimmer 15:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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.

Alleged CIA involvement in the Whitlam Dismissal[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. I see the discussion and the big point that @Burrobert pointed out (non-admin closure) Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 14:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

This page is an effective super fork of the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, and it should either be merged BACK into the original article (Merging would do), but as a standalone page it does not warrent being its own article. It is important, but it runs the risk of becoming a page full of Original research. Thank you everyone for your readthrough, and have a great (EST) morning and a happy new 2023. Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The 1975 Australian constitutional crisis article currently contains 47 kB of readable text. Merging the "Alleged CIA involvement" article would increase the article size to around 52kB, at which point policy says the article "May need to be divided". The article is based on sources from the Guardian, NYT, AFR, ABC ..., which justify a stand-alone article. Not sure why original research is more of an issue for this article than for any other article. Burrobert (talk) 15:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. It's fine. jengod (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. This article is a work in progress but it is well-sourced. I can see no OR. This article was split from the 1975 crisis article after there was a consensus to remove it. Merging it back would probably be resisted.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Pages aren't deleted because of the possibility that they might have issues in the future. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 15:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dare Comics[edit]

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

Non-notable publishing company. Redirect to The Hunter and Starmaker: Leviathan. A sentence or two regarding the company could be included in Adam Hamdy. Mooonswimmer 14:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Companies, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 15:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Full Bleed Studios[edit]

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

Non-notable publishing company. Mooonswimmer 14:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Companies, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 15:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Brain Scan Studios[edit]

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

Non-notable publishing company. Mooonswimmer 14:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Companies, and Massachusetts. Shellwood (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Texas Comics[edit]

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

Non-notable comics publishing company. Mooonswimmer 14:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Companies, and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 15:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wonder Comics[edit]

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

Non-notable comics publishing company Mooonswimmer 14:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Companies. Shellwood (talk) 15:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spectrum Comics[edit]

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

Non-notable comics publisher Mooonswimmer 14:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Companies, and Connecticut. Shellwood (talk) 15:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Academy Comics[edit]

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

Non-notable comic publishing company Mooonswimmer 14:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Companies. Shellwood (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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. Noting that the article has already been moved to The Pearl Island; if there's a desire to discussing the naming further, feel free to start an RM discussion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Pearl Qatar[edit]

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

unreferenced, promotional content — The Anome (talk) 13:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Before that major edit, at this revision, I don't see much, if any, promotional content, and has many citations. I'll restore that revision. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 13:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep seems to be a notable enough land form (island) or neighborhood of Doha. Think the article should be viewed in a similar context to similar (man-made island) neighborhoods of Dubai, such as: Deira Islands, Palm Jebel Ali and Palm Jumeirah. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 06:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The name of the Island has changed from "The Pearl Qatar" to "The Pearl Island". Please refer the following articles published in news portals in support of this discussion, I request you to kindly go through it and update the title of the page to "The Pearl Island" instead of "The Pearl Qatar"

Here is the list of few news articles mentioning the correct/updated name. Please go through it for the validation... Thank you so much

https://www.gulf-times.com/article/651340/qatar/the-pearl-island-achieves-full-visitor-capacity-since-world-cup-start

https://thepeninsulaqatar.com/article/03/01/2023/qatars-hospitality-in-global-spotlight

https://www.iloveqatar.net/events/entertainment/the-pearl-island-world-cup-2022-activities-beach-centrale

https://www.gulf-times.com/article/651289/qatar/world-cup-visitors-laud-qatars-cleanliness-facilities

https://dohanews.co/the-pearl-island-all-set-and-ready-to-welcome-the-world-cup/

https://www.gulf-times.com/article/651723/qatar/double-celebration-in-qatar-on-super-sunday

https://www.gulf-times.com/article/651295/qatar/live-it-all-in-qatar

https://www.gulf-times.com/story/723357/UDC-Tower-is-first-on-The-Pearl-Island-to-receive-

https://thepeninsulaqatar.com/article/13/11/2022/corinthia-yacht-club-set-to-open-its-doors-on-the-pearl-island

https://www.gulf-times.com/article/651827/qatar/the-world-is-spellbound-as-qatar-delivers

https://thepeninsulaqatar.com/article/26/11/2022/qarnevale-quartier-kicks-off-at-the-pearl

https://www.gulf-times.com/story/719569/UDC-nears-full-rental-occupancy-at-The-Pearl-Island

https://thepeninsulaqatar.com/article/16/12/2021/udc-signs-pact-to-establish-and-operate-the-pearl-international-hospital

https://www.arabianbusiness.com/interviews/property/qatar-s-udc-completes-sale-of-pearl-offices-for-343m-656583

https://www.qna.org.qa/en/News-Area/News/2022-06/22/0052-udc-the-pearl-island-records-77-percent-increase-in-vehicle-influx

https://www.qatarday.com/pearl-island-records-entry-of-90-million-vehicles

https://www.wud.qa/the-pearl-island-records-77-increase-in-vehicle-influx-udc/

https://www.qatarliving.com/events/eid-al-adha-celebrations-pearl-island

https://www.qatarevents.co/events/eid-al-adha-celebrations-the-pearl-qatar-2

https://www.onlineqatar.com/events/latest-news/9259-pearl-island-records-entry-of-90-mn-vehicles-since-2016

http://welcomeqatar.com/10-fun-facts-about-qatar/the-pearl-island-view/ Shamailaijaz (talk) 08:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Keep As Epluribusunumyall has said, it is as notable as other man-made islands, notably in Dubai. The tone of the article has at times been heavily promotional, but the current version, reinstated by Eejit43 is more neutral. The title does need to be changed, but I initially baulked at the suggestion that it be "The Pearl Island, Qatar" (wouldn't "Pearl Island, Qatar" suffice?). The use of the definite article, a capitalised 'The', should usually be avoided (see WP:THE), but there are clearly multiple sources which call it 'The Pearl Island' (a branding style apparently created and maintained by the island's developer, UDC), so I guess it could be regarded as similar to a company name like The Coca-Cola Company and other examples given in the article naming guidance. Paul W (talk) 09:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  comment - The Facebook references should be removed and replaced by reliable sources. Paul W (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  I've already shared the list of reliable sources for the name change (whhich is now "The Pearl Island"). please check the news articles one by one to confirm the name change. Shamailaijaz (talk) 10:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep —Cote d'Azur (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep and move to current name per references listed above // Timothy :: talk 15:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 13:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Celtic flags[edit]

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

Not a notable list subject. The flags have nothing in common (the countries do of course), the "official" union flags have no notability nor any evidence that they are official. Fram (talk) 12:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: France, Ireland, and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 12:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak conditional keep: I would have said 'Delete' were it not for the inclusion of pan-Celtic flags, which makes me think that the entry, with a lot of work (especially more context on the flags, which do not appear on the main entries, also to illustrate their significance, if they have any) and possibly a renaming, could be repurposed to something more alike the Nordic cross flag entry. _MB190417_ (talk) 12:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Additional comment: Just in light of subsequent discussion to say that in my view, the only redeeming feature of the entry is the pan-Celtic flags (i.e. flags representing all Celtic nations; if and only if such flags can be proved to be notable). A Flags of Celtic Nations entry without these flags would be no more than a list of Celtic nations/regions and I'd be surprised if it survived an AfD. _MB190417_ (talk) 14:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MB190417, If it were to be like Nordic cross flag it would technically be about "triskelion flags", as that is the element shared by all three pan-Celtic flags but not in most of the Celtic nations ones (though IOM has a legged version). But an article on three proposed unofficial flags (I find no evidence of official use) that happen to use the same icon, probably does not meet notability guidelines. And could easily be in other articles, including triskelion or pan-Celticism. IOM and Sicily are already at triskelion, not sure whether than pan-Celtic ones should be though as they're unofficial (from my searches). Dank Jae 20:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, @DankJae; I've struck through my original comment and now suggest Merge with Pan-Celticism per your contributions. _MB190417_ (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep needs some references adding to it but seems notable and probably needs the flags of other recognised Celtic areas added to the page. Would probably rename to Flags of Celtic Nations.--MartyTheArty (talk) 13:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- How do you determine that "it seems to be notable" without sources? Fram (talk) 13:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - this OR and Synthesis to me. What is the definition of a "Celtic Flag"? Appears to be a list of flags of so-called Celtic regions and nations. Spleodrach (talk) 13:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: I have added some reference and commentary to address this issue. I will refine this and add more later. --MartyTheArty (talk) 15:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

None of the sources seem to address this though (some show or list the individual flags), nor do they address the pan-celtic flags at first sight. Can you indicate which of your sources actually discuss "celtic flags"? Something like this doesn't even mention the word flag (nor does it show one), and neither does this one, so their value for this article (never mind to determine notability) seems very limited at best. Fram (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. This article is, in effect, a list. Ostensibly a list of flags of Celtic nations. Unless WP:NLIST can be demonstrated, to the extent that all of the list members are discussed "as a group or set by independent reliable sources", I don't see how I could recommend anything other than deletion. Any alternatives to deletion (like redirecting and covering in the Celtic nations article) might apply to other titles (like the proposed "Flags of Celtic Nations"). But not the current Celtic flags title. As there is no indication that this term has any established meaning. (Certainly all of the refs in the article deal with the concept of the Celtic nations. Not the concept of "Celtic flags"). Guliolopez (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, per above. Rarely any lists nor articles on cultural flags or flags of a broad cultural category, flags already largely present at Celtic Nations, Pan-Celticism and Flags of Europe. Not sure what the article means by official in the Pan-celtic section, a image search using the flags and the source description do not indicate any official use by any organisation. Therefore not notable enough to categorise by cultural grouping and quite a bit WP:SYNTH. Dank Jae 20:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: as per another editor above, delete due to unclear title as well as "Flags of Celtic Nations" (since created), while content could be split and merged into multiple articles there is no clear destination for "Celtic flags" and "Flags of Celtic Nations" so better to delete both entirely. Dank Jae 22:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 13:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sergey Pelykh[edit]

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

Doesn't have significant coverage. His claim to fame in having his guitar broken in x Factor audition isn't really even about him, more about the judge. Mvqr (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Poland, and Ukraine. Mvqr (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Poorly written and formatted with dubious WP:NBIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - He flopped at a TV competition in an embarrassing way, and is now milking social media sympathy to try to become an influencer. Good luck with that, but none of this attracted any reliable media notice and some social media clicks don't count for notability here. Also note that there is a different person (a college professor) with the same name. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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. ✗plicit 13:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aï Keïta[edit]

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

NN actor... fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR UtherSRG (talk) 12:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Africa. UtherSRG (talk) 12:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep: Starred or appeared in about 30 films over 30 years; coverage in enough RS, and see fr.wiki for more content and Filmography. Her earlier films are pre-internet so sources less likely to be available online. PamD 13:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak keep Main actress in Sarraounia (film), which won 1987's Étalon de Yennenga (Africa's most prestigious film prize) at FESPACO. Numerous roles in a number of other films, although the extent of these roles is a bit unclear. Many seem to be quite minor. As @PamD pointed out, older films (especially African ones) are less likely to have any substantial online coverage. Mooonswimmer 20:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, seems to pass GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Seems like a notable actor. CT55555(talk) 01:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep agree with Mooonswimmer and PamD; sourcing in the English and French versions is somewhat on the weak side, but enough to satisfy GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 13:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Noor TV (UK)[edit]

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

Non notable satellite TV station, do not pass WP:BROADCAST criteria. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 12:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 12:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC) Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 09:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC) Reply[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 13:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Julien Amiel[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. There is one article in Hype magazine, which is shortened without attribution in another source used[14], and the US journal which self-describes as "We bring you the best Premium WordPress Themes that perfect for news, magazine, personal blog, etc." and clearly isn't a reliable source. I haven't found any better sources online, and his feat isn't so remarkable that one could expect such sources to exist (there are dozens of people who surpass his achievement). Fails WP:BIO. Fram (talk) 11:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Mathematics, and France. Fram (talk) 11:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note that sources like this one from RTL, in itself a reliable source, doesn't mention Amiel at all, despite being used to source his 2019 effort. Fram (talk) 12:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete I tried finding mentions of him in .fr websites; little comes up, some in relation to his father or another relative who appears to be a scholar. Oaktree b (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - undisclosed paid-for spam supported by black hat SEO spam sources. The sources cited in the nomination are examples. I've blocked the author for this. MER-C 09:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, removed two sources that are known SEO junk. The rest don't look any better. Sam Kuru (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 13:35, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Burak Bora Anatolian High School[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Kadı Message 10:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Turkey. Kadı Message 10:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 13:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neev Kennedy[edit]

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

Vocalist. Refs include one very brief mention in a local paper and one press release. I couldn't find anything better, so fails WP:GNG.

There is a chart claim sourced to the press release. The official IRMA chart archive doesn't go back to 2009, but I did find this: [15]. Not sure if that's a good link, but it does show the song charting for one week. I couldn't find any coverage on this. Blue Edits (talk) 09:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 11:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete fails N and GNG. --MartyTheArty (talk) 13:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Scolaire (talk) 14:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet GNG. Splunction (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NSINGER TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 16:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. WP:NSINGER and WP:SIGCOV are not met. In terms of the latter, a search on the main Irish newspapers (Irish Examiner, Irish Times, Irish Independent) returns nothing at all. Not even passing mentions. And a search in the Irish music press (Hot Press, RTÉ, etc) returns only passing mentions (like this or this). Which is nowhere near enough to meet SIGCOV. In terms of the chart claim, which might contribute to NSINGER, I note that I also cannot find any record of an entry in the IRMA Irish singles charts database. I don't know where this title might be redirected (and so cannot propose any AtDs). Mine is a "delete" recommendation. Guliolopez (talk) 11:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 09:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Johnny Contardo[edit]

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

Musician (and minor actor) fundamentally fails WP:SINGER. No significant coverage, no awards, no major film or festival appearance. The fact that there has been some failed COI editing over the past days that has been reverted by multiple editors shows that there really isn't a lot that can be added to this article. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Music. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 Depok#Culture. Selectively. Sandstein 13:45, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sundanese language in Depok[edit]

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

Article about the use of the Sundanese language in Depok, with an infobox claiming that it is a separate language somehow. No evidence that it actually is a separate language, and no evidence that it is a notable subject. There seems to have been some attention to the use of standard Sundanese in school (the section of "Sundanese as local content" seems to deal with this, although the "local content" link leads to a page which doesn't use the term), but none to Depok Sundanese as a language. Fram (talk) 08:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Indonesia. Fram (talk) 08:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Fram: Why do you suggest this article should be deleted? Meanwhile, the references I have provided are sufficient to prove the use and position of Sundanese in Depok. No need for actual deletion as I can still fix this article. Oh yes, I want to ask if the language infobox template is only for registered languages? Blackman Jr. (talk) 10:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The reasons for deletion are in the opening statement right above. And the language infobox should only be used for languages, yes, not for the use of a language in one specific city. Fram (talk) 11:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To be more exact: The infobox can also be used for "unregistered" language varieties (= languages or dialects), but: the language variety should 1) be distinct and 2) have WP:SIGCOV as a topic of its own. Now, Sundanese as spoken in Depok most likely is simply part of the Bogor dialect (Bogor Sundanese is a redirect to the main language article), and the variety used in the curriculum certainly is "standard" textbook Sundanese based on Parahyangan dialect. None of the sources tells us that we're dealing with a distinct language variety here, but only with a minor issue about the usage of Sundanese in the curriculum of local schools. This issue doesn't meet WP:GNG. Hence, the best option is to merge this content as suggested below. Unfortunately, the article Sundanese language doesn't have a section about Sundanese language classes in local schools, so the target suggested below is a good temporary solution. –Austronesier (talk) 11:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Or perhaps we can have article on Muatan Lokal school subject itself collectively as an article as a start and include it there. (Kind of out of topic maybe but I just pointed that out) Nyanardsan (talk) 12:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge selectively to Depok#Culture. It’s fine to have coverage of which languages are spoken in a particular city in the article about the city, but there isn’t enough here to support a stand alone article. It’s also badly written which makes it difficult to decipher what it is trying to say. The bottom line is some people in the city speak Sundanese. That’s maybe two sentences worth in a larger article. Mccapra (talk) 12:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge per above. "Local conctent" is a school subject in Indonesia, which is usually used by many places in Indonesia teach their local languages as part of their school curriculum so this is nothing notable as literally everyone else is doing it. Nyanardsan (talk) 09:20, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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!} 07:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wine Campus[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. Every reference is a dead link, but looking at archives, the two inline ones don't mention this organization at all, and the other two are the same newspaper. I can find no other sources. ℰmi1y_⧼T·C⧽ 08:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wine and Schools. ℰmi1y_⧼T·C⧽ 08:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, no additional coverage I could find online other than Wikipedia Mirrors. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 16:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete for GNG, but the extreme generic nature of the title is also problematic. 66.232.69.166 (talk) 09:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Blatant advertising effort without sources. _Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 09:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sasha Colby[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BASIC. Subject is only mentioned in passing in the sources which are primarily about other performers. Main claim to notability is the subject is cast in an upcoming season of Drag Race which has not yet aired. As such, the subject is currently only briefly mentioned in press releases for cast announcements. At the moment there is zero in-depth independent significant coverage of the subject. This is clearly a case of WP:TOOSOON.4meter4 (talk) 07:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If the consensus ends up being there isn’t yet enough sigcov / notability for a separate article, at the very least this should Merge to either RuPaul's Drag Race (season 15) or Miss Continental (which she won in 2012) instead of being outright deleted. ~~(I reserve the right to change my !vote to keep once I go through sources, just wanted to make sure this was a discussion between merge and keep and not between delete and keep.)~~ Umimmak (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[Edit: Keep per the sources Another Believer found, also there's three pages entirely her about her in 100 of the Most Influential Gay Entertainers ISBN 978-0-9846195-5-9, also this profile in the LA times which came out prior to the RPDR casting announcement Umimmak (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)]Reply[reply]

@Umimmak Excellent! Here is the url for the book (https://books.google.com/books?id=NbqiQHtoxGYC&pg=PP12&lpg=PP12&dq=100+of+the+Most+Influential+Gay+Entertainers+Sasha+Colby&source=bl&ots=JxF4X1ufqV&sig=ACfU3U2Xnb_bxYW4l-HjaMP9Krt5lICK_g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjghNaPsq78AhUTKkQIHSiXD1UQ6AF6BAgmEAM#v=onepage&q=100%20of%20the%20Most%20Influential%20Gay%20Entertainers%20Sasha%20Colby&f=false); although unfortunately those pages are not visible. Hopefully someone could get a hold of a copy. I would consider this a good source towards SIGCOV based on the entries which are visible. The LA Times piece sadly is largely an interview. As such it lacks independence from the subject for SIGCOV purposes. However, I think the book entry is significant enough that I am going to withdraw the nomination. However, @ Another Believer you really need to weed all of the bad sourcing out of this article. The social media posts, press releases, YouTube, and tabloids need to be removed. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@4meter4 You can direct your comment at the other editors who added that content. My initial work and subsequent edits are fine, IMO. WP:SOFIXIT. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@UmimmakI would support a Redirect but not a merge as the sourcing is poor. On a side note, Umimmak, Naraht made their comment first and at AFD we keep the thread in chronological order. You really should not have placed this above Naraht's vote for AFD procedural process reasons as this does count as a vote to merge. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just opened my [reply] box before they did; when I made my comment there were no other replies. I can move it now I see they hit submit before I did, if that makes you happy? Umimmak (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think it's necessary at this point (as it isn't confusing the conversation), but please try to remember this when you participate in future AFDs. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're being a bit condescending... again it's not like I didn't know these were sorted chronologically, but the WP:REPLYTOOL automatically inserts your comment based on when you open it and it doesn't notice new comments which have since come up. Umimmak (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Um, that is not an accurate assertion. You would have received an edit conflict message (Wikipedia:EDITCONFLICT) in this event... in which case you would have been informed about a change to the article before saving. In such cases it is your responsibility to refresh the page and then start your edit over in order to not accidentally revert the edits of others. If you look back in the article history you also accidentally reverted one of my edits (see here) to the article, so clearly you are having some technical issues which you need to work on figuring out. Lastly, I don't think asking editors politely to follow procedures is being condescending. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You would have received an edit conflict message For the record, that's not true with WP:REPLYTOOL: Automatic resolution of most edit conflicts: Ability to reply on an old version of a page, and have your comment posted in the correct place in the newest version (if the comment you're replying to still exists on the page) Umimmak (talk) 16:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interesting. I don't personally edit using the reply tool as I am old school and use an older editing version of the encyclopedia. Anyway, let's just assume good faith with one another please. There is no reason for us to have conflict with each other. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. IMO, whether or not to keep this article boils down to whether she is notable for winning Miss Continental (everything else is either toosoon or not notable) which boils down to whether Miss Continental is a notable Pageant. Given the fact that the pageant is more than 40 years old *and* that there is a state level feeder system of Pageants to determine participate in the pageant (For ex. Brooke Lynn Hytes who won Miss Michigan Continental to participate), I believe that it meets the criteria in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Beauty_Pageants/Notability_(beauty_pageant_participants)#Pageant-specific_criteria. Also as a note, if this should succeed, the article should be changed to a redirect to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 15) as the other participating queens are such as Loosey LaDuca.Naraht (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Naraht Wikipedia:WikiProject_Beauty_Pageants/Notability_(beauty_pageant_participants)#Pageant-specific_criteria is an essay without community support and is not a recognized guideline or policy recognized here at AFD. We need sources with independent significant coverage proving that the pageant win was significant. This means we need in-depth significant independent coverage of that pageant and Colby's win; not just passing mentions of the pageant win. If you can find that she would likely pass WP:ANYBIO criteria 1. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. Sources like this and this are more than just passing mentions in press releases. Also, "main claim to notability" is winning Miss Continental, not being cast on Drag Race. IF editors decide a standalone article is not appropriate at this time, just redirect instead of deleting altogether because users will be searching for info about her. Let's be honest, if deleted or redirected, the article will just be recreated in a couple months anyway... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Another Believer neither of these sources reach wikipedia's quality standards for referencing to prove WP:SIGCOV. The first source is literally a copy paste of a twitter feed, and the second source is a tabloid type opinion piece article full of speculation which is trying to promote the upcoming season of Drag Race. Both of these fail WP:TABLOID and WP:PROMO. This is not demonstrating good critical judgement when evaluating sources.4meter4 (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree, not ideal sources, but coverage is more than "brief mentions in press releases" as you suggested. I'm not going to fight hard to keep this article, but deleting now is pointless because it'll just be recreated very soon. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I should have been more clear. I was referring to the quality sources having passing mentions; not the overly promotional tabloid sources (which are often paid for by World of Wonder or the TV network broadcasting the show) which we automatically dismiss as unreliable. These kinds of articles often lack independence in addition to having verifiability issues due to their use of gossip and opinion. Personally, I think its likely after the season is aired or perhaps during that we will see better coverage, which is why I cited WP:TOOSOON. Draftifying is often done in cases like this. Best. 4meter4 (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the future, consider just adding a notability tag, expressing your concerns on the article's talk page, or redirecting before jumping to AfD. In addition to coverage received to date, the subject is going to get a lot of additional coverage in the coming weeks and months, but now editors will waste time at AfD. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Another Believer, that is not policy. We have WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL for a reason. This should be redirected or moved to draft until the sources are there to not only pass GNG but also verify the content of the article. That is policy. The article should never have been placed in main space which is why it was brought here. The issue isn't me but the editor or editors who decided to create the article before the sources were there to support it. We are building an encyclopedia here, not a promotional platform for drag queens4meter4 (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I've already said redirecting would have been more appropriate than jumping to AfD. Redirecting would have taken minimal time and effort, but now we're here. I agree Wikipedia is "not a promotional platform for drag queens", but I also recognize that the vast majority of RuPaul's Drag Race contestants have entries and the subject has actually done some notable things like winning Miss Continental and appearing in multiple television series. I understand what you're saying, I just don't see this entry as problematic especially given the guaranteed press coverage on the horizon. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree which is why I support draftifying per WP:TOOSOON. AT AFD we routinely draftify articles under these circumstances. Note to closer If this article is draftified, I would strongly advocate for the article to be required to go through WP:AFC review and approval process before this is allowed to move back into mainspace given the overuse of unreliable sources like social media, YouTube, press releases, and tabloids in the current version of the article. Clearly some additional editorial input is needed before this can be put back into mainspace.4meter4 (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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!} 07:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gallifrey (audio drama series)[edit]

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

I believe this audio series does not pass WP:GNG. The only relevant sources I could find in my WP:BEFORE search were non-WP:RS fan sites and a couple of articles about Richard Armitage being cast for the series, which is more coverage of the actor than it is of the series. OliveYouBean (talk) 07:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete (or redirect if there's a suitable target) - I found no evidence of the subject meeting GNG. There may be some coverage in sources like Doctor Who Magazine that I don't have access to. Please ping me if good sources are identified. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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!} 06:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Triplet paradox[edit]

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

Fails WP:N. This is basically the regurgitation of the original paper by Leus in the predatory American Journal of Modern Physics (doi:10.11648/j.ajmp.s.2015040201.15). Judging from the talk page, this seems to be the result of a classroom assignment. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete/merge to Twin paradox. Classroom projects should not be allowed to create new articles, rarely are they really stand-alone notable topics. Reywas92^Talk 14:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge but delete to Twin paradox This is full of original research and copied information. Should not be a standalone article, as this becomes a N+ case of the general GR paradox

Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge as suggested, seems like a fine idea. I have no idea about the concept itself. Oaktree b (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is nothing to merge. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as relying on a primary source and original research (which uses the secondary sources but is not contained in them) to show that the interpretation in the primary source is wrong. This is useful for a classroom but not for an encyclopedia. The purpose of Leus's paper, and follow-ons by others equally dubious, is to show there are problems with special relativity. There is no need to merge such stuff anywhere else. A good discussion of the "triplet paradox" is here and could be used as a source for a mention in the twin paradox article, but nothing in this article is of use. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as there is nothing worth merging and the title has not been established to be a likely search term. XOR'easter (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete classroom project based on a crackpot paper. Nothing worth merging. Tercer (talk) 10:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 was keep Reasons were passes GNG by being a real place. (non-admin closure) `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 13:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sacate Village, Arizona[edit]

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

Here we have the inverse problem of Sacate, Arizona. First, I must boldly say that a CDP isn't notable simply by existing; it has to correspond to some actual settlement, and this one plainly does not. I do not have an actual map of the CDP, but the coordinates given correspond to exactly nothing, just a more or less blank area that has some slight population. And indeed, the GNIS entry comes directly from the census; the topos show nothing.

Contrary wise, there are enough text references to such a place that I have to think there was at some time a Sacate or Secate Village— but not here. Mangoe (talk) 05:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion

Comment: Discussion here of an archeological site. Not deep enough into this yet to be sure it is at the same location exactly, but it seems to be in the right region. Several mentions here also, although it seems "sacate" means "dry grass" so not all of the hits are relevant. Some are though. It appears on a map in that book, which may be helpful in determining if this is the same place. Still not sure if there's enough for a separate article. Mentioned here also Elinruby (talk) 07:38, 28 December 2022 (UTC) ASU dissertation here. Mention in passing as a train stop here.Reply[reply]
A citation: Structure, Historic Piman Site. "the Evolution of the Sacate Site (GR-909), Gila River Indian Community." Symposium entitled “Visible Archaeology on the Gila River Indian Reservation,” 67th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Denver. Sacaton, AZ: Cultural Resource Management Program, Gila River Indian Community. 2002.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:33, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, if it exists, keep it, but it does not seem to have source stating clear existence. Thus, delete. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 20:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep, a CDP is very much notable simply by existing, and the Census Bureau is as clear a source as it gets. Alternatively, rename it primarily to whatever the locals call it as that often differs from the CDP, but it clearly exists. DemocraticLuntz (talk) 12:22, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep It is a populated place recognized as such by the Census Bureau. Clear GEOLAND pass. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment -- Google Search turns up a lot of false positives so I haven't tried too hard to determine if this is or is not a populated place, but doesn't an archeological site with multiple journal articles make that discussion irrelevant, since it would be notable anyway? Elinruby (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep it's a subdivision of Gila River Indian Community, a Pima-Maricopa Indian reservation. "District 5 is roughly 99 square miles and is known as Casa Blanca or by the O’otham people of the village as Vah ki which translate into English as “House that goes into the ground”. The District is comprised of six village areas: Sweet Water, Bapchule, South Casa Blanca, West Casa Blanca, Sacate and Wet Camp...District 5 was historically the center of the Pima villages and has long been and continues to be the center of the agricultural production of the Pima and Maricopa tribes. " https://www.gilariver.org/index.php/districts/district-5-casa-blanca jengod (talk) 23:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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!} 06:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Natalie Michaels[edit]

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

No significant coverage to meet WP:BIO or WP:JOURNALIST. Just because she is related to someone notable, doesn't make her notable. LibStar (talk) 06:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, News media, and Australia. AllyD (talk) 07:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. My searches indicate she is not notable. CT55555(talk) 14:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. I can't find any reliable sources either. She has published a book but would not meet WP:AUTHOR. Fails to meet any notability criteria. Cabrils (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Article has no noteworthy sources, notability not evident. WWGB (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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!} 06:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Benjamin Girke[edit]

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

Five 3. Liga caps, otherwise a purely amateur career. No WP:SIGCOV of any kind available, fails WP:SPORTBASIC. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 06:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 06:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions @Doctor Duh: And what about the 108 games and 12 goals for SV Dessau 05 per German de:Benjamin Girke, what did you make of that? Although thin, could the article be improved at all? There are a few bits on the web, has your research been that extensive? Govvy (talk) 09:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Inclusion for footballers on Wikipedia is coverage based, not participation based. So it doesn't matter how many games he has played, if there is no significant coverage on him then he doesn't pass the inclusion guidelines for having an article on Wikipedia. Alvaldi (talk) 09:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SV Dessau 05 is a consistent member of the Verbandsliga Sachsen Anhalt, which is tier 6. You do the math. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 09:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The maths indicate there might be some content available! I only asked a question as considering you speak German you might be able to find other stuff. So I felt it was a legitimate question to ask. As is it, I guess it's a delete. Govvy (talk) 09:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - best source I can find is AZ Online which is a photo caption followed by a trivial mention. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:42, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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!} 05:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gregory Watts[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sacate, Arizona[edit]

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

Here we come upon a pair of problem places which I believe are in some sense the same place, the other being Sacate Village, Arizona. I was inclined at first to treat them in a single nomination, but the articles themselves present different issues and I wanted to avoid a do-over.

The problem in this case is that we have an entry from what appears to be an NIST gazetteer which I cannot correlate with the maps. The topos go back to 1915 in this case, and there is no sign of a rail line anywhere near; in fact, there isn't a sign of anything near. The name just appears on the maps in 2014, and that's that. The thing is, there seems to be testimony to suggest that there was some settlement or some area called "Sacate" or "Sacate Village"; the Old Cowboy Cemetery is labelled "Sacate Cemetery" on GMaps, and there are the ruins of a St. Francis Borgia Church said to have been at Sacate Village, but I cannot determine where this is/was. Obviously if someone can sort this out and establish a coherent story about a definite settlement, we could have an article, but at this point I just don't see it. Mangoe (talk) 05:10, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:32, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article says this place is also called Sacaton, which makes me wonder if this is just an erroneous duplicate of the actually prominent Sacaton, Arizona. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wodered that too, but as mentioned above at the entry for "Secate Village", [16] this mentions it as a train stop four miles away. I think. Elinruby (talk) 08:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:01, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - this, this, this, and this indicate it was a known location, this, this, and this indicate it had a store, while this and this indicate it had a cemetery, and this, this and this say it was church, part of the St. Peter's mission. This, this, and this say that while it began as a station, it was an Indian village. There's also this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:45, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, unlike Sacate Village, I vote "Keep" for this one, per the comment above. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 20:30, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see other editor review the recent sources that have come to light in this deletion discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. I have done a substantial expansion. It's notable in several ways -- Indian village on what is now Gila River reservation, train station, church mission with murals by Native artist, still apparently a population center on the reservation, and there was a shootout there with someone called "Maricopa Slim" around 1910. Plus per OP's belief they're the same place yes kinda - Sacaton Indian agency + "Zácate, more frequently sácate, from the Nahuatl çacatl, is the usual name for grass such as horses and cattle eat, also called indifferently by Garcés pastos and pasturas, pasturage, forage, herbage. Such 'grass' is distinguished from sácaton, the tall rank herbage, such as reeds, rushes, and the like, unfit for forage."[4] A place called Sacate was the site of a battle or series of battles between Yuma and Maricopa Indians in 1857–58... ANYWAY I'm 90 percent sure that Sacaton (village) is the same as Sacate, Arizona but Sacate is distinct from Sacaton, Arizona, which is still the site of the Pima Indian Agency - I suspect Socatoon Station (a stagecoach stop) was very close by or at Sacate but I'm not an archeologist. I think Sacate Village, Arizona is a legal subdivision of the reservation and should be left alone until someone who knows the area and has relevant sources can address but whatever. jengod (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. The sources provided by Onel show that this locale has received significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources and thus passes WP:GNG. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

jengod (talk) 04:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 Rainer Schaller. Sandstein 13:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2022 Caribbean Sea Piaggio P.180 Avanti crash[edit]

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

The plane crash itself doesn't meet WP:GNG, and much less when WP:LASTING is considered as all coverage is in the immediate aftermath of the accident. WP:BLAR by Onel5969 was contested by Air Astana 1388, so I'm bringing this to AfD. Redirect to Rainer Schaller, as he and his family were the owners of the plane and the victims of the accident. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Caribbean, Costa Rica, and Mexico. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect - as per nom. The accident is covered in the target.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect - Light civil aircraft crashes are usually non-notable. Unless this crash results in a significant change to the aircraft design or aviation operations, it likely won't be notable for the foreseeable future. - ZLEA _T\^C 16:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. The investigation of this event is still in its early stages and a preliminary report still hasn't been issued. Additional details will be forthcoming on the event when a preliminary report is issued, but so far there is nothing to suggest whether this is a run-of-the-mill "pilot fell asleep" accident or a "mid-air-explosion" accident. There has been enough worldwide coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. The crash resulted in the death of a wikipedia-notable individual, which by community consensus means this isn't just-another-small-plane-crash merge/delete, and the Rainer Schaller article is short and brief and would be overwhelmed by the details of this event which for now should be maintained as a separate article about the event, the investigation, and the aftermath/results of the same, so for that reason I oppose merging. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking at the source you just added ( [17], from the week of the crash), I think it's more accurate to say "there is nothing to suggest anything at all". Over 2 months out from the crash date, there's still no evidence that there was anything remarkable about the crash other than its victim. If and when additional coverage is available, an article can be considered. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Rainer Schaller per nom. This article seems to me to be a case of WP:INHERITed, as opposed to inherent, notability. I would be in favor of adding some more pertinent details to the target, but I doubt a full merge is warranted here, hence my !vote. StonyBrook _babble 23:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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. What we need now is for the sources mentioned in this discussion to get into the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mediastan[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM as no reviews found in a BEFORE DonaldD23 talk to me 03:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Sweden. DonaldD23 talk to me 03:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. This is a review in Aftonbladet, one of the major Swedish newspapers, for example. It's also one of the topics discussed in this longer essay in Arbetaren, discussed in w:sv:Moviezine and so on. /Julle (talk) 11:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete or Merge into another article, this has been flagged for 9 years Softlemonades (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - per sources provided by Julle. Proving notability.BabbaQ (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. At first I was slightly irritated at this nomination, as I had already indicated in an edit summary that I was working on an expansion of the article (for which I already have enough sources). However I am now grateful for the AfD nomination making me aware of Julle and the sources he has provided, removing all doubt about notability. --NSH001 (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Id reconsider if the sources were posted on Talk so I could see them until the article was expanded. I thought you would after your comment before but mightve just assummed Softlemonades (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep as per the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources identified by Julle that shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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!} 02:43, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Secret of Mulan[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. No reviews found in a BEFORE DonaldD23 talk to me 02:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, China, and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete I also did a WP:BEFORE search and could not locate any suitable sourcing. Jfire (talk) 03:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - None of the information given in the page was sourced from a reliable source. Couldn't find a reliable source to back up the page either. Tempest7211 (talk) 05:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I made the page. I can't find a reliable source. I got the info off the credits and from talking to Christy Marx on LinkedIn. It can be watched on YouTube and Vudu in terms of the credits--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately that's original research, which can't be used for a wikipedia article. I also can't find any sourcing, Delete is my !vote. Oaktree b (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arzish Azam[edit]

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

Non-notable businessperson with a position at a probably non-notable organization and some kind of connection to a Pakistan government minister. Not substantially improved since article was draftified nor since proposed deletion (both by editors who are not this AfD nominator). Extremely weak sourcing with examples 1: Daily Times classic passing mention, "Ambassador Khan congratulated Arzish Azam, Founder & CEO of Ejad Labs for organizing 4th Pakistan Tech Summit 2022." 2: thenews.com.pk one-sentence "honorary advisor" announcement with author "PR". Other sources are even worse including the subject's employer, and irrelevant government documents (memorandum of understanding or MoU). If this person wants some promotion they should read WP:NOTINHERITED for the minister and seek it in another place. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable, secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Pakistan. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete The sources are primary and tech blogs. The 2 sources of being an advisor to a minister and meeting with an ambassador do not make him noteworthy. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 10:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 The Amazing Race 20#Cast. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Elliot Weber[edit]

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

Lacks notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Texas. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Could not find anything of not on Google News. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 03:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: No sources that pass WP:BASIC. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Numerous reliable sources to establish notability. Splunction (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. MER-C 04:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Care to share with the rest of the class? 🤔 Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - Per Splunction. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- @Das osmnezz: Which sources specifically do you think meet the criteria of WP:BASIC? ––FormalDude (talk) 09:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete No evedence of any WP:SIGCOV so he fails WP:GNG. Alvaldi (talk) 09:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to The Amazing Race 20#Cast is also perfectly fine in my opinion. Alvaldi (talk) 09:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to The Amazing Race 20#Cast. I don't see enough coverage to justify an independent article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to The Amazing Race 20#Cast. Doesn't pass WP:GNG, but a sensible redirect to the place that he's most known for. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 Transitional fossil#Prominent examples. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:49, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of transitional fossils[edit]

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

This is a WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. The phrase "transitional fossil" has almost no weight in modern paleontology. Almost any fossil could be considered a transitional fossil between some group or another, as almost all fossils show a selection of both primitive and derived traits, as detailed in our cladistics article. While some of this list is sourced some of these sources don't even use the phrase, "transitional fossil", and the vast majority is completely unsourced. The section Transitional_fossil#Prominent_examples in the main article is more than enough to list the most historically famous examples like Archaeopteryx Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Organisms, and Lists. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would support a merge to Transitional fossil#Prominent examples. I fail to see why this list can't be prose. The existing section is perfectly serviceable, making the list somewhat of a content fork, but could use expansion with examples from the list. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge - per above. FunkMonk (talk) 12:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge per above reasoning. I disagree that the term has almost no weight in modern paleontology - it is rather that it is now generally relativized by specifying at what level, or even to what characteristic, it is considered to apply. However, that makes a list of all of these qualified cases far too large and unwieldy to maintain. As noted, the existing text sections do a fine job of discussing important examples. Expand that a little with high-profile/high-importance material from the current list and we should be good. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge per above. Orientls (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge per above. Also what about Category:Transitional fossils? Yeah all the fossils can be said as transitional fossils, in addition genera that normally aren't considered as famous transitional fossils such as Archimylacris and Minicrania have this category. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 - and while there is one delete !vote in the AfD it was the first participant who did not have the benefit of later keep rationales so I am going to be bold and close it as WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Bruxton (talk) 01:54, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tom Cole (farmer)[edit]

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

Person of unclear notability. It seems he was the manager (owner?) of a dairy operation, but unsure this role confers notability. Natg 19 (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Australia. Natg 19 (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Just being a farmer isn't notable, not sure why he's earned a biographical listing in the encyclopedia thing, I don't find any other sourcing for him. Oaktree b (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep The criterion for notability isn't one's subjective opinion about what field or career someone was in, but whether there exists significant coverage in reliable sources. The entry in Australian Dictionary of of Biography, together with the 15 sources it cites, demonstrates that significant coverage in reliable sources exists for this person. Jfire (talk) 01:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be fair, it shows up as one entry/reference here. I'm not aware of how many sources it references in the original encyclopedia. Oaktree b (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Per the third criterion of WP:ANYBIO. Pastoralists and farmers were influential settlers in the early days of Australia (and were often politicians) and make up a large number of early ADB entries. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 03:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep as there are clear reliable sources as indicated above. --Bduke (talk) 06:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per Jfire, Vortex3427 and Bduke. Deus et lex (talk) 10:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Not enough coverage in reliable sources to meet GNG. Splunction (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. MER-C 04:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Passes ANYBIO #3. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Leaning keep. I'm not a huge fan of ANYBIO #3 cases, but it is apparent that some other sources can be found, and I have added a few notes from contemporaneous editions of The Sydney Morning Herald. BD2412 T 01:53, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Notable as he has an entry in a Dictionary of National Biography. Also his death was widely reported in Australia Piecesofuk (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. I've now added several RS from newspapers-- Cole was clearly a notable personality in the development of the Australian dairy farming industry, for example "famed through out the world as studmaster at Darbalara and breeder of the world's champion butter producing cow". Cabrils (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I'm willing to withdraw, but there have been 2 deletes, so I guess this needs to wait the full 7 days. Natg 19 (talk) 00:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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.