The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie Szabo[edit]

Maggie Szabo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC, lacks independent sigcov to establish notability. Jdcooper (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Canada, and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There are enough sources out there to meet WP:NMUSIC / WP:GNG.

• "Szabo happy singing her own tune". The Hamilton Spectator. 2010-04-01. p. 41. Retrieved 2024-02-10.
• "Dundas singer Maggie Szabo making her mark in L.A." The Hamilton Spectator. 2016-03-26. p. 41. Retrieved 2024-02-10.
• "34 Canadian Songwriters Honoured in US-Based 2014 International Songwriting Competition". The Canadian Music Educator. Vol. 56, no. 4. ProQuest 1710994371. It notes: A soulful Canadian singer who has won over audiences worldwide, with 13 million views on YouTube, Maggie Szabo honed her craft at a young age in her hometown of Dundas. Following her high school graduation, she moved to Nashville to continue the quest to improve her writing and performing. Her original sound, infused with soulful pop melodies, secured Maggie a record deal with Linus Entertainment in Ontario. Her debut pop album Now Hear Me Out was released in November, 2012. Maggie was named Bell Media's Emerging chosen by famed blogger Perez Hilton as his "Can YOU Sing?" contest winner. He hailed Maggie as a superstar on the rise. She also is the winner of the 2014 Toronto Independent Music Award in the Best Pop category.
• Crowley, Patrick (2017-09-19). "Maggie Szabo Premieres 'Don't Give Up' Music Video As a Love Letter To Trans Youth". Billboard. Retrieved 2024-02-10.
• Tagat, Anurag (2020-10-16). "Premiere: Canadian Pop Artist Maggie Szabo Sings About Taking Chances in Love for 'Worth The Weight'". Rolling Stone India. Retrieved 2024-02-10.

Jfire (talk) 06:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this article needs clean up, but there is also coverage in American Songwriter [1], [2] and The Advocate [3] that could help. Beccaynr (talk) 05:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: New sources identified above seem to satisfy GNG Oaktree b (talk) 00:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: And Billboard [4] Oaktree b (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: undoubtedly, especially the Billboard source, which is most reliable for musician pages. Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 12). As an ATD and also because there is clearly one editor (and maybe an entire WikiProject) that wants to work on improving. If there is an objection to having individual articles on each episode of a TV series, that is a larger discussion that would need to take place and would affect many articles we have on dozens of popular TV programs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This bundled nomination was not set up according to the instructions at WP:AFD so I will have to handle each article individually. Give me a little time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One-Queen Show[edit]

One-Queen Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Individual episodes of reality competition shows are generally not notable. RuPaul's Drag Race (season 12) (#Episodes) has summaries and key content of each episode of the season – with plenty of space to expand as well. While media websites may recap episodes, per WP:NOPAGE there is no need for individual articles for every one, especially not bulk-produced with just worthless single sentences.

Also listing

• The Ball Ball
• World's Worst (RuPaul's Drag Race)
• Choices 2020
• Droop (RuPaul's Drag Race)
• Superfan Makeover
• You Don't Know Me (RuPaul's Drag Race)
• Gay's Anatomy
• Viva Drag Vegas Reywas92^Talk 14:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 14:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep per page creator. As nominator has said, almost all episodes are reviewed by multiple media outlets, and Wikipedia has examples of what individual episodes of Drag Race can look like once fleshed out: "Queens Behind Bars", "Trump: The Rusical", "Moulin Ru: The Rusical", etc. As for this nomination, it can be difficult to demonstrate notability for nine topics at once. So, I'll focus on "Choices 2020":

I could keep going... Seems clear to me there's plenty to say and no doubt of notability. I should also note, WikiProject Drag Race is quite active and I believe more time should be given for editors to collaborate on these entries. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Of course, episode recaps for television shows exist. And yet, their coverage is WP:ROTM. It makes for a good distinction of how encyclopedias are WP:NOTNEWS. Per NOPAGE, there's plenty to say about the season of television, but less about each episode. I imagine some episodes, like the fleshed out examples provided, are the exceptions to the rule where there is enough that's worth documenting, like how some television shows have articles for some of their episodes but not others (Stranger Things (season 4) is the first example to come to my mind.) – Muboshgu (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is absolutely nothing notable about these television episodes. Pre-existing episode summaries in the relevant season is more than enough. Thismess (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Incubate Other editors are correct in that much of the coverage of the episodes are WP:ROTM and in their current state fail WP:NOPAGE, especially on if they add context to the season episode lists. However the fleshed out examples above do add more, with that in mind they could be incubated instead of deleted to allow them to be fleshed out. Shaws username (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 12) User:Another Believer's proposal for it is reasonable to me, I'd be perfectly happy with redirecting them instead until they can be fully written out. I stand by what I said about about them in their current state failing WP:NOPAGE, right now they vast majority of them don't add anything beyond what's already at RuPaul's Drag Race (season 12), but if/when they're expanded properly stand-alone articles would be reasonable. Shaws username . talk . 20:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Why do these exist? What is the use of articles whose only content is an infobox listing next to nothing and one sentence that says ""x" is an episode of Ruaul's Drag Race" with one or two sources that merely prove the topic exists after? @CAPTAIN RAJU: I think this discussion should be expanded to include all the articles that have been recently created for Drag Race episodes, like Disco-mentary and Girl Groups (RuPaul's Drag Race) and however many other articles are listed at List of RuPaul's Drag Race episodes. Ss112 07:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment by page creator: Can we just restore these pages as redirects for now? The redirects serve a purpose, so outright deletion is not necessary. There seems to be a dislike for these stubs, even though I am quite certain at least some are notable and could be expanded ("Choices 2020", for example). I'd roll up my sleeves to expand them now but I am currently traveling. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes of course...that's what I did before you reverted me with no changes... Don't make one-sentence junk that doesn't inform readers. Collaborate in draft space if you need to. But even what you added to that article is duplicative to or can easily be added to the main article, and individual episode articles are generally not necessary. Reywas92^Talk 02:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't actually think the pages should be redirected, I'm just proposing this for now because I don't have time to expand the entries immediately. I'll work on them at a later date, hence my request for restoring redirects instead of outright deletion. Not interested in expanding or defending nine entries while traveling. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't have time to expand the entries immediately Then don't create them like this! Reywas92^Talk 14:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I wasn't traveling when I created them. I understand you dislike stubs, but stubs for notable topics aren't problematic. I don't need you attempting to merge and delete every stub I create. Thanks, ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per Another Believer's request. These stubs were created in good faith and he should have the chance to expand them. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect this one, for now, with the possibility of re-creating later, or keeping some that are particularly well-sourced. I would not get angry at a procedural keep. Bearian (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I, too, would appreciate a procedural keep. At least some of these are very clearly notable, but discussing and defending nine entries at once is obnoxious. I would ask nominator to express notability concerns on specific talk pages in the future. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've expressed concerns about one-sentence "articles" how many times??? "Potentially notable topic" != "Must have a standalone article, no matter how uninformative or duplicative it is". How about a procedural ban on creating pages that state only existence? What's obnoxious is that these tell readers nothing. Reywas92^Talk 19:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, stubs for notable topics are allowed. I've asked you before (as have others), please leave me alone and stop targeting me and my work. Thanks, ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And just because they may be "allowed" doesn't mean we have to have them like this! That's the whole point of WP:NOPAGE! I (and others) don't think that individual episodes are notable, or, even if (routine) sources are available, that they still don't need standalone, duplicative articles with no actual content. And since you're requesting expression of notability concerns, I hereby express concerns about the rest of the one-liners in Category:RuPaul's Drag Race episodes. Reywas92^Talk 20:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please, LEAVE ME ALONE. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as while Redirection has been proposed as an alternative to Deletion. Would the target article be the Season 12 article? I don't see grounds for a Procedural Keep unless there is opposition to a bundled nomination but that's not what I'm seeing here and I don't think the number of articles included in this nomination is excessive.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz While I don't think redirecting is necessary, the Season 12 entry would be the target until I or others expand these stubs further. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Season 12 would be my preference. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There's simply nothing there. 203.211.77.98 (talk) 03:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment

It isn't fair to just add on a bunch of entries which have not been included in the nomination. Also, the targets would be different and some of these episodes have been nominated for Emmys. These are more valid stubs needing expansion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge that some of them have been nominated for Emmys. However, it's important to note that they are nominated in categories that are relatively minor and people who won/nominated for the award are not even mentioned on the article itself. PrinceofPunjab^TALK 16:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just suggesting a more targeted approach be taken here. There's an assumption that none of these stubs are valid and they've been given very little time to exist in the main space. I don't think the rush to delete all of these pages (which at minimum serve a purpose as redirects) is necessary. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You make a valid point. Rushing to delete all these pages, especially when some may serve as useful redirects, might not be necessary. A more targeted approach might be focusing on creating articles for premieres, Rusicals episodes, and those with Emmy nominations. This way, we can ensure that our efforts are directed towards content that holds significant relevance and value within the context of the show. PrinceofPunjab^TALK 19:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit too late in the process to add a new WP:BUNDLE ("debates should be bundled only at the start or near the start of the debate"), putting them in their own AfD (broken up by season) would make more sense for considering them. Shaws username . talk . 14:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not bundling the entries at the start; this is only my second time engaging in this process, and I'm still learning the ropes. I will create a separate a Afd for them, broken up by season. PrinceofPunjab^TALK 16:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok, sorry if I sounded a bit brusque, everyone's got to start somewhere and it's great that you're getting involved! Shaws username . talk . 17:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think starting another AFD is necessary yet if they can be redirected like those in this one. Reywas92^Talk 18:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Levi Stewart[edit]

Levi Stewart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't seem to have the coverage to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Possible WP:ATD of merge/redirect to Kanab, Utah, but could unbalance that article. Boleyn (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Founder of Kanab is sufficient to justify an article. The article could certainly use improvement - right now, the content leans more toward name-dropping other notables than elaborating Stewart's own notability - but that's not a reason to delete.--Michael Snow (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article is devoid of sources so I did a bit of digging. I found one book mention that could source the statement that he "settled Kanab" and told the story of his wife's death (in more detail than the bit about him). Another brief mention. The name "Levi Stewart" turns out to be not unusual so it takes some effort to sort through them. In the end, however, I think it would take a deep dive to find enough sources to keep this article. It may be possible to get one sentence into the Kanab article (using the first link I gave) saying that Levi Stewart is credited with founding the town. Lamona (talk) 04:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Lamona. Founding a smaller town is not enough to establish notability unless there is serious referencing behind it. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TBL-37[edit]

TBL-37 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This has some coverage but doesn't appear to meet WP:N or have an obvious WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police, United States of America, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Stuttering therapy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

McGuire Programme[edit]

McGuire Programme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

not notable outside of its community. page was created and is large maintained by those who have had close involvement)) S!mba009 (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Netherlands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Stuttering therapy and close immediately. There is no evidence that this is any more notable than any other treatments, or even notable at all, so right now it is a violation of WP:BLP, WP:SOAP, and most obviously WP:FORK. We almost always merge back forks even if arguendo they might pass WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 16:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Stuttering therapy as a FORK or unjustified SPINOUT. This kind of fragmentation creates a user experience from hell! gidonb (talk) 01:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Stuttering therapy: not significant coverage in the sources cited, not strong enough for notability.thus Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TV Tango[edit]

TV Tango (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability of this website under GNG or SNG. Zero references except for their own website. And I could not find any. North8000 (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Websites, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• del no indications of notability. - Altenmann >talk 22:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unexceptional television aggregator; I also have to dock points as they refer to us as "Wikipedia.com". Nate • (chatter) 23:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This TV aggregator has zero notability. TH1980 (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there as it only uses WP:PRIMARY sources and fails WP:GNG without any WP:RS. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: primary sourcing. Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Catastrophic illness[edit]

Catastrophic illness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This page fails to meet notability criteria. Its entire content can be covered by the notable topic Disease and others within medicine. This is not a formal medical term, either.

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is also an insurance term. Some insurance companies sell catastrophic illness policies, recognizing the specific financial needs of people who are struck with such an illness. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I have fixed portions of this nomination that made it look like we were somehow nominating "PageName". No opinion at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Important technical term. - Altenmann >talk 22:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: the term hasn't lost its notability since the previous, unanimous Keep, AfD. Owen× ☎ 00:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article just needs expanding. It looks like it especially needs work from someone with expertise in health insurance. Deleting it would quite counterproductive. Vontheri (talk) 10:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: nominated again? a notable topic requiring some expansion... Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This topic would be hard to find and probably WP:UNDUE in Disease, since it isn't relevant for disease itself so much as insurance and social services purposes. "Not a formal medical term" isn't a reason for deletion, but also, the NIH defines it: [5]. -- asilvering (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Global World Series[edit]

Global World Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Previously deleted article was recreated, speedy deletion declined. Reasons for deleting are the same as they were back then.. This event never happened and all sources are minor speculative blurbs from one press conference. It's been 10 years.. nothing has changed. Spanneraol (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I took an initial dim view of the AfD because there were six or seven sources but nom is correct none of them are WP:SUSTAINED, they are all from 7 or 8 January 2010 with one exception from March 2010 making this essentially WP:NOTNEWS. SportingFlyer T·C 18:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and SportingFlyer - Skipple ☎ 18:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not have adequate and lasting coverage to warrant notability of a speculative event. X (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. An event that never happened might be notable but this one never went beyond some meetings and a press conference. Fails WP:NOTNEWS, WP:SIGCOV. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Proposed tournament that was de facto superseded by the World Baseball Classic deciding to add more teams in rather than depend on limited clubs playing off-contract; I could see some merging of content from here into that article, but not very much. Nate • (chatter) 23:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Why was this brought back? if this idea re-emerges or if there are any concrete plans (there isn't), then we can bring it back, not now. Kazuha1029 (talk) 01:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Not Delete

This page should not be deleted because to have a Wikipedia article about the Global World Series is important for several reasons:

1. Transparency and Accessibility: Wikipedia articles provide transparent and accessible information to a wide audience. By documenting the Global World Series, the article ensures that details about the proposed tournament, its origins, and its eventual outcome are available to anyone with internet access.

2. Preservation of Knowledge: Wikipedia articles contribute to the preservation of knowledge by capturing key events and developments for future generations. The Global World Series article helps ensure that the story of this proposed tournament is not forgotten, providing insights into the aspirations, challenges, and decisions that shaped its trajectory.

3. Promotion of Awareness and Discussion: By documenting the Global World Series, the Wikipedia article promotes awareness and discussion about international baseball competitions and the efforts to expand the sport's global reach. It encourages dialogue among fans, players, administrators, and stakeholders about the potential benefits and challenges of such tournaments.

Overall, having a Wikipedia article about the Global World Series enriches the collective understanding of baseball history and its global evolution, fostering greater appreciation and engagement with the sport across diverse audiences.

--Rrp13121989 01:43, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• I would bet my entire bank account this comment is a copy / paste from ChatGPT. I understand you may have put a lot of work into the article and feel passionately about the topic, but do you have any policy based rationale for keeping the article? As written, the article fails WP:GNG and violates WP:NOTNEWS. - Skipple ☎ 05:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So far I haven't heard any counterarguments as to why it should be deleted. There are many article in Wikipedia about porposed tournaments or ideas. Rrp13121989 (talk) 10:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of arguments for deletion above yours. The article doesnt have any sources that provide evidence of lasting notability. Spanneraol (talk) 14:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skipple, I second this. Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: sure there's some sourcing, but it was just all talk and not WP:SUSTAINED. Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Admin note - I declined the speedy deletion because this article is not even remotely similar to the one that was deleted a decade ago. This is a new article on the same topic, not a recreation. I don't see how that would sway the discussion at this point, but I think it's important to have that context. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gemini (rapper)[edit]

Gemini (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unable to find coverage which sufficiently fulfills GNG, both inside and outside the article InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Texas. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Created by seemingly one purpose stale account, about a non-notable rapper with inadequate coverage. The listed sources are mostly product pages detailing their records. Cursory google search didn't provide with any in-depth RS coverage. Surprised how it lasted for 16 years. X (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete together with numerous albums - Altenmann >talk 22:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The rapper also had three album articles and one more for a song, which were all dependent on just a single retail source each, and for each I could find no reliable reviews or other sources via Internet searches. Those articles should have never fallen through the cracks in the first place, so I have redirected them all to the rapper's article as standard procedure for non-notable albums/songs. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Note that this guy has released records under various names, probably because his original zodiac name was already taken. Under the name "Big Geminii" (note the extra "i") he has a basic AllMusic bio ([6]), but it doesn't provide very much detail beyond a list of releases. Otherwise I can find nothing beyond the usual retail and streaming sites. Not enough on which to build an encyclopedic article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Information Professionals Association[edit]

Information Professionals Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of notability under GNG or SNG. There is absolutely zero coverage or even mention of them in the references except by themselves. Of the references, 3 are their own website, one is their linked in page and the remaining reference does not cover or even mention them. In a search I could not find any independent sources. Tagged for wp:notability by others since November. North8000 (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Created by a one purpose COI account. Their userpage explains it all. The subject of the article lacks notability, and only lists primary sources, including from LinkedIn. Cursory google search doesn't come up with suitable results. X (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete advert with no independent coverage. - Altenmann >talk 22:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per all the above, a promotional page for an organisation with no evidence of notability, nor even any attempt to demonstrate notability. AusLondonder (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per all that is already cited above. Promotional. TLA^tlak 08:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Priest's Passion[edit]

The Priest's Passion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I couldn't establish that this was notable. Although it could redirect to Matthew Dewey, I think the title might be too ambiguous. Boleyn (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I could find hardly any sources. I am not opposed to a redirect to Matthew Dewey, but a Google search shows that it is not an unambiguous term. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no independent coverage. - Altenmann >talk 22:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Celje#Districts and local communities. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karel Destovnik Kajuh (district)[edit]

Karel Destovnik Kajuh (district) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I could only find coverage about the person that this district is named after; I cannot even find mentions about this place. As a result, it doesn't meet general notability guidelines. That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 17:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect to Karel Destovnik. - Altenmann >talk 23:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Celje#Districts and local communities. We might want to discuss other Celje district and local communities stubs together with this. --Upwinxp (talk) 10:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Celje#Districts and local communities. There is not much content and it can safely be added to the said article. In general, it would be best to have a comprehensive article/list on all the communities of Celje. --TadejM ^{my talk} 03:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please Be Happy[edit]

Please Be Happy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I was unable to find substantial reviews from reliable sources besides RPGFan. Wraithkal is a blog written by a single pseudonymous person. While Nook Gaming has an editorial policy and claims to have received game previews from SEGA and NIS America, they accept suggestions to review games from random developers and readers and thus should probably not count towards notability. Geek to Geek Media's authors have very light credentials such as B.J. Keeton writing for ScreenRant. Popzara does not list credentials for its authors. QuietCicada chirp 17:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. QuietCicada chirp 17:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It doesn't seem like a bad game of course, but Wikipedia guidelines are purely based on notability and that is not up to par here. It requires more mentions in reliable gaming journalism or other sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless notability can be brought up to par.

Tech Gaming has a review if it's felt they're notable enough. I can't see if they've been discussed before. They are a MetaCritic site though which does show some level of notability at least. Outside of that, they've had significant interviews with industry staff, access to notable review copies and were linked on the PlayStation blog. This is probably going to be the most notable of them, but I am surprised to find there aren't many links to them from other websites that I can find even in this area where websites may not link to each other as they're competitors. There's also that Robert Allen seems to be the writer of 3884 of their articles, while Gonçalo Tordo has the second most at 60.

NookGaming I would generally consider a reliable source considering the medium/that they specialise in the area as it's on OpenCritic, linked on sources like Arstechnica and Engadget, early access to games (several previews and reviews dated prior to launch), have disclaimers for review copies of notable titles, a few more niche industry interviews, etc, but perhaps not one that would significantly count toward notability. I'd not hold their blurb about getting in contact regarding reviews against them though. Destructoid and TwinInfinite both provide addresses for people to contact them about review copies.

Geek to Geek Media is on OpenCritic (if only somewhat recently) which lends them some support as well as their owner writing for ScreenRant.com, but the review copies they're provided don't seem to be notable and their editorial policy is minimal. Pretty much all of the links to them are from podcast websites. I'd find it difficult to suggest them as notable or reliable.

Wraithkal and Popzara I can think can be dismissed for the reasons above.

Unfortunately, this is an issue with a lot of visual novel articles since very few are covered in Western media outside of niche sites. Japanese sources can sometimes be found but as a Western game it wouldn't be the case here.

Visual Novels fall under the Anime Project which does tend to be somewhat more lenient toward sources due to the niche nature of the medium, but notability will be difficult to prove for this title I believe. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Donde Stars[edit]

The Donde Stars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

They don't appear to quite meet WP:NBAND / WP:GNG, although they have some coverage, which is good for an unsigned band, then on a non-notable label. No obvious WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:NBAND. Got some minor local coverage but never more than that. Jfire (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nadine Cohen[edit]

Nadine Cohen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Horribly written with little factual updating in recent years. Not much on the page to indicate this is a notable person JMWt (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Australia. JMWt (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete created by a single purpose editor so possible promo. None of the roles confer inherent notability. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 17:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conference on Semantics in Healthcare and Life Sciences[edit]

Conference on Semantics in Healthcare and Life Sciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This doesn't appear to meet WP:N. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 16:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Health and fitness, and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Event fails WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT. A WP:BEFORE search returns only passing mentions, promotional webpages, Wikipedia mirrors and other text which seems to confirm that the subject existed (and supports some of the related text). But I can find no sources which establish any lasting relevance or any indication of significant coverage. The COI/SPA overtones do very little to help... Guliolopez (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If it were a conference notable in its own right, I'd expect much better google scholar hits than these: [7]. -- asilvering (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable, not covered in RS. Cinadon36 16:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 15:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Farid Mammadov (state official)[edit]

Farid Mammadov (state official) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails GNG, due to not having significant coverage in reliable sources. Sura Shukurlu (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Unless he performed at Eurovision [8], which I don't think he did, there is no coverage of this individual. Primary sourcing is used for the article. Oaktree b (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: In Azerbaijan, he is the head of the subsidiary institution within the main institution, and this does not make him encyclopedic. Also there are almost no references and sources.Redivy (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom and Oaktree. GNG not met. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 15:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noel McNamara[edit]

Noel McNamara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Most of the coverage from google news is an Irish coach of the same name or referring to McNamara's son who went to trial. I don't consider getting the Medal of the Order of Australia means inherent notability, as 605 of these are given out every year. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The article is only supported by primary sources. I removed another source that was purely promotional. My searches found that his son is more notable than he is for a WP:BLP1E incident. TarnishedPath^talk 13:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. A lot of work has gone into this article since it was nominated for an AFD and it looks like the current consensus is to Keep it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blanchefleur[edit]

Blanchefleur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

PROD removed. This name fails WP:NNAME, WP:GNG due to lack of reliable sources and WP:SIGCOV, and WP:NOTDICT. All of the people listed are fictional characters, none of which seem notable enough to warrant their own articles. It also seems like this article was created in an apparent act of vandalism, then converted to an article about an unnotable fictional character, then converted to roughly what it is now, rather than just deleted in the first place. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fictional elements, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unreferenced violation of WP:IPC and possibly WP:OR. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Piotrus: What do you think of the article now? AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @AllTheUsernamesAreInUse The article has been expanded, but I don't see how this topic is notable. The first half of content added is related to Floris and Blancheflour. The second part seems to talk about this character in Perceval, the Story of the Grail . As far as I can tell, this is very bad compilation of plot summaries or analysis of some characters named Blanchefleur, which seems ridcolous - our article on Piotr, for example, should not be a compilation of "plot summaries and analaysis of random characters named Piotr". _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, unreferenced is one thing, but there's others. First of all, User:Cuchullain had a hand in this, and that's a good sign. Second, "popular culture"--sure, romance was a popular genre, but that shouldn't be used as a putdown. The Aeneid was popular too, and the bible was, or "what does Ingeld have to do with Christ" wouldn't have been a very good argument. (It's not, but for a different reason.) Third, all the ones listed are featured in highly notable texts/cycles/etc., and they are not unimportant characters. Keep, obviously. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Drmies Hmmm, take a look at my reply above. Right now I feel this is a badly messed up name page in need of WP:TNT. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • • Piotrus, I did. It is very disappointing. A bad compilation--well. Drmies (talk) 01:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

        If you find the article disappointign and a bad compilation, why are you voting keep? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

        • I think they may have been referring to your response, not the article. Anyway, I completely understand Piotrus' concerns, but it doubles as a symbol as Drmies explains, and I believe there may be enough coverage and study of the name in that aspect to keep the article. It is clearly the subject of several nontrivial essays. I do believe that the 'Blanchefleur in the Grail' section falls into the purview of Potrius' concerns, though I do not advocate for its removal. I believe I may gravitate slightly more towards Drmies' point of view, but I will let the community decide the fate of the article. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 06:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Drmies. Even if it is not kept, at the very least it could be converted into a DAB page, but Drmies's work shows that that should not be necessary. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's clearly a name page, so I don't think it would be right to turn it into a DAB, but Drmies' sources may merit notability anyway. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure what it is, actually. I guess it's a page on a name with a bunch of links to their occurrences. I have secondary sourcing (OK, one tertiary one) for all but one of em now; it's a work in progress. Drmies (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure if you're familiar with name pages or not, but that second sentence pretty adequately describes them. There generally must be at least at least two Wikipedia articles about people with the name for a name to be notable, but not necessarily if there is adequate sourcing. I'd say the sources you have added do seem to have merit, but I guess my primary concern would be that it reads more like a study on the characters rather than on the name itself. I'm feeling fairly neutral towards deletion now, though. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • AllTheUsernamesAreInUse, the thing is that esp. in medieval literature a name is often also a concept. In general, names denote a variety of things, and not every Gawain is the same Gawain. Nor is Mordred always King Arthur's son; sometimes he's his nephew. And particularly with side characters, especially women, they are sometimes also emblems, allegorical or other representations of certain values and ideas, and that's what we have here. That's why I included what you might call character studies: the concept of Blanchefleur (this is how I would write it up for publication) is generally that of a standard beautiful woman in romance--sometimes a "seductress", sometimes an emblem of purity. Readers of romance will sense that these two meanings are not unlike the two gardens we see in medieval literature--the garden of love and the garden of Eden (see Locus amoenus). That's just how it works in this literature, which does things differently from how moderns do it. A name can also be an idea, and conflicting ideas can exist together in ways that we wouldn't think of. Drmies (talk) 00:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well you clearly know a lot more than me on this topic, so I'll take your word for it, but I'd also like to see you address the comment made by Piotrus above, as that is a better explication of my line of thought. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 02:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • Oh, User:AllTheUsernamesAreInUse, I don't know, but medieval literature, that's what I used to do for a living. I'm not going to respond to that because, and I'm a bit surprised that this comes from him, it's a loaded question. Plus I don't really have the time or the inclination to explain, at length, that there is a huge difference between the name/concept/idea "Blanchefleur" and the name "Piotr". It's indicative of a fetishization of names in the same way that people fetishize nationality--one draws up rules based on modern ideas and then applies them retroactively. A much more exciting read, more exciting than my rambling about names, is this classic about nations and nationhood. Drmies (talk) 15:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article has substantive content and nearly a dozen references now. In addition, I've found dozens more lengthy descriptions and explications in books about medieval literature. Softlavender (talk) 10:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC); edited Softlavender (talk) 02:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - there is plenty of content on the name and its related concept to justify the existence of an article, and sourcing is abundant. LadyofShalott 13:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Drmies has already explained everything I thought I'd have to when I saw this AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SNOW keep‎. Fuzheado | Talk 19:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Alexei Navalny[edit]

Death of Alexei Navalny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unneccessary WP:CFORK of Alexei Navalny, with the sole purpose of being a Wikipedia:Reactions to... articles with all the problems listed on that essay. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and Russia. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now. Information is still coming out. Suggest giving it a week tops. Borgenland (talk) 14:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support it's not like we're gonna learn any details anyway besides the dry press statement and then an official declaration of death a couple of weeks down the line. If or when we learn the truth (and thus more detials) decades from now, we could recreate the article then Kasperquickly (talk) 14:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: There's a decent chance that there will be an article about this event, but I think that this is a clear-cut case of WP:TOOSOON. We don't know what the precise implications of his likely murder will be. BOTTO _(T•C) 14:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep no ordinary death would have domestic and international protests as a consequence; there's also quite a lot of coverage of his death, and there can only be more once there is an investigation into his death. If it turns out in a week that everyone has moved on and there's nothing more than reactions, then sure, delete it then. Jaguarnik (talk) 15:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's too early to determine if this will be notable enough for a full-fledged article. Best to wait a few days as this will certainly have media coverage. AverageLogic (talk) 15:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. For many Russians, this is a political event of historic proportions. Although we cannot know the exact details yet, it will clearly be remembered and discussed. HFoxii (talk) 15:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - if in a month nothing more happened concerning this death. Then we might have a discussion, at this moment this is a highly notable death and a needed article. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 15:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As per above. We should at least wait until the dust settles before such a discussion is made. TheBritinator (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per BabbaQ SchoolChromebookUser (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per others, this is a very significant event that has attracted tons of media coverage already, it shouldn't be deleted yet - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 15:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep don't be ridiculous. Jmj713 (talk) 15:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep more news and information will coming out soon Bakhos2010 (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This will be going on for a long time as the international news investigations unfold. — Maile (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, probably an important political murder. Wikisaurus (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • P. S. In ruwiki there is quite a long and detailed description of how his health was undermined by Russian prison authorities. Wikisaurus (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Too soon to make such article, it is Wikinews. With evidence of intentional death and the circumstances of the investigation there should be such an article, but right now there is no information or sources to confirm or deny anything. evs 💬 15:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is already, just hours after the first announcement, an international reaction that will easily make the event notable, for example this BBC article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As creator, it's obvious his death will acquire significant coverage and analysis in the coming years. No Swan So Fine (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Additional info in connection with his death cannot be included in full in other articles.--Ipigott (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the article. Navalny was too great a man to be glossed over like that. 2600:1700:3FB0:9C20:DD91:FCC8:35DD:E70F (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A major event in world affairs. Spicemix (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This is already covered in the New York Times and other outlets; given his profile within the country, I'm almost certain more will come out. Oaktree b (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Same as above LemonBoiii (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose major event, more verification will come out. 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ plz edit my user pg! Talk 16:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The UK foreign secretary has already said there should be consequences against the Putin regime for Navalny's death. It's quite possible that reactions to his death could be politically significant in Russia and perhaps even change foreign policies abroad. Dorgesh (talk) 16:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep obviously notable event, with the main article being a large one already. Ur frnd (talk) 16:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:FORK and WP:SIZESPLIT from the main biographical article. Abcmaxx (talk) 16:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Alexei Navalny's death can be viewed from many perspectives. Similar to other controversial deaths, consensus is to create a decided page. RKGMPhaild (talk) 17:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow keep -- The list of "keep"s is padded a bit by a few people not really citing good policy reasons, but even after you exclude those I think there's still a pretty clear consensus here that, while the current article may need work, the actual topic is already a significant one that merits its own article (rebutting the main delete argument of WP:TOOSOON). A couple of people (Ur frnd, Abcmaxx) have also cited the large size of the parent article, which a merge would only add to, and Ipigott also wrote that information about Navalny's death would not be able to receive adequate coverage in a separate article. These are all sound policy reasons, and I think the "immediate relevance" argument convincingly outweighs the "too soon" concerns. -- 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep. This article has adequate coverage and keeps a POV slant about his death out of the main article. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment While notability is obviously there, the fact that even Navalny's family and his lawyer haven't confirmed the death brings this close to BLP violation territory. On the (extremely slight) off-chance that Navalny is still alive, or the (slightly more likely) chance that there won't be independent confirmation of his death anytime soon, this article will need major rethinking. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 17:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the various reasons already provided. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 17:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - A large number of media outlets, reliable ones too, have covered this event. This subject is already notable enough to be its own article

HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge back to Alexei Navalny per WP:NOTNEWS and/or WP:TOOSOON. As noted above, many of the "keep" votes are WP:CRYSTAL arguments that the topic will eventually warrant a separate article in the future, or are plain arguments that we should keep this as a WP:POVFORK and WP:QUOTEFARM (or are variations of WP:ILIKEIT) which are not good reasons to keep content. The "events" section and a summarized form of the "reactions" section (trimmed and likely omitting the international reactions which are just social media quotes) could easily be merged into the main biography, with the rest of this article then being redundant. See Death of Henry Kissinger for a similar example. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Kissinger is a bad example to use as his death was straightforward. I don't know what long term coverage there might be, but this certainly isn't a usual death case. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And what are your sources for that, roughly half a day of breaking news coverage? Do I understand correctly that there isn't even an official confirmation that he has died? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well according to the BBC: "The weight of international opinion does not appear to tally with Russia's account of what happened to him." [9] This is significantly different from Kissinger who died of natural causes. If Navalny were alive then it would go against this consensus. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Alexei Navalny per Ivanvector. Generalissima (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This event can be viewed from different perspectives, there will be more materials coming out which will obviously cause controversy and it will need its own page.

IKasio (talk) 18:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now and see how events develop - because the event is already notable by itself. No doubts, he was murdered by keeping him is for a long time in a "punishment cell" in the Arctic prison [10] (they usually keep a very low temperature in such cells), or by other means. Hence, the page would be better named a Murder of Alexei Navalny. Informally speaking, his poisoning in Russia was already a death sentence issued to him by the Russian government, so it was only a matter of time when he would be executed. My very best wishes (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, that doesn't sound at all like a separate article to push a particular point of view at all. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What point of view? It only matters if the event was notable enough for a separate page - based on the coverage in multiple RS. My very best wishes (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is relatively significant international event, and could have consequences for Russia and other countries Discombobulates (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep. obviously notable Tdmurlock (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: per WP:SNOW. Notable opposition to a dictator mysteriously dies in prison? Probably notable. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. No mention target has been identified, but a redirect can be created at editorial discretion. Star Mississippi 15:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maven Securities[edit]

Maven Securities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There is no quality media coverage. Out of 7 links, most of them refer to the same website 13Joker13 (talk) 10:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is probably not going to make a difference to this discussion but FYI, nominator has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Not sure what this user has against me, but he has tried to get other articles of mine deleted under different accounts. - Imcdc Contact 10:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or mention in another article Agreed, fails WP:GNG, other than the sources already in the article (which are mostly the same site), I haven't found anything other than passing mentions. Could probably have a section in another article, but doesn't need its own. Endersslay (talk) 16:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 15:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Dvořák (dancer)[edit]

Martin Dvořák (dancer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I'm considering this article for deletion per multiple issues, all of which have been tagged for almost six years. Corresponding article on Czech Wikipedia is also poorly-sourced. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 12:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance and Czech Republic. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 12:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - seems poorly sourced, and poorly written Mr Vili talk 23:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Teri Ik Nazar[edit]

Teri Ik Nazar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable per WP:GNG and the essay WP:NTV: in a WP:BEFORE search I can only find the briefest mentions of the series, in articles about the actors who appeared in it. The rest was bootlegs of the series on social media. It was one of several series nominated for a Lux Style Award in 2010, but I can't see how this alone brings it over the line for WP:GNG. Wikishovel (talk) 12:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. Wikishovel (talk) 12:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The only source that appears reliable is actually one that falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Page likely only created to try to promote the Lux awards. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Based on references, seems reliable enough as a television series article to be published on site. An award winning show than how it can be not WP:Notable.182.182.8.51 (talk) 13:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC) — 182.182.8.51 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  SOCKSTRIKE, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nauman335. Izno (talk) 22:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The only coverage I can find is already used in the article and this [11], both of which are trivial coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ketan Kadam[edit]

Ketan Kadam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

non-notable, advertorial. only WP:RS is WP:NYT which discusses the restaurant and not the founder, there is just one mention that too "Ketan Kadam, one of the restaurant’s owners" User4edits (talk) 11:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User4edits, should we have this page deleted?

• Richard and Maurice McDonald --Dustfreeworld (talk) 07:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dustfreeworld -- I do not know, and it does not matter. What about this article, btw? User4edits (talk) 03:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, India, and Maharashtra. User4edits (talk) 11:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Restaurants might be notable, this person isn't. Simply being mentioned in the articles isn't enough. Oaktree b (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There seem to be plenty of sources (I just added seven, and all I did to find them was to put his name into Google News and see if anything interesting popped up), but more to the point, the article is about both the businesses and their founder. It would be silly to delete the article about him, which is approximately half about him and half about his restaurants, then re-create an article, only under a different title, that is approximately half about his restaurants and half about him. The big restaurant chain is probably separately notable (it's unusual for a restaurant chain to have hundreds of stores in multiple countries and not be notable), but that's a consideration for another day. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  All restaurant chains will have some news articles on them, including their founder's name. He may be included in the restaurant's article (if that is notable), but having an article on him should be merited only on his demonstrated notability, which I still can not find. User4edits (talk) 06:15, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The proposed notablities:

  1. opened one of the first nightclubs in Mumbai -- as rest of the first would have

  2. 'mortgaged his home in 2000 to start a Lebanese restaurant which was later sold -- as businesses do usually

  3. opened a fine-dining Italian restaurant -- which was covered by local media (as usual) and a "Restaurant Report" by NYT

  4. 2013, he was working towards opening bars -- again mentioned once in running (amongst statements (media bytes) taken from others)

  5. Left alcohol business -- Covered by a restaurant niche-news type (reliable?)

  6. An award by PETA -- innovation - replacing horses (per Supreme Court Order) by Batteries

  7. "invented" anti-theft manhole covers?? - ...??..

  Summary: Still, can't find what this man is notable for. Not any restaurant or bar has been notable. His "inventions" grab one-time attention of media but do not fructify to even the second phase of discussion (forget implementation even on a pilot basis), there is no follow-up on such remarkable "inventions".

  I do not wish to belittle someone's hardwork or attempts, but forcing everyone and everything on Wikipedia is counter-productive(makes WP a white/yellow pages).

  User4edits (talk) 11:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure that you have quite the right idea. There aren't "proposed notabilities" (which is not a concept any notability guideline recognizes). You don't have to "find what this man is notable for". The GNG does not require that the subject be notable for something; it only requires that they be notable. As the top of Wikipedia:Notability puts it, we want articles about subjects that have received attention from the world at large. This includes people who are "famous for being famous", instead of having received attention for something that is easy to understand. See, e.g., Rob Enderle, whom one of the newspaper articles (cited in the article) said "sometimes seems like the most-quoted man in America". If you're looking for what Enderle's "notable for", I guess you could say that he's notable for giving soundbites to reporters a couple thousand times a year. He got coverage; therefore he qualifies for an article. Ditto for this man: even if you don't understand or agree with why this businessman got coverage, he did get that coverage – amounting to a couple thousand words across more than 20 English-language sources – and therefore he qualifies for an article.

  (As for "forcing everyone and everything on Wikipedia", I don't think anyone familiar with my editing would consider that to be a realistic possibility. You might be interested in the incomplete list at User:WhatamIdoing#Policies and guidelines you can ask me about.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the analysis, most are just routine business happenings told as articles, nothing terribly notable about most of them. Oaktree b (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

struck my duplicate !vote above Oaktree b (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as WP:HEY, WP:NEXIST and WP:SIGCOV.

--Dustfreeworld (talk) 04:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. No one is arguing for retention (or anything else). Star Mississippi 15:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

25th Bangladesh Infantry Regiment[edit]

25th Bangladesh Infantry Regiment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Contested PROD. Extensive searches in English and Bengali found nothing deeper than a couple of passing mentions. The unit exists, but no significant coverage of it exists, so fails WP:MILUNIT and WP:GNG. No reliably sourced content to merge. Worldbruce (talk) 13:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 13:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion.

As an aside, I find much of linguistics "impenetrable". I haven't tried to read his work though. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Kravchenko (linguist)[edit]

Alexander Kravchenko (linguist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

He sounds like he might meet WP:PROF even if not WP:GNG, but I couldn't find sources to confirm this. Boleyn (talk) 14:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Language. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NAUTHOR might qualify if people can find more reviews of his books, I quickly found doi:10.1075/arcl.1.15sha but my knowledge of Russian isn't good enough to find more at this moment. Umimmak (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:He appears to be a relatively significant linguist - not just an academic. BulgarianCat (talk) 10:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: What's his citation factor, given the large number of papers found in Gscholar, I'd be surprised if he doesn't pass academic notability... Seems to be cited by over 700 other papers per ResearchGate [12] Oaktree b (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. I'm seeing citation counts on Google Scholar of 247 ("Essential properties of language"), 116 ("The experiential basis of speech and writing"), 97 ("Two views on language ecology and ecolinguistics"), and then dropping steeply from there. This is borderline, but not really enough to convince me. Given that there doesn't seem to be much to say beyond the citation counts (it doesn't help that his writing is so impenetrable, apparently deliberately, as to make it impossible to infer what his actual contributions are), I'm inclined to put this on the delete side of the border. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Vulcans (band)[edit]

The Vulcans (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NBAND, unsourced since creation in 2008. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 14:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 14:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• There is potential to meet WP:NMUSIC#10 with several appearances on national television series hosted by notable persons. However I'm unable to verify this in reliable sources, or indeed find much about them to provide evidence beyond videos of their appearances on Youtube [13]. Their Musicbrainz record is virtually empty, I can't find them on Allmusic, and the EL to their website is a deadlink. The article itself is unreferenced. Unless someone can find any WP:RS coverage, I agree with the nom: Delete. ResonantDis_tortion 13:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 14:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Springdale Farms[edit]

Springdale Farms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Agree with the hatnote that purpose of page appears to be to promote the business. The refs appear to be run-of-the-mill and nothing much suggests this is more notable than any other similar small business JMWt (talk) 13:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and New Jersey. JMWt (talk) 13:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the conclusions from the old AfD, I don't think that a news articles about a business recovery after a fire (when that's basically the only source to count towards the GNG) is good enough in 2024 JMWt (talk) 13:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Travel and tourism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meets GNG, just as it did in the first AFD four years ago. Persingo (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Genovese, Peter (2005). Food Lovers' Guide to New Jersey: Best Local Specialties, Markets, Recipes, Restaurants, Events, and More. Guilford, Connecticut: Globe Pequot Press. p. 159. ISBN 0-7627-3079-X. ISSN 1550-8951. Retrieved 2024-02-20 – via Internet Archive.

     The book notes: "Springdale Farms, 1638 South Springdale Road, Cherry Hill; (856) 424-8674; www.springdalefarms.com. The only working farm left in suburbanized Cherry Hill, hundred-acre Springdale Farms produces more than thirty kinds of vegetables. The bakery, though, is where you might want to start. Up to twenty-five kinds of pies are available, from apple, peach, and blueberry crumb to cherry vanilla, sweet potato crunch, and lemon blueberry. There are also cakes, muffins, breads, cinnamon rolls, brownies, cookies, and rolls, all made on the premises. Springdale offers pick-your-own fruits and vegetables; pick-your-own strawberries are especially popular. Biggest attraction for kids: the Maize Quest, a corn-stalk maze generally open from mid-September through early November. Each year, it's a different theme; the one in 2004 re-created the 1804 Lewis and Clark Expedition."

  2. Nichols, Rick (2008-07-31). "You say tomato, I say Ramapo - a N. J. legend returns". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Archived from the original on 2024-02-20. Retrieved 2024-02-20.

     The article notes: "The long, soaking rain last week was a blessing for the first-run Jersey tomatoes at Cherry Hill's singular Springdale Farms, basking at the moment in unsolicited and decidedly premature celebrity. The New York Times had featured it in an update on the guilt-driven quest to redeem the lost Jersey tomato. ... So recent customers at its market on South Springdale Road have had to content themselves with what the sign on the produce bin described as "field-grown beefsteak tomatoes," which is to say tomatoes without any particular bragging rights or heirloom-stoked cult following. ... It was Ebert's father, Alan, who started Springdale as a truck farm under contract to Campbell's in 1949. But by the '60s, it was wholesaling produce and slicing tomatoes, the tender Ramapo (circa 1968) proudly included."

  3. Walsh, Jim (2017-10-01). "Mary Ebert, Springdale Farms' matriarch, dies at 93". Courier-Post. Archived from the original on 2024-02-20. Retrieved 2024-02-20.

     The article notes: "Ebert, 93, founded Springdale Farms in 1949 with her husband Alan. She has run the Springdale Road property with family members since her spouse’s death in 1988. The business is Cherry Hill’s last working farm, although the traditional crops of fruits and vegetables have been augmented by modern attractions like hayrides, an autumn corn maze and a farm store known for its pies and other baked goods."

  4. Sacharow, Fredda (1988-12-11). "A Farm Family Stubbornly Refuses to Quit Land". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2024-02-20. Retrieved 2024-02-20.

     The article notes: "Alan and Mary Ebert, who have owned Springdale Farms since 1950, when Cherry Hill was 75 percent farmland, said their decision to keep the 100-acre farm going came just days after the Jan. 23 fire. They recently opened a market to replace the burned building. ... The fire, which razed the couple's 21-year-old store, began in the early morning hours and spread rapidly, consuming the 3,800-square-foot building. The store held cash registers, intercom systems, refrigeration units, pottery and seasonal decorations. Everything was lost. The authorities ruled the fire suspicious. An investigation is continuing."

  5. Grande, Candy (2014-08-15). "5 family-friendly farms to explore in South Jersey". Courier-Post. Archived from the original on 2024-02-20. Retrieved 2024-02-20.

     The article notes: "A trip to Springdale Farms is always a great way to spend some time in the summer. The farms grows a variety of crops such as sweet corn, eight different types of tomatoes, 12 kinds of eggplants, summer squash, blackberries, cucumbers and cantaloupes. Each crop is harvested every morning and sold in the farm's produce market. ... says John Ebert, co-owner of the farm. ... Don't forget to stop by the farm's bakery department for the pie of the month, a delicious peach blueberry creation guaranteed to satisfy sweets lovers. If you prefer something different, browse through the other 35 different pies offered."

  6. Graham, Kristen A. (2002-10-06). "Farmers setting out to grow bumper crop of 'agritainment' - A harvest of 'agritainment' Farms are growing a different cash crop: Class trips and hayrides". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Archived from the original on 2024-02-20. Retrieved 2024-02-20.

     The article notes: "Looking out over the 100 acres that his family still works, John Ebert of Springdale Farms recalled how his parents, Alan and Mary, bought their spread in 1949, when Cherry Hill was Delaware Township and 82 farms were in operation. Originally, the family grew tomatoes and parsley for Campbell's Soup. They decided to press on as farm prices tanked about 20 years ago, after fire destroyed their market, after Alan Ebert died suddenly. ... Mary Ann Jarvis, who owns Springdale Farms along with her husband, Tom, and Ebert, her brother, describes the work as exacting but rewarding."

  7. Jennings, John Way (1988-01-24). "Fire Ruins Cherry Hill Fruit Stand". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Archived from the original on 2024-02-20. Retrieved 2024-02-20.

     The article notes: "No injuries were reported when the one-story block-and-frame building in Cherry Hill that was the retail market for the 100-acre Springdale Farms, located on Springdale Road between Route 70 and Kresson Road, burned just before 2 a.m. ... The farm is owned by Alan Ebert, his sons, Thomas and John, and a daughter, Mary Ann Jarvis."

  8. Uncle John's Bathroom Reader Plunges into New Jersey. San Diego: Portable Press. 2005. ISBN 978-1-60710-602-9. Retrieved 2024-02-20 – via Google Books.

     The book notes: "Springdale Farms is situated on 100 acres in Cherry Hill and has been a working farm for over 53 years. Throughout the year, you can find more than 30 kinds of produce and flowers there. Customers get a hands-on experience by actually picking their own fruits and vegetables right off the vine!"

  9. Lobrutto, Christina (2016-06-17). "7 'pick-your-own' farms in South Jersey". PhillyVoice. Archived from the original on 2024-02-20. Retrieved 2024-02-20.

     The article notes: "Springdale Farms, which prides itself on being "Cherry Hill's last working farm," has been growing and selling fresh fruits and vegetables on Springdale Road for more than 60 years. While the farm is especially known for its pick-your-own strawberries, it also offers the public a variety of other pick-your-own produce, as well as attractions like a corn maze, hayrides and a plant yard. Springdale also offers a bunch of "home baked goodness" in its bakery. From fresh apple cider donuts to home-baked pies and breads, there's a little something for everyone."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Springdale Farms to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 10:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the sources in the article and cited above. The article could use an editing pass for tone but is no where near bad enough to delete on that basis when sources demonstrating notability exist. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Anarchism#See also. ✗plicit 14:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of anarchist communities[edit]

List of anarchist communities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I have been trying to figure out how to make this list work since I first arrived on Wikipedia, nearly five years ago. Now I think it's time to draw a line under the experience and call it quits. Since this list's creation, it has had an endemic problem with its inclusion criteria, which has led to it wildly expanding and contracting over time. Attempts to find a solid criteria have been futile, with no consensus formed as to what constitutes a "community" or even what makes something "anarchist". This has led to inclusion and exclusion being driven almost entirely by individual vibes, i.e. whether someone likes or doesn't like a certain entry, rather than any verifiable information in reliable sources. Over the years, this list has been a breeding ground for novel synthesis and original research.

In scholarly literature, the term "anarchist community" itself is used in a variety of different ways, none of which are actually reflected in this list (it's usually used in the same way as one would use "immigrant community"). Attempts to find a better name for the list have likewise gone nowhere, as there is nothing solid that actually groups together all the various different phenomenons included. Attempts to broaden the criteria would have led to it being so ill-defined that almost anything could be included, while attempts to narrow the inclusion criteria down to more specific and fundamental characteristics would effectively eliminate the list.

Two of the list's sections have now been merged into more appropriate listacles, the list of intentional communities and list of self-managed social centres, which each have a more clearly defined and easily verified criteria for inclusion. What remains are a series of different phenomena that share little in common other than anarchists being involved (sometimes not even in the driving seat). I don't think what's left over provides us with a particularly informative list that couldn't work just as well by adding some of them to the "See also" section of other articles.

As I don't think it's possible for a well-researched and stable version of this list to be established, as this is a magnet for original research and novel synthesis, and as there is no clear potential redirect target or other place to merge the remaining entries, I am nominating this article for deletion. I understand this may not be a popular proposal, but I think this is a discussion that needs to be had. Grnrchst (talk) 11:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Organizations, Politics, Social science, and Lists. Grnrchst (talk) 11:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and also change redirect Category:Anarchist intentional communities and Category:Anarchist communities exist. But if everything that would be in this list is already at the more specific lists of List of stateless societies, List of intentional communities, and List of self-managed social centers then no need for it. Note also that Anarchist community redirects here. Redirecting it to one of those three would be a problem, so it should be an article listing the three lists for people to then click on what they want to go to. Dream Focus 13:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Wouldn't the page history have to be maintained for attribution reasons, since its content was merged into other pages? If so maybe keep as a redirect to one of these pages since I think that's required by copyright (if I'm not misunderstanding) but from what I can see the scope of the page is duplicated by other, better and clearer lists. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Anarchism § See also per my talk page comment. The page history needs to be kept for the merged content's attribution. The existing See also section is the natural place to store links related to anarchist communities that a reader might want to investigate. re: the categories above, I don't believe they're long for this world. czar 15:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per Grnrchst and czar. Thanks both for your work sorting this out prior to the AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 01:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NEO CANDO[edit]

NEO CANDO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I'm not sure exactly what is going on here, but the page is clearly not written to the norms of en.wiki and has been without proper referencing for many years. To me it reads like an essay imported from elsewhere (I've not been able to find a source) but it is such a skipfire that it needs WP:TNT until someone can completely rewrite it from scratch with proper referencing. JMWt (talk) 10:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and Ohio. JMWt (talk) 10:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Nothing for this "group"? found (I'm unsure what to call them). I get hits on the Neo Bank and other things using the term "neo", nothing about this entity. Oaktree b (talk) 16:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Education, and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's a G12. I'm not going to CSD as it's already here, but here's the source of most. I'd imagine the rest is from a prior version of that page and their own site. Star Mississippi 18:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark E. Shaw[edit]

Mark E. Shaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not yet notable by WP:BIO or WP:GNG. I can't find significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources, and most of the sources here are his own writing. There are passing mentions of him in the four World (magazine) articles cited, but all four articles are about addiction generally, not Shaw himself.

A similarly worded attempt in April 2023 by a sockpuppet of User:BrookeCook at Mark Edward Shaw was moved to draft, then speedy deleted G5, and the SPI for BrookeCook has been pretty busy lately. Wikishovel (talk) 10:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Christianity, Psychology, Alabama, and Kentucky. Wikishovel (talk) 10:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the article reads to me like a clear cut case of paid editing. The fact that the author tried to hide a COI template by moving it to the talkpage doesn't help. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 13:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete looking thorugh the news results pretty much all of them were for other people called Mark Shaw instead of him, everything else I could find is a primary source or a small generic author bigography. (And to be clear, no I'm not him and have no relation to him) Shaws username . talk . 13:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: My limited time at AfC and the log history listed above all incline me towards seeing this as a likely PROMO work. Delete, with an eye to salting. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As per the nom, most of these citations are stuff written by himself. Yolandagonzales (talk) 08:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Half of the sourcing is WP:PRIMARY. A dash of promo as well, with ordained minister, nouthetic counselor, addiction counselor, author, public speaker... TLA^tlak 07:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revenue On-Line Service[edit]

Revenue On-Line Service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

It’s unclear what makes this website notable. If it was innovative in any way, a sentence or two on Revenue Commissioners, with an appropriate reference, would surely suffice. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 09:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 09:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Completely unsourced, reads like an advert, and non-notable. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a line in Revenue Commissioners will be enough. Spleodrach (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. On initial review I had considered proposing a "redirect" (as an WP:ATD). However, as noted above, there is no supported/non-promotional/appropriate content that could reasonably be merged to the Revenue Commissioners article. Absent anything to merge, there is nothing to which to redirect. Just delete this SPAM. Guliolopez (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonah Wineberg[edit]

Jonah Wineberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable voice actor. Article has been repeatedly recreated by the same user, and was previously deleted under criterion A7. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Film. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – this BLP has 0 references. Online, it's essentially just IMDb and Fandom.com, not WP:INDEPENDENT. I think speedy delete could work here, but oh well.

TLA (talk) 09:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I brought it to AfD because the article had been deleted under A7 before, but I guess it could be speedy deleted now that the creator has been blocked. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, since they were blocked after creating the article, unless I'm misreading. -- asilvering (talk) 01:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete as per above Mr Vili talk 23:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Consensus among participants in this discussion is that the article's subject presently fails WP:NACTOR owing to lack of sufficient sourcing. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fisayomi Abebi[edit]

Fisayomi Abebi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not yet notable per WP:NACTOR or WP:PRODUCER, child actor who produced a film at the age of ten. Article says she has "worked on set" with notable actors, but on Wikipedia notability is not inherited. The only reliable source I can find for her online is the Nigerian Tribune interview cited, but interviews are WP:Primary sources, and I can't find coverage of her in independent, secondary sources, just a lot of social media, and some passing mentions in gossip articles about a purported relative. Wikishovel (talk) 05:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Nigeria. Wikishovel (talk) 05:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikishovel The article will be worked upon. It will be properly restructured to meet wikipedia guidelines completely. Jutos222 (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove the deletion tag! That's disruptive to the process here and counter-productive to our efforts. Oaktree b (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Well, the deletion tag has been removed from the article, so that's an issue... I can only find this [14]. Rest is celebrity gossip articles about having a child and the like. Oaktree b (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tried restoring the deletion tag, but an edit conflict won't let me. Oaktree b (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The creator has tried the remove the AfD tag six times and multiple editors are in 3rr territory. I have left a warning on the creator's talk page. If they persist, please take this to the 3rr or ANI notice board. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. Appears they've also removed the notice from their talk page. Oh boy. Oaktree b (talk) 19:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Page creator's sort of unofficial mentor here. This is a noble effort to improve the encyclopedia made by an editor who is trying to learn, but I am afraid that there simply isn't adequate sourcing for notability yet. I concur with Oaktree b; I could only find interviews and unreliable stuff. As for the edit warring, I left a message on their talk page, which has since been blanked by them along with their userpage. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't pass WP:NACTOR at this point in time, could not find multiple instances of significant coverage in secondary sources. Article creator can request undeletion if this changes in the future. ~ BlueTurtles | talk 05:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't pass WP:NACTOR right now, so WP:TOOSOON. Undelete if that changes. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails NACTOR. Sources are entirely unreliable. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per reasons above. Nothing to add. Best, Reading Beans 17:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to lack of sufficient sourcing. GraziePrego (talk) 05:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If this article would be retain, we will try our best to work on the sourcing, to meet with up with wikipedia demands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jutos222 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Bulgaria women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kremena Prodanova[edit]

Kremena Prodanova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Redirect to List of Bulgaria women's international footballers as I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions (2008, 2009, 2012, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 05:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Bulgaria. JTtheOG (talk) 05:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. GiantSnowman 12:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nom. Idiosincrático (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I tried looking for sources in Cyrillic, too, and got nothing, too. It was somewhat telling that even the sport statistics WWW sites had dashes in some of their fields indicating missing statistics. There's just not anywhere near enough recorded knowledge to be had for a biography. Uncle G (talk) 07:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Panama women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yadira Pacheco[edit]

Yadira Pacheco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Redirect to List of Panama women's international footballers as I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions (2006, 2007, 2008, 2014, 2015, 2018, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 04:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Panama. JTtheOG (talk) 04:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. GiantSnowman 12:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Redirect per the nom. Not enough WP:SIGCOV present. Let'srun (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Rodriguez (politician)[edit]

Jennifer Rodriguez (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unnotable mayor failing WP:GNG, WP:NPOL and WP:NCRIME. Previously nomination in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas, closed as procedural keep due to the bundle's size. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California. Shaws username . talk . 04:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all of the secondary sources I could find are WP:ROTM for any local politician and not enough to establish WP:NOTABILITY or significant coverage per WP:POLITICIAN. Shaws username . talk . 04:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination (changed from "redirect"). BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 23:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BottleOfChocolateMilk: I think you're confusing this with the City of Bell scandal, which Rodriguez was not involved in. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 00:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 03:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to City of Bell scandal. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]