< February 27	February 29 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Yitzchok Adlerstein. Daniel (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Project Genesis (organization)[edit]

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

Redirect to Yitzchok Adlerstein. Fails WP:NORG. Longhornsg (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Judaism and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable topic with insufficient sources. Mevoelo (talk) 08:28, 01 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero independent sources. I won't oppose a redirect as suggested. Bearian (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORPDEPTH --Devokewater|(tαlk) 11:42, 5 March 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 14:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sheri-An Davis[edit]

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

after doing a WP:BEFORE, i found minor mentions in some film credits and two books, but this doesn't seem to meet notability requirements. Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:16, 22 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!} 23:16, 28 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 Angourie, New South Wales. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angourie Point[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NPLACE or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 14:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Australia. Shaws username . talk . 14:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment As a surfing spot this is likely notable. That said, the tone of the article is hugely unencyclopedic. Mangoe (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An encyclopaedia article on the Angourie National Surfing Reserve could definitely be written. I can find sources for that, which however encompasses more than the point. Also note that it would be a break-out subtopic of Angourie, New South Wales#Attractions, which is fairly bad compared to what a brief search for sources on the NSR turned up, and not even at the point that a sub-article is needed.
This article reads like a tourist guide, personal opinions in Wikipedia's voice and all.
Uncle G (talk) 05:05, 22 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!} 22:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Angourie, New South Wales – this article covers that which Wikipedia is not. Anything relevant about the point can be included in the village article, the village actually administratively covers the knob/point and there is no notable reason why a seperate article is warranted. Idiosincrático (talk) 14:10, 4 March 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 23:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jóannes Lamhauge[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 22:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Denmark. WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 22:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:BEFORE does not turn up any information on Jóannes Lamhauge, visual artist. There is an architect and a musician. 2 of the references in this short stub fail verification. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks references fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:27, 6 March 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 Mafory Bangoura. There is a consensus below not to retain, and I have chosen the AtD of the two options which formed that consensus. Daniel (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hadja Maffire Bangura[edit]

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable. Fails WP:GNG. Nirva20 (talk) 04:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC) Nirva20 (talk) 04:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or REDIRECT to Mafory Bangoura, if same person. Nirva20 (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Inclusion in Historic Dictionary of Guinea (4th ed) seems a good indication of notability. We don't know what the "Bureau politique national" is/was, nor whether the "posts in the ... government" included any ministerial posts which would contribute to notability.

Obviously an African person active in politics who died in 1956 is not going to have much coverage in material available online today, so their inclusion in an established national biographical dictionary has to be taken as significant. But another source or two would be an improvement. PamD 09:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is there's only one source, I've been able to access the source and confirm she's in the source, but the source is closely paraphrased. The President of I believe Liberia sent condolences to Guinea upon her death, but her date of passing doesn't match the date in the source, that source also says she was the Minister for Social Welfare. Maffire is also spelled Mafoury and Bangura is also spelled Bangoura if you're looking for a before search. The Dictionary of African Biographies also has a longer blurb on her but says she was the minister of social affairs starting in 1971, also after the reported date of death. So I'm leaning keep, but it needs a copyvio cleanup. If someone has good access to sources, this article can be clearly marked for improvement. SportingFlyer T·C 10:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just out of curiosity, are we sure that the source doesn't just have an error on the death date? I'm seeing Mafory Bangoura (i.e. Hadja Aissatou Mafory Bangoura), an article on a tailor (seamstress) by trade who was a Guinean independence activist active among the Susu and in Conakry at the same time as the person described by the source. That individual was also active in the PDG, and was Minister for social affairs. The names of this article's subject and that individual above are spelled quite similarly (they may well be alternate transliterations). This could be my ignorance of the article subject more broadly, but how sure are we that these are different people? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Almost certain this is an alternate transliteration based on how many details match between the sources. Would vote redirect. SportingFlyer T·C 21:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Tried a French-only Google search and the BNF [1], rien (nothing). Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about the other names, but French would almost certainly use the spelling "Bangoura" rather than "Bangura". Phil Bridger (talk) 09:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mafory Bangoura. Given the similarities in name and biographies, I think it is almost certainly the same person. Jfire (talk) 01:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 23:36, 27 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!} 22:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all the arguments above. There is one source used, so the article clearly fails WP:SIGCOV. Anwegmann (talk) 02:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am also inclined to believe that if "Hadja Maffire Bangura" had been notable and not just a misnomer, there would have been more avaliable sources, like the ones displayed on Hadja Mafory Bangoura. Geschichte (talk) 07:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect >>>Mafory Bangoura, definitely a potential search term.Djflem (talk) 17:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question @Nirva20: Have you done a Wikipedia:BEFORE and read WP:AFDLIST (which states It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. Do not notify bot accounts or people who have made only insignificant 'minor' edits. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the article. For your convenience, you may use ((subst:Adw|Article title)).? Familiarizing yourself with both is wise and helpful if you are going to make AfD nominations. It does not appear you have notified creator, who may be able to shed light on the subject. Djflem (talk) 18:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*:Ok. Thanks. I will notify the article's creator. Nirva20 (talk) 18:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Djflem -- I notified the article's creator of this AFD (which you had already done) and apologized for not notifying them earlier. You're right. I should have done so but forgot in my haste. Nirva20 (talk) 18:17, 29 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. Daniel (talk) 22:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WEPA-CD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. PROD was objected by the article creator with the rationale that the station is verified to have existed, but existence doesn't equate to notability. Let'srun (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pennsylvania. Let'srun (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. – Hilst [talk] 22:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - couldn't find any independent coverage. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 19:55, 6 March 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!} 22:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Polesia[edit]

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

An extremely minor blip of Belarusian nationalism - Altenmann >talk 19:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Belarus, Poland, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I had initially gone with an WP:ATD redirect to Poleshuks, but that article does not currently mention flags. As far as the notability of this topic goes, I'm unable to find any sources beyond the cited book and a less-than-reliable-looking Russian site cited by the be.wiki article, which in turn cites the same book ([2]). Having tracked down said book, I'm unable to find any mentions of various Polesia/Poleshuk-related terms in the contents search. We're on shaky ground for even establishing that this flag has existed, let alone establishing its independent notability. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is mentioned on pages 31-32 of that book. [3]. It was a flag of one movements of Yotvingians in Belarus in the 90s.Ceriy (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding that PDF. It seems like the information on those pages is totally distinct from what's actually made it into our article, however. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think original article was much better and more correct and so the book was a perfect source for what it was then. Later as the article was rewritten it makes less sense, it reads that flag was of all Poleshuks, when in reality it was a small area of Belarus. The author of the book was a big flag historian from Belarus, so the flag was important and it did exist. However the organization promoting and using it was active in 88-95. Current article makes it seems like it is current time also.Ceriy (talk) 14:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ceriy, do you think it's possible to revert the article back to a version that did demonstrate notability? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- There was no "original article" that demonstrated notability. - Altenmann >talk 04:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into Polesia. Right now it's a fork that only has a single source, which by definition means it fails significant coverage test for notability. If the problems are in fact fixed, please ping me. Bearian (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any information to merge though? All versions of the article written assert that this was a flag of Polesia, but the sole source only refers to the flag as the flag of the Young Yotvingians (a group that I can find no information about online in English, Belarusian or Russian). The only reference to Polesia in that source is noting that the Young Yotvingians took inspiration from Taras Bulba-Borovets's nationalist partisans in WWII, who were active in Polesia. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE. If nobody can find nothing, then what are we doing here? - Altenmann >talk 04:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can we find other sources? How extensive is the discussion of the flag in the single source cited? Leaning redirect/merge due to single source (SIGCOV issue mentioned above). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you find other sources? Even this single source cited say not what our article says:

У апошні час пачаў складвацца нацыянальны рух ятвягаў, ад якога нядаўна аддзяліўся рух младаятвягаў, які ўзначальвае Шэляговіч. Ятвягі, якія не пажадалі прымкнуць да младаятвягаў, сталі называцца стараятвягамі і прытрымліваюцца гістарычна склаўшыхся напрамкаў традыцый беларусаў. Флагам стараятвягаў з'яўляецца палотнішча з трох гарызантальных палос: белай, сіняй і белай, што асацыіруецца з ракой Сож. Младаятвягі выкарыстоўваюць у сваім флагу ўкраінскія блакітную (верхняя) і жоўтую (сярэдняя) палосы, якія дапоўнены зялёнай

Relevant translated: "The Young Yotvingians use the Ukrainian blue (top) and yellow (middle) stripes in their flag, which are complemented by green"., I.e., it does not say it is flag of the whole Polesia. And cannot, because Polesia has Belarusian and Ukrainian parts, and there is absolutely no evidence that this movement reached Ukrainne; it was extremely marginal and I am surprized we are wasting time on them. - Altenmann >talk 04:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I found an interview with the author of the flag and see that he is a thorough ignoramus, who thinks that Yotvingians are Slavs. - Altenmann >talk 04:09, 28 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!} 22:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pofka @Marcelus - any thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because I think this article fails WP:NOTABLE. My quick Google search do not provide any WP:RS about this proposed flag. Moreover, per provided content in this article this proposed flag was never used officially by a region or Poleshuks ethnic group and was likely proposed/created by only one person Nikolai Shelyagovich (who is described in his article as Yotvingian separatist). If somebody will provide WP:VERIFIABLE WP:RS about this flag, then we can merge it into a newly created section in article Poleshuks. Otherwise, we should not flood Wikipedia with various dubiously proposed and never widely used symbols/flags by niche politicians (in the case of Shelyagovich he is likely some kind of niche nationalist). -- Pofka (talk) 20:40, 6 March 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 GP federation. Daniel (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Camden Health Partners[edit]

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

No evidence this meets notability requirements of WP:NORG AusLondonder (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, and England. AusLondonder (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to GP federation. I couldn't find enough to meet WP:NORG, beyond those on the article already it was just coverage of some contracts, a hospital upgrade, and an industry award they were nominated for, nothing in-depth about them. Shaws username . talk . 22:55, 28 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. Daniel (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

9 Lazy 9[edit]

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

Unnotable band. None of the minor sources I've seen are able to make this band even remotely notable. Ominateu (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and Italy. Ominateu (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Allmusic biography and one two three non-trivial reviews, review by Exclaim! Magazine, review by Riverfront Times, featured on non-trivial list in RS, this retrospective, this review on a site I'm not familiar with. Geschichte (talk) 08:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above that together show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that it sounds like there are sources and coverage ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 23:10, 1 March 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!} 22:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Melnick[edit]

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

Subject does not have the sustained WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. A case of WP:BIO1E. Let'srun (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Texas. Let'srun (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 21 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) 20:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The Fort Worth newspaper article is about all there is, I don't see sigcov in anything else. Name drops in a list of pageant contestants. Oaktree b (talk) 00:22, 29 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. If anyone wishes to merge the content here to elsewhere for editorially-sound reasons, please leave me a message on my talk page and I'll undelete and replace with a redirect to preserve history per AtD. Daniel (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Encino Park and Ride[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:NTRAINSTATION. Information could be incorporated into the articles about Encino and LADOT. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This entry should not be deleted. The Encino Park and Ride is a major commuter facility in the San Fernando valley, similar to other transit center and park and ride facilities already listed on Wikipedia. Jg10101 (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Transportation, and California. Skynxnex (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Park-and-ride bus stations are generally not notable and there are few mentions in the regional newspaper (LA Times). Sounder Bruce 21:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the Vince Lombardi Park and Ride? Why is that more notable than this facility? They are essentially the same thing. Jg10101 (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because the majority of that article discusses the study of the site for use as a rail station. Without that it shouldn't have an article either. Though that site is also a major service area for Turnpike and it includes several news articles discussing its history. If you had independent sources beyond the routine government pages then maybe something else could be written, but this is literally just a small parking lot a fraction of the Lombardi's size. Reywas92^Talk 02:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just a parking lot with a bus stop. No significant coverage, no notability. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Los Angeles Department of Transportation#Commuter Express. Nothing beyond WP:ROTM coverage, mostly as part of bus lines. While a bus station, WP:NTRAINSTATION makes valid points. Shaws username . talk . 21:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete Seriously? We need an article on a parking lot? I mean, if it wee the world's largest or something like that, but it's not. Which is to say, no claim to notability for something completely ordinary. Mangoe (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Brossard-Chevrier Park and Ride (AfD discussion) has more independent in-depth non-directory sources discussing it than this has, moreover. There is not even that degree of sourcing that I can find in this case. Uncle G (talk) 08:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a parking lot, no significant independent coverage. Reywas92^Talk 02:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: textbook example of a run-of-the-mill article; there's no meaningful independent coverage of this parking lot. Left guide (talk) 07:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as about as non-notable as one could imagine, barring sources stating that the location used to be paradise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing in a before search, fails GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 10:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Mangoe's thoughts are mine too. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's a parking lot. It's not passing GNG either. RakdosWitch (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater|(tαlk) 11:44, 5 March 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. Daniel (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feraye (name)[edit]

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

Same case as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agra (given name), fails WP:NNAME and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Geschichte (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Language. Skynxnex (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be a keep if any two of these people were notable and had enwiki articles, but otherwise delete. (t · c) buidhe 08:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - violates WP:LIST and WP:MILL. Bearian (talk) 20:27, 4 March 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. Daniel (talk) 22:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hiren's BootCD[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject fails GNG. There are plenty of posts on internet fora about it and there are a few books which make brief mentions. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails NSOFT. I could only find this MakeUseOf article discussing it in detail, and the reliability of that is dubious at best. – Hilst [talk] 00:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm not quite sure how this got undeleted, it clearly fails WP:GNG by a wide margin.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:05, 29 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. Owen× ☎ 22:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Argja Bóltfelag[edit]

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

Semi-pro team, doesn't appear to meet WP:SPORTSBIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, long and well-covered history, [4] and countless other sources. Geschichte (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, Denmark, and Islands. Skynxnex (talk) 21:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Long history, indeed; and it has been a first-division club in the Faroe Islands, whether or not it is semi-pro and fully professional is immaterial, as very, very few clubs in the Faroese system are fully professional. Anwegmann (talk) 02:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No Faroese teams are fully professional, KÍ had 5 full-time players last season. As you say, though, the pro status is not the deciding factor when it comes to the clubs' respective cultural relevance within their country. It is however an unfortunate trend in Wikipedia to add the moniker "professional" to players and clubs to make them seem more important. The other day, I removed "professional" from a club in the El Salvador third division. It was obviously not true, and even when it is, a club only has one or very few teams that are professional when the rest (age-specific) are not. Geschichte (talk) 07:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - top-level team, clearly notable. The fact it is semi-pro is totally irrelevant. Giant Snowman 19:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per @Geschichte. Svartner (talk) 14:20, 1 March 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. Daniel (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Scheidler[edit]

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

non notable person, citations to blogs affiliated with the church microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 20:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Religion. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 20:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support?: As I initially proposed it for miscellaneous deletion, I'm not sure my vote necessarily counts. Ominateu (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC) (sock strike Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Delete this article should have never been created. Catfurball (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obituaries and a real estate agent in Michigan found, nothing about this pastor. Very much non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this was originally opened at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Josh Scheidler. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 20:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: ”[...] is a prominent local figure“ not only is very subjective but also cannot be confirmed. As a side note, a personal Instagram or LinkedIn profile does not qualify as a reliable source in most cases. Killarnee (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails WP:SIGCOV. Anwegmann (talk) 02:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only references are to his church's web site and his own social media profiles. A search finds no coverage in reliable sources.--Gronk Oz (talk) 08:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support: As the person who made the article and contributed the most to it, most of my knowledge surrounding this topic is from real-life experiences. I am new to Wikipedia and editing, so if it needs to be deleted then I'll take an L, but this topic said nothing false and quite frankly helps locals learn more about Josh Scheidler, I was planning to add more onto it but I'm not sure I will since it's about to be deleted. Ignite Faith Church is a prominent non-denominational church within Redmond and contributes to the local politics and such. I will try to find more reliable sources, however the modern world doesn't like talking about churches' impact on society, especially Pastors. Happyjoshua (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Happyjoshua: Wikipedia is not the appropriate place to record a person's "real-life experiences". It is used to summarize the best of what reliable, independent sources say about a subject. If you can find those, please raise them here. Gronk Oz (talk) 05:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said that I had real-life experiences to support the thought that the information provided was valid, not that I had any conflict of interest. I don't have independent sources about Josh Scheidler. I still support keeping the page or at least merging it with another Wikipedia article, but I understand that it likely will be deleted. Happyjoshua (talk) 08:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails notability guidelines: immediate deletions as no GNG sources available, and citations are all primary and unreliable. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 19:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG, WP:SOAP, and WP:NOTWEBHOST. I'm sorry, but the argument that "I don't know" was tenable in 2007, but not in 2024. Everyone knows at least vaguely what we are and we are not. Bearian (talk) 20:30, 4 March 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. Owen× ☎ 22:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joel McGregor[edit]

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

Doesn't meet the guidelines (GNG & SIGCOV)to qualify for an article. zoglophie^•talk• 19:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. zoglophie^•talk• 19:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until he makes his league debut, which is relatively standard practice for young players on the cusp of first-team minutes. Anwegmann (talk) 02:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – As WP:AtD, but deleting seems reasonable too. Svartner (talk) 14:19, 1 March 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 draftify‎. Daniel (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Konstantinos Goumas[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. zoglophie^•talk• 19:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Greece. zoglophie^•talk• 19:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Plays for a professional club and has appeared numerous times in the Greek second division, which is a senior league in a major national system. That PAOK B is a reserve team is immaterial. Anwegmann (talk) 02:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Anwegmann: I'm surprised you are a veteran editor of 18 years, but you are voting based on participation in competitions which is not even considered anymore even for Olympic Games.

Where are the sources that put him in a favourable side of WP:GNG? zoglophie^•talk• 13:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what your comment means, but the Super League Greece 2 is a professional league, and Goumas has appeared for PAOK B in that league regularly this season. There is enormous precedent that establishes that as acceptable for notability standards. He's not simply on the roster of a professional club but only plays for the academy side. He is a regular player for a professional football team. Anwegmann (talk) 16:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Playing at a professional level is not enough - where is the significant coverage? Giant Snowman 19:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. The athlete may achieve notability in the medium term, but for now he is not ready for the mainspace. Svartner (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - BLP that doesn't even meet WP:SPORTBASIC #5 let alone GNG. Arguments for keeping based on participation hold very little weight after WP:NSPORTS2022. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:16, 1 March 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. Owen× ☎ 22:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vendolite[edit]

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

The present sources do not establish notability per the guidelines WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. zoglophie^•talk• 19:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Tamil Nadu. zoglophie^•talk• 19:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. One source on the whole page that talks about complaint of vending machine. No significant coverage. Fails notability. RangersRus (talk) 23:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails gng Ben Azura (talk) 01:43, 4 March 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 Pearl, Mississippi as a sensible ATD that seems to attain consensus here. Owen× ☎ 22:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WPBP-LP[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years. I'm not seeing anything much else to show that the subject meets the notability criteria for inclusion JMWt (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Mississippi. JMWt (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ A low-power municipal broadcaster serving their community clinches N in this case; we usually reserve deletion for low-powers for broadcasters we can't identify, which are part of nationwide 'satellite translator' networks or which only exist to obstruct other broadcasters for taking over. This is actively broadcasting and I see no deletion case here, but certainly expansion. Nate • (chatter) 19:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Switch to merge Agreed with WCQ, this is probably better fitting in within the existing body of the Pearl article, which is hardly large. Nate • (chatter) 00:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Pearl, Mississippi: at least if there is anything sourceable to merge. (It's a municipal-owned station, so this is a more logical alternative than might otherwise be the case.) In any event, this appears to be another remnant of the looser notability "standards" in this topic area c. 2012 (and more broadly prior to this 2021 RfC), which used to be centered more on mere existence than the GNG (even though existence is not notability). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. This station is only notable at the local level, but incorporating pertinent information into the Pearl, Mississippi page would work before deletion. TH1980 (talk) 02:33, 3 March 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. Owen× ☎ 22:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LNER[edit]

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

I think the primary topic for LNER should redirect to London North Eastern Railway, the modern 2018 train operating company with a hatnote linking to London and North Eastern Railway, the old LNER from 1923-1947 and to the other titles containing LNER. This is beacause London North Eastern Railway is usually referred to by its abbreviation. I am not sure if removing liquid neutral earthing resistor, which mentions LNER helps. This can be shown by the evidence for the new LNER - ~16,000 and the old one - ~5500. However, the original Great Western Railway will always remain the primary topic over the modern GWR, as shown by many moves at Talk:Great_Western_Railway_(train_operating_company)#Renaming. JuniperChill (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Disambiguations. Skynxnex (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems like a valid disambig. page. Both the railways under "LNER" are valid search terms. Oaktree b (talk) 20:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for me, if people are searching LNER, they likely mean the current operator, not the old one. I do not want to inconvience them by taking an extra step (just) to look for the modern LNER. I also said the modern LNER has 3x the amount of views compared to the old one so those looking for the old LNER will use the hatnote to do so, that is the purpose of it. JuniperChill (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where on earth is your evidence for this? The historic company is far more famous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: LNER is more likely to refer to the major company which was 1/4 of British railways for 24 years than to a modern company which has operated for the last six years but may be swept away next time the cards are shuffled. A dab page is the solution. PamD 21:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Prefer disambiguation over redirect, this way the user can choose best what article they want to read. Killarnee (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per PamD. Mjroots (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to LNER (disambiguation). Should clearly actually primary redirect to the much better known London and North Eastern Railway, also almost always known by this abbreviation. Note that it was moved to the current setup without discussion in 2018. However, I should point out that at the end of the day this should have been a WP:RM discussion, not an AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The original proposal was to turn a dab page into a redirect. That is not an RM matter. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:35, 5 March 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 Meaningful Broadband as an ATD. Should that article subsequently be deleted, this redirect would be deleted with it. Daniel (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Warren Smith[edit]

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

obviously auto biography, no significance •Cyberwolf•talk? 17:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. •Cyberwolf•talk? 17:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This looks like the right criteria should be either PROF or AUTHOR, but I'm not seeing notability through either. Citation counts for people with the same name (who may or may not be the same person) are not enough to convince for WP:PROF#C1, and I can find no reviews for anything listed as a "book" in the article (Digital Corporate Citizenship appears to be his dissertation, I can find no evidence that it was actually published as a book by IU Press, I can find no convincing evidence that The Second Wireless Revolution exists as a book at all, and while Getting Grants does appear to exist I can't find any reviews of it). —David Eppstein (talk) 18:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Incidentally, we do have an article Meaningful Broadband about some of his work. If it were notable we could consider a redirect to it, but I think it should probably be deleted as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Meaningful Broadband. I think there's a good argument to be made that Meaningful Broadband is the "body of work" we should be judging him on, which is to say that if it's notable, he is too (though I do think we should redirect this article to that one if so, given the volume of unsourced content). I suspect it is notable, since it's been deployed in at least two countries, but I agree that the references currently in that article don't show it. -- asilvering (talk) 18:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China, Thailand, California, Massachusetts, Washington, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Was hoping to find book reviews to satisfy AUHTOR, I can only find where to buy them. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find notability--VViking_TalkEdits 19:27, 5 March 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby (Paper Mario)[edit]

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

Far more notable characters within the Mario universe have had their pages deleted or merged into related lists than a side character from a spin-off title. The claim that he is "identified as both one of the best Nintendo characters of all time" also seems rather subjective? Definitely does not meet WP:GNG. TechnicalNewt (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not making a vote in this discussion right now, and don't know if I ever will. But for an article like this that has proper sourcing and isn't a blatant clusterfuck with several tagged issues, there should be some sort of source analysis as to demonstrate how the subject isn't notable. I can agree with you on "identified as both one of the best Nintendo characters of all time" being subjective, as it seems to be only verified by Game Rant (a claim like this is fine for the lead, though it would definitely need more than one source backing it up), but you should provide more in-depth explanation as to how the subject is not notable. λ NegativeMP1 17:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- As a correction, the claim is cited to GameSpot and Destructoid, not Game Rant. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've removed the mention of "greatest Nintendo characters" from the WP:LEAD, which I agree, is a bit too strong of a claim to make with the reception sections' current status. But that aside, that's simply a "clean up issue", and AFD is not clean up". And other Mario characters having or not having an article isn't relevant to the discussion. The main things to determine are if it meets the WP:GNG, and if there's any valid merge reasons. Sergecross73 msg me 17:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are several articles in reliable sources about this specific character, so GNG is met. Your subjective opinion about the character's importance compared to other Nintendo characters is not relevant. Also, it is considered polite to notify the creator of the article, so I went ahead and did that. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. AfD rationale appears to not extend beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per others. Certainly not the strongest article, but the nominator's rationale is invalid and the Reception itself has enough sources to stand on its feet. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Just because he a spin off character from the Mario franchise and far more notable characters in the series have their articles terminated or merged does not means the article also need to be deleted or merged and the article also have two or three sources mainly discuss about him so WP:NVGC. NatwonTSG2 (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. This is obvious, in my view. There is significant coverage, and it is part of a very, very important game/character franchise. Anwegmann (talk) 02:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I feel as others have stated this is a case of "I don't like it", and sour grapes over other articles the nominator likes that have been merged instead. That said Bobby I feel stands just enough on its own and has enough significant coverage spread over enough of a period of time to illustrate the character's weight. Disclosure, I became aware of this AfD due to a brief discussion mentioning it in the wikipedia discord by Panini who was asking another user for thoughts regarding a source cited here, and that did not affect my vote.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I do agree with the people above that the article sufficiently surpasses WP:GNG, specifically I would like to note that the Kotaku, CBR and GameStop articles more than meets the requirements. Comment: I will ask the question, does this article meet a B Class status? I personally see it fulfilling the C Class status but hey I am no expert on the class qualification so I'd rather have someone who is more familiar with it to judge that. Captain Galaxy 14:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not opposed to lowering it, but can you elaborate concerns? The plot summary is uncited, but the article is generally complete and, at least, competently written (not trying to gussy myself up). - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 14:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have done quite well with the article, so I don't think you are gushing it up at all. But in my opinion, I feel that the lead is too short and doesn't cover much in terms of the reception. There is also "citation needed" prompt in the appearances section. Adding on I feel that the concept section could be expanded upon but I can imagine that being a lack of sourcing issue which if that's the case doesn't need addressing as I haven't looked into Bobby sources myself. Like I said, I am no expert of the class rating system so if my objections are invalid feel free to ignore my comments. Hope you have a good day! Captain Galaxy 16:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article would not meet a B class status to me, personally. I'm not sure how useful it is to discuss at length in the deletion discussion but happy to talk elsewhere, such as on the talk page to identify what aspects could be improved. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/keep I recommend renaming this to Bob-omb, since both names appear in the coverage, and it would lead to natural disambiguation. But that doesn't need to be done in this AFD, and I am convinced that WP:SIGCOV is met. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shooterwalker: Bob-omb is the species name, which appears in a variety of games and would arguably be the primary topic despite being a redirect. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I contest a rename, since Bob-omb is the species name, not the name of the character. Even if Bob-omb is assumed to be the proper name, Bobby is the more frequently used one, and per WP:COMMONNAME, it works far better. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I brought it up because Bob-omb is also earning coverage alongside Bobby, and WP:NATDIS is sometimes more important than WP:COMMONNAME. But I support the keep either way. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue this is more related to Bobby than the Bob-omb species as a whole. Bob-omb would just cause an unnecessary disambiguation issue due to the species in question being already covered at the Mario character list. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm abstaining from the vote due to my unfamiliarity with how this process works, but I am extremely puzzled as to why the votes on this page are leaning towards keep, and yet Diddy Kong's article was recently removed. Could someone explain to me what makes Bobby notable enough for a Wikipedia page but not Diddy Kong? Thank you.

Jcharlesk (talk) 06:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am also confused about the consensus here given that recently many far more well-sourced articles for characters have been subject to lengthy deletion discussions, did not have such a consensus, and ended in a deletion. Not questioning the wisdom of users here, but what changed? This isn't in support of one side or another so is not a WP:WHATABOUT argument. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably that Bobby have at least few discussion I think? unlike other popular characters like Diddy Kong. Also, listicles doesn't contribute WP:GNG. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 08:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But almost all of the references used in this article are listicles. Jcharlesk (talk) 08:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Almost all"? Can you elaborate which sources are listicles? By my estimation, there are four "listicles" out of the nine sources. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 08:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are four; I was exaggerating. But I would also say that the first source also isn't specifically about Bobby, meaning that only 4/9 of the articles used are specifically about him. Four articles that talk about a specific moment/character in a game is very few, so there's little reason not to just make this whole article a segment in the Paper Mario: The Origami King article. Jcharlesk (talk) 08:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually more than enough to write a character article if possible, and more than Diddy ever saw. The key thing is that there's tangible discussion that can be taken from these to illustrate why the character was important outside of its parent work, in this case as a fictional character and in some of these in the wider context of Nintendo games. "Listicles" is often a misunderstood term, as just because something is a list doesn't mean it shouldn't be used: the key is finding a list entry that discusses something in detail, or helps support another argument enough that you can work with it. Now to go further with your point above, the problem for many with Diddy and similar Smash Bros. characters was the reception discussed them solely as a video game character in that series, and they weren't discussed in importance outside of it. Trust me when I say even stuff like DeDeDe we actively tried to find sources discussing him as a fictional character, but it wasn't there in sources we can cite per wikipedia's standards. Now they may manifest later on of course, but for now...it's just not there for them, but it is for Bobby.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that actually reveals a bit of a problem with the way Wikipedia determines subject notability. The fact that a supporting character from a single relatively niche game in a much larger franchise can earn a Wikipedia article but fan favourite main characters in the same franchise don't just doesn't make sense. The former character is worth documenting in history, but not the latter? In my opinion this is the problem with taking written rules too literally and following them too closely. Notability should also be determined by overall popularity and public knowledge, and not just by whether or not some select sources talked about that subject. It's impossible to scientifically measure something like that, but some subjectivity may be necessary in certain circumstances.

It's easy to ignore all of what I just said and just continue going by the book, but just think about it for a second: With the way the rules are currently written out, Bobby from Paper Mario: The Origami King and Rabbid Peach from Mario + Rabbids are deemed notable enough for a Wikipedia article, while Diddy Kong and King Dedede are not. Does that not expose a problem? Jcharlesk (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is this: how do you determine popularity? It's impossible to do so without it being subjective. Some may find Diddy popular while others may not. It's physically impossible to gauge without sourcing from outside sources, and those sources don't really exist outside of acknowledgement of existence. (Which practically everyone has) That's why we have the system we do. It's flawed in places, unfortunately, but it works out in most cases. Nearly every iconic character from Mario has an article, (Mario, Luigi, Bowser, Peach, etc) and it's really only a few exceptions who don't. If this was commonplace, it'd be more concerning, but characters like Diddy and Dedede are exceptions, not the norm. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Whilst I had to spoil myself on the game to check the sources (though I didn't really plan to play it in the near future), I was just so curious to see what made him notable. However, now I can see there's just enough to get the character past GNG for good reason. Ultimately it's not about the character's popularity but their critical discussion and he got a decent amount of it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:SNOW. I don't have much else to add to what everyone else has said. But I do want to ask, what Mario characters without articles do you find "far more notable" than Bobby? Also, keep in mind just because certain characters have been redirected, doesn't mean they can't be brought back later on, should more significant coverage be found. MoonJet (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the initiator but I'd say at the very least Bowser Jr., Diddy Kong, and Boo. Jcharlesk (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, Diddy Kong and Boo are not. Bowser Jr. has a potential thou. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 23:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Diddy Kong: Main character in Donkey Kong franchise, recurring character in Mario franchise, two games named after him, playable in Smash Bros.

Boo: Recurring and iconic species that appears in almost every game in Mario franchise

Bobby: Supporting character in a single spin-off game in Mario franchise

You really think Bobby is the most notable of these three? And Bowser Jr., the secondary antagonist of the franchise, only has 'potential' to be more notable? I'm sorry, this is getting ridiculous. Jcharlesk (talk) 01:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to leave a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games if you still don't understand about notability or WP:GNG. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 02:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand it, I just think it has inherent flaws. As I said earlier, I think this shows the pitfalls with following written rules too closely. One thing may follow the rules while another thing does not, but that should not be the be all end all. There's more to notability than the strict guidelines that are laid out. Jcharlesk (talk) 03:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're not just taking something open to interpretation here, there's literally nothing in reliable sources about the Boo species that's significant coverage. The Boo (character) article was solely minor mentions in listicles. It's not up to Wikipedia editors to say something is "obviously popular" when coverage is not there. If it was popular, people would have written more about it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly what I'm referring to when talking about the pitfalls of following written rules too closely. Like I said, there's way more to notability than whether a certain number of designated sources wrote about a subject or not. Just read my message above where I compare Bobby's role with that of several characters who don't have articles, and I think that puts things into perspective. But Diddy Kong and Bowser Jr's importance apparently doesn't exist simply because you all are following these (ultimately arbitrary) rules too closely and by the book. Some subjectivity is needed for this sort of thing. Notability is not a science. Jcharlesk (talk) 08:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do keep in mind, these characters have lengthy sections on their series' respective character list article, which not many other characters can say (Bowser Jr may not fit this example but perhaps it could be worked on). I don't even think it's in the sense that these characters aren't notable otherwise they wouldn't even have entries in character lists or even in game articles, it's more the fact that when it comes to the reception, which are the beating heart of a dedicated character article, they aren't many documented mentions about the impact these characters have on the people who play their game. Of course, there going to be plenty of sources that mention these characters and their appearances and creation, but they need that reception, which unfortunately characters such as Bowser Jr or Diddy Kong don't have much to show (at least not right now, perhaps in the future). Hope this helps; Captain Galaxy 13:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But that's the thing. Why does all of that have to be the beating heart of a dedicated character article? Why do they need that reception? Those rules are ultimately completely arbitrary, so why should that be the be all end all? There should be a wider variety of criteria. Jcharlesk (talk) 04:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A reception section outlines why a character is notable outside of the games the character is involved with, as well as what impact said character has had within gaming communities. We need these rules because otherwise we'd have a worse version of what you were initially debating on, character articles for obscure characters but unlike Bobby or Rabbid Peach, don't even have the sources that indicate impact and notability to back the character up. What you're asking for would not only not be worth it in the long run for both time and effort, but also would also likely do more harm than good. These rules are put in place for a reason. Captain Galaxy 21:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See, here's the thing - I'd argue that all Pokemon are notable, but they are not independently notable of the series. Bowser Jr., Diddy Kong, K. Rool, King Dedede, Meta Knight, Boo, these are all notable characters - enough to be mentioned in their respective lists, but not enough to get individual articles. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like I've already said, the requirement that individual articles must be written about a subject for it to get an article is a completely arbitrary rule; there should be a wider variety of criteria for a subject to be deemed notable enough for its own article. There is so much more to notability than just "how many articles from our designated sources have talked about this?" Jcharlesk (talk) 04:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you don't seem to understand is it's not "how many", it's the degree of discussion that can originate for such characters, something to illustrate why they mattered. You look at it as "I'm not getting my favorite" when the problem is more "nobody in reliable sources is talking about my favorite as an actual character".--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're just going to set yourself up for disappointment if your objection is that the general notability guideline should not work the way it does. There's nothing arbitrary about it, it's set up this way because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Thus, they needed to come up with a standard for what a subject must hit in order to be considered notable enough to have an article. When you gripe about it being arbitrary, what you're griping about is not that there is no reason for why it's this way, you're griping that it is this way. You can maybe propose that WP:GNG be changed, but that will be a lot of effort, with not much of a taste for the change to be made. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 06:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will also mention that sourcing is needed to verify notability in a lot of cases. These characters may or may not be notable, but if no sources exist discussing that fact, we can't verify that they are. Either way, I echo Cukie's statement above. The GNG exists for a reason, and any attempt to fundamentally change it is not AfD's job. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:26, 4 March 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 Scott Speicher. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Spiker[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL. Contested WP:BLAR.(NPP action) Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Wisconsin. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note There is active disruption going on where the article is being redirected to Scott Speicher, which is not a plausible redirect to the subject of that article. With that said, ~~delete~~, as subject is not a real known politician in Milwaukee politics as-is. Nate • (chatter) 17:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was a redirect to Scott Speicher since 2006 before being repurposed to the current page a few days ago. It's a plausible redirect because Speicher is pronounced Spiker so someone only hearing the name may guess at that spelling. Central and Adams (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the clarification on the page history, did not see that. I would support restoring the redirect in this case. Nate • (chatter) 19:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one that created the page, I agree with the deletion or restoration of redirect and I would like to apologize that i was edit warring, I'm new to this and this was the first page I made and wanted to keep it as a trophy, again i agree in the deletion of this page, Good day. WTBgaming (talk) 14:38, 28 February 2024 (CST)
Restore redirect, but no prejudice against recreation if someone can write something more substantial and better-sourced. Milwaukee is a large and important enough city that its city councillors potentially could have sufficient media coverage to meet NPOL #2 — but an article about a city councillor still has to be more substantive and better sourced than this before it can actually be kept. At the local level, city councillors aren't all "inherently" notable just because they exist, and need to have content about their political impact — specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects their time in office had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. I don't know nearly enough about Milwaukee's local politics to know whether that's possible here or not, so I'm willing to reconsider if somebody can expand the article, but this isn't sufficient as written. Bearcat (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect -- I wanted to save this article but sadly there are literally no sources and city councilmembers don't satisfy WP:NPOL automatically. Central and Adams (talk) 19:18, 2 March 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. Owen× ☎ 22:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Lamas[edit]

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

Fails WP:JOURNALIST, WP:NMUSICIAN, and WP:NAUTHOR. Does not appear to pass any notability guidelines. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Bands and musicians, Journalism, and Texas. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Literally no secondary sources. Central and Adams (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Likely promotional, given the username of the editor who created the article. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that too. Could they be any more obvious?Central and Adams (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails notability as a journalist, I can barely even find articles he's written. not passing AUTHOR either, no book reviews found. Oaktree b (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that there seems to be no results ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 23:12, 1 March 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of violinist/composers[edit]

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

We have considerable redundancy in our lists of musicians. e.g. "list of [gender] [nationality] [instrument] [genre]" or "list of [subgenre] [genre] bands from [country]". Often I don't know where to draw the line and err on the side of ignoring them. In this case, "violinist/composer" doesn't appear to be a notable cross-categorization. We have lists of violinists and lists of composers. We don't need combinations of instruments/musical activities (primarily WP:SALAT but also WP:NLIST). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Lists of people. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is tangential, but I find "composer" categorization frustrating. Every jazz musician notable enough to have an article has composed at least one original tune, which makes deciding how to apply Category:Jazz composers difficult. Mach61 (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is overcategorization, specfically WP:ARBITRARYCAT. We don't really need a list about composers who are also violinists/violinists who are also composers, especially when the list says that certain musicians who were/are both are excluded from the list. Jaguarnik (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SALAT and WP:ARBITRARYCAT. The article's rationale for including or not including people is unconvincing, and I agree with the nominator's reasoning. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 03:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure. Strictly speaking as a reader I would see some value in a list of persons famous as violinists who also wrote notable compositions. I see much less value in a list of famous composers who also happened to play the violin (though maybe not at a professional level). So, perhaps keep but clean up? Tea2min (talk) 07:49, 1 March 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 14:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Murray[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Lynn Murray

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

The actress in question has been in touch asking for her profile to be deleted under article 17 of the UK GDPR law (Right to be forgotten). As the creator of this page, I used the db-author method but was informed this was not possible. If this new method is not correct, please can an editor reassign to a different deletion process. TheDeadRat (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, as a US company I don't think the UK's law apply to Wikipedia as the servers are in the US. Might want to loop wiki legal into this. Oaktree b (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Oaktree b (talk · contribs), How would I go about brining in Wiki Legal into the debate? TheDeadRat (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I'd have to dig around a bit to be honest. Let me see. Oaktree b (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I asked about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#UK_GDPR_issue_came_up_in_AfD,_unsure_where_to_head_next Oaktree b (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Notability here is marginal and article creator states that the subject has requested deletion. Jfire (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, per policy if she wants out, that's fine, we should Delete. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Courtesy BLP delete - this individual has very few credits, anyway, — Maile (talk) 21:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A. B. (talk • contribs)
Delete expressly not on BLPREQUESTDELETE grounds, but rather because she fails NACTOR. I'm sceptical the films she's appeared in are notable – they heavily rely on unreliable or non-independent sources. Incidentally, the articles on these films have mostly been created by the nominator as well. I'd say this warrants a broader audit of their work for sourcing issues. – Teratix ₵ 04:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This was the best source I found on Murray (Glasgow Evening Times on PressReader), not enough to pass GNG. – Teratix ₵ 04:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 00:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. I can't see any reason not to grant the request, even if it was denied (looking unlikely at this point) it looks highly doubtful it would meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG anyway. Shaws username . talk . 02:46, 2 March 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 14:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025 in Spanish television[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON article about the future. The only thing currently listed here right now is the presumed debut of a television series whose actual premiere date is listed as "TBA" — but stuff can change as production of a television series unfolds, such that it's ready to air earlier than originally predicted, or later than originally predicted, or even never, so just because a television series has been announced as entering production for a predicted premiere in 2025 isn't definitive in and of itself. But no definite premiere date has been confirmed at all here yet, so it remains entirely possible that it could really debut in late 2024, or not until 2026, and thus it's a WP:CRYSTAL violation to already carve it in stone as a 2025 event now.
As always, pages like this do not need to exist this far in advance of adequate content for them -- absolutely no other country (not even the United States) already has its "2025 in [Country] television" in place yet as of today, and the presumed but unconfirmed premiere date of one series is not sufficient to earn Spain special treatment over and above other countries. So no prejudice against recreation in the fall of 2024 when we start seeing confirmed premiere dates of several Spanish television series, but this isn't already necessary in February 2024 for just one TBA. Bearcat (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Spain. Bearcat (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious delete. Quite obviously too soon, the nomination rationale sums it all up wonderfully. --Ouro (blah blah) 16:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON for sure, and one vague premiere should not be rationale to create this article, especially for a service known to announce, make, then never air projects based on one reality and tax credit-obsessed CEO's whim. Nate • (chatter) 17:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia users sometimes have a tendency to want to be the first to create something, often too long in advance such as in this case. Geschichte (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – TOOSOON, one entry is not enough. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 08:35, 4 March 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 Pauline Smith (artist). A redirect to the artist seems to be the outcome the most participants here seem comfortable with. Owen× ☎ 19:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Hitler Fan Club[edit]

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

The subject fails GNG. (The club isn't real, insofar as the club has only one member and she died. There is only a tin cup for donations and that's not notable. The cup isn't even on display, so far as I can tell.) The citations provided are mere mentions. Efforts to redirect this have failed. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be very little here that isn't already in Pauline Smith (artist). Could what little extra there is here be merged to that article? Oliver Phile (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oliver Phile: That was my goal but BabiesCon has reverted that. This AfD will determine community consensus. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Visual arts, and Politics. Netherzone (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into Pauline Smith (artist) — Czello ^(music) 20:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Might be just enough to keep this, [5] and [6]. Likely more in paper sources. I'll keep looking. Oaktree b (talk) 21:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[7], although a redirect to the artist seems ok too. Oaktree b (talk) 21:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge any useful content to the page of the so-called "artist" AusLondonder (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable art work. No need for merge since the Pauline Smith (artist) article already has a section on this. No need for the redirect either. Fails WP:GNG. Netherzone (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SportingFlyer T·C 16:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge per above. nf utvol (talk) 19:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Pauline Smith, where this is already mentioned at length. As a totally unjustified SPINOFF or FORK! Nothing else is needed at the target so objecting to a merge. Delete is the common position here and works. It can then still be redirected. gidonb (talk)
Keep - Art history is incredibly fringe so of that basis only 10 works or so would scrape up enough notability. That said; this artwork may well be one of the ten. BabiesCon (talk) 14:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge might be ok too. If so; for compatibility, I propose molding revision [8] into parent article. BabiesCon (talk) 13:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Pauline Smith (artist). Insufficient sources for a standaline encyclopedia article. Elspea756 (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others. Fails the GNG test. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For years, this page existed as a Redirect. Could it return to that state? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, the reason why I said that a redirect is not necessary is that no one ever reads the article until the AfD was opened. Here are the page views going back about ten years: [9]. Not sure if that is a valid rationale, but it was what informed my comment. Netherzone (talk) 00:02, 5 March 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 14:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indigo Moss[edit]

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

I don't believe the couple of minor reviews meet the standards set at WP:NBAND. --wooden superman 13:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --wooden superman 13:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I deprodded because in two minutes on Google found the following newspaper reviews:
- Coventry Telegraph
- The Guardian
The duo the band became, Trevor Moss and Hannah-Lou (sometimes referenced in the opposite order), actually seems more notable. It would make sense to make the article primarily about them with Indigo Moss background:
I have not looked any further. Thryduulf (talk) 13:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still not convinced this is WP:SIGCOV. --wooden superman 16:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Even the first two found by @Thryduulf are great refs, and in the Guardian at that? Nice how bringing an article to AfD encourages people to look for references. --Ouro (blah blah) 17:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced, that Guardian review is pretty minor coverage really. --wooden superman 11:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 19:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the reliable sources coverage identified above as well as coverage in The Times and Sunday Times (exercising WP:AGF) as they are deadlinked in the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per demonstrated significant coverage in national newspapers. --Michig (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that there is coverage ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 23:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand, significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources per WP:BAND. Wikishovel (talk) 09:34, 4 March 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 14:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neeraj Gupta[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Only passing mentions in reliable sources. WP:SIGCOV is not established and does not pass WP:NACTOR by my research. TarnishedPath^talk 11:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. TarnishedPath^talk 11:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, please note this is a different subject matter than previous nominations as consequence of a recent page move. TarnishedPath^talk 11:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Delhi and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, the subject does not meet WP:NACTOR. And lacks WP:SIGCOV. Macbeejack ☎ 08:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would have seriously considered to Draftify this page so that the creator could add on more reliable sources but a simple search myself could not find much on the subject. Neeraj Gupta is an actor who acted in his first film Jaggu Ki Lalten but this is his only known work. The reliable sources on the page are about the film and shows him as one of the cast. Unreliable source neerajkgupta.com is his own personal website. He is not notable enough to have any significant coverage in media publications or to warrant a page on himself. RangersRus (talk) 20:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails the relevant notability policies required. UtherSRG (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per RangerRus, I'd also tried for draftify, but almost no sources with SIGCOV and no GNG. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:20, 6 March 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!} 09:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Code For Change[edit]

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

Unreliable sources to meet WP:ORG. Basically an advertisement for the event. nirmal (talk) 11:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Nepal. nirmal (talk) 11:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, i did some googling and found nothing even related,curretly checking history to check if it could be G11'd begocc ^questions? 14:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
History is also an advert. begocc ^questions? 14:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. nirmal (talk) 01:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 02:07, 5 March 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!} 09:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Halkidis[edit]

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

While it seems that she is a journalist with some experience, and she now works at Parents.com, there is no enough information to satisfy the requirements for a standalone article. I couldn't find enough secondary resources WP:SIGCOV. The alumni newsletter of her university doesn't justify as reliable source, "independent of the subject". Probably, if there is any kind of reliable information, that can redirected into Parents.com. Chiserc (talk) 09:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Journalism, United States of America, and New York. Chiserc (talk) 09:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, i couldnt find anything even close to meeting general notability. begocc ^questions? 10:37, 28 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 Incubus (band). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Kilmore[edit]

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

Fails notability per WP:BANDMEMBER. I would suggest a Redirect to Incubus (band). I would have done it myself, but given the already open AfD for another band member, I prefer to gather consensus. Broc (talk) 08:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. Broc (talk) 08:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can see a couple of interviews published,[10][11] but interviews don't add to notability. The Los Angeles Times reported in 2016 that he was selling his house in Topanga.[12] (It's not much but at least it is outside of the context of the band Incubus.) The best source I found was this biographical piece in the Las Vegas Review-Journal in 2016. Weak keep. Binksternet (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is one single biographical piece sufficient to determine notability? Broc (talk) 15:23, 26 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!} 08:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to his band. Lacks independent notability. Most of the above is about XX from Incubus. A interview for a local gig and house sale piece is not that much. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per reasons above, not independently notable apart from actions in the band. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 15:46, 28 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. I see a consensus to Keep this article, especially after work was done on the article since its nomination. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Association for the Study of Dreams[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ORGCRITE. I am unable to find significant independent coverage in RS; a total lack of results on Google Scholar is particularly concerning for an academic organization. On Google Books there's some results, but they all appear to be from people affiliated with the organization, e.g. [13]. Interestingly, one of the most prominent authors in the search results is one Clare Johnson ([14]), who is not mentioned in the Wikipedia article but whose Google Books author bio mentions leadership of this organization. Absent clearly reliable sources, and noting the classification of these books as "self-help" texts, I'm a bit concerned that we may be laundering a fringe organization, and/or that there may be more than one organization by this name, one more reputable than the other (but neither of them notable). Dreaming (journal) could be a potential WP:ATD target, but the prior concerns of reputation laundering give me pause. Both this article and Dreaming (journal) cite this website to claim that the peer-reviewed Heidelberg University publication IJoDR is published by IASD, but the actual website makes no claim to affiliation with IASD, and its Editorial Team masthead makes no mention of any figures listed at this article. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Psychiatry, Psychology, and California. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The IASD is legit (eg see governance and notable members), and is notable in the real world, but (as is obvious) there's a lack of reliable sources to establish notability at Wikipedia. Have listed it at the article rescue squadron. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 19:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The association is certainly not fringe, nor is their journal, Dreaming. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 20:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL ("IASD") may be helpful. Google books search, too.

Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 15:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editors, the page does indeed not show sufficiently the academic and scholarly nature of the International Association for the Study of Dreams, so thank you for spotting this. It is indeed incredibly thin. First clear matter is that the IASD publishes with the American Psychological Association the academic journal Dreaming, this should be stated at the top instead of the section on the International Journal of Dream Research. Dreaming has a current impact factor of 1.8, which is a high impact factor for psychology, meaning that each article is cited by 1.8 articles in the 2 years after publication. The journal is also 95th out of 147 multidisciplinary journals, which is very creditable: https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/drm/. Being published by APA is very prestigious, for example APA publish many of the world's top psychology journals, such as Journal of Experimental Psychology. (The International Journal of Dream Research is relevant as it publishes the abstracts of the IASD annual conference each year, but this journal is published by Heidelberg University and not IASD, so the journal Dreaming should be more prominent on the page.) The list of researchers in the Governance and notable members sections is also very sparse, given there has been a new president every year since 1983. Professor Ernest Hartmann of Tufts University was a past-president and very eminent author and psychiatrist, he is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Hartmann, also a president was Stanley Krippner, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Krippner, and founding member Stephen LaBerge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_LaBerge. Booklist of founding members and past-presidents is here: https://www.asdreams.org/booklist-presidents/. There is also a lack of publications mentioned on the wikipedia page, some of the presidents' publications could be added there. All credit to the editors for this having been spotted, the page gives a poor impression of the world's most important dream research association. I can make suggestions for improving it and for showing the notable nature of the association. (And to disclose, I was IASD President 2001-2. There are many professors in the list of presidents, such as Katja Valli, professor in Sweden and president 2013-15, and Michelle Carr, president 2021-23 and associate professor director of the world's leading nightmare sleep lab in University of Montreal, and David Kahn, of Harvard Medical School and president 2007-08.

Thank you, DreamerMTB 86.129.93.134 (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What would be most convincing would be examples of news articles, peer-reviewed journal articles, or books by academic publishers, that describe the IASD, its impact, structure, history, etc. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed, point taken. There are a large number of academics who are IASD members, in disciplines from film studies to anthropology to psychology to neuroscience. There are also many psychotherapists and psychoanalysts. I will ask them for such citations, as well as providing some myself. For example, Blagrove, M. & Lockheart, J. (2023) The Science and Art of Dreaming, Routledge, page xiii, 'This research was encouraged by discussions with the eclectic mixture of disciplines and people at the conferences of the International Association for the Study of Dreams, which also publishes the academic journal Dreaming.'

Thank you.

DreamerMTB

86.129.93.134 (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Please see the Golden Rule. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 09:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait and see?: Could we now reconsider this AfD and instead template the article for reference improvement? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 17:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editors, Here are three science publications of studies that acknowledge funding by IASD. I will send more after these three. 1. Article in the journal Sleep, which is the highest ranked sleep science journal: Carr M, Nielsen T. Morning REM sleep naps facilitate broad access to emotional semantic networks. SLEEP 2015;38(3):433–443. https://academic.oup.com/sleep/article/38/3/433/2416949 acknowledgement is in pdf version and here

2. Carr, M., Blanchette-Carrière, C., Solomonova, E., Paquette, T., & Nielsen, T. (2016). Intensified daydreams and nap dreams in frequent nightmare sufferers. Dreaming, 26(2), 119–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/drm0000024 article acknowledges IASD but is behind paywall. Copy on Researchgate is here: http://www.dreamscience.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Carr-et-al-2016-Intensified-Daydreams-and-Dreams-in-Nightmare-Sufferers.pdf

3. Carr, M., Blanchette-Carrière, C., Marquis, L-P., Ting, C.T., & Nielsen, T. (2016). Nightmare sufferers show atypical emotional semantic associations and prolonged REM sleep-dependent emotional priming. Sleep Medicine, 20, 80-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sleep.2015.11.013. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S138994571502064X?via%3Dihub

Thank you, DreamerMTB 2A00:23C7:7AA9:7700:8937:49DF:3401:DF5F (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editors, Here are three further science publications of studies that acknowledge funding by IASD. 4. Schädlich, M., Erlacher, D. & Schredl, M. (2017) Improvement of darts performance following lucid dream practice depends on the number of distractions while rehearsing within the dream – a sleep laboratory pilot study. Journal of Sports Sciences, 35, 2365-2372. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02640414.2016.1267387 5. Sparrow, G., Hurd, R., Carlson, R., Molina, A. (2018). Exploring the effects of galantamine paired with meditation and dream reliving on recalled dreams: Toward an integrated protocol for lucid dream induction and nightmare resolution. Consciousness and Cognition, 63, 74-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2018.05.012. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1053810017306244?via%3Dihub 6. Eranimos, B., & Funkhouser, A. (2023). An exploratory study of the Eastern understanding of déjà rêvé (already dreamed) experiences in Kerala-Indian culture. Dreaming, 33, 153–163. https://doi.org/10.1037/drm0000230 http://www.dreamscience.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Eranimos-Funkhouser.pdf Thank you, DreamerMTB 86.129.93.134 (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editors, [I suggest here further text that acknowledges the importance of IASD for the science of dreaming.] As a result of an event at the 2008 conference of the International Association for the Study of Dreams, Mark Blagrove changed his research from quantitative and statistical investigations of groups of dreams to the investigation of insights that occur when single dreams are considered by the dreamer (Blagrove & Lockheart, 2023, pp.119-120). The single dream that elicited this change in research focus is reported in The Psychologist, professional magazine of the British Psychological Society (Blagrove, 2009). This change in research focus led to studies by Blagrove with other IASD members on the insight and empathy effects of group discussions of single dreams (Blagrove et al., 2019; Edwards et al., 2013, 2015). Blagrove, M. (2009). Dreaming—Motivated or meaningless? The Psychologist, 22(8), 680–683. https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/dreaming-motivated-or-meaningless Blagrove, M. & Lockheart, J. (2023). The Science and Art of Dreaming. New York & Abingdon, Oxon.: Routledge. Blagrove, M., Hale, S., Lockheart, J., Carr, M., Jones, A., & Valli, K. (2019). Testing the empathy theory of dreaming: The relationships between dream sharing and trait and state empathy. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1351. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01351. Edwards, C.L., Malinowski, J.E., McGee, S.L., Bennett, P.D., Ruby, P.M., & Blagrove, M.T. (2015). Comparing personal insight gains due to consideration of a recent dream and consideration of a recent event using the Ullman and Schredl dream group methods. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 831. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00831. Edwards CL, Ruby PM, Malinowski JE, Bennett PD, Blagrove MT. (2013). Dreaming and insight. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 979. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00979.

DreamerMTB 86.129.93.134 (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above appear to actually contain independent coverage of the IASD. It also seems somewhat tendentious to suggest that the linked Blagrove paper conveys anything regarding the relevance of the IASD, as the extent of its coverage is as follows: At the risk of self-indulgence, I relate the following dream, from the morning of 12 July 2008, the last day of the 25th Conference of the International Association for the Study of Dreams, in Montreal. It illustrates the use of free-association, and the sudden realisations that can occur during this process. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Significant independent coverage of this organization is lacking, including the above that was added to this discussion. Fails WP:ORGCRITE and GNG. As stated above, books are written by affiliated authors. Notability is not inherited from persons affiliated with an organization nor from publications or academic journals produced by the organization - please see WP:INHERITORG and WP:NOTINHERITED. Hence, none of the above posted material indicates notability for this organization. Also, no organization has notability simply because it exists and has received kudos through the grapevine - please see WP:ORGSIG. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I believe that references 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12 (Kramer, Gervasi, Love, Bogzaran, Stuever, Henig, and Auchincloss) now meet the Golden Rule. The original name Association for the Study of Dreams (ASD) yielded three lengthy pieces from The Washington Post. Still looking. @Steve Quinn:

Please consider your own "top three" from these references before !voting to delete.

For your convenience, here are the three verified Washington Post citations:

Gervasi, Susan (5 January 1994). "Travelling in A Dream World". The Washington Post. Washington. Retrieved 16 February 2024.
Henig, Robin Marantz (8 June 1987). "Interpeting Dreams". The Washington Post. Washington. Retrieved 16 February 2024.
Stuever, Hank (6 July 2000). "The Dream Catchers". The Washington Post. Washington. Retrieved 16 February 2024.

Will wade through this in-text Internet Archive search suggested by GreenC at the article rescue squadron page this evening: search results (for "Association for the Study of Dreams" in the text). I expect that most of the 1,159 results will be trivial mentions or links to the association's viral ethics code.

Bogzaran, Fariba (1 June 2012). Integral Dreaming : A Holistic Approach to Dreams. SUNY Press. pp. 161–162. ISBN 978-1438442372. looks good, too.

Thanks. That's my best shot, @Rosguill: Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 13:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editors, 1. I have entered the journal title Dreaming into Scopus, the major journal database, https://www.scopus.com/sources.uri, this gives a current citation score of 2.8 (i.e., on average each article is cited 2.8 times in the two years after publication in the journal), and the journal is ranked 102nd out of 209 general psychology journals. Coupled with the journal's publisher being the American Psychological Association, this is external evidence for the scientific and research quality of the journal and the Association that owns and publishes the journal. The journal's office is at Harvard Medical School. 2. I have followed the advice on magazine blogs here: 'Some newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online columns they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.' In this Psychology Today blog IASD is described as 'the professional society for dream scholars/scientists' by Patrick McNamara, who has never held office in IASD. He has spent most of his career at the Boston VA and Boston University School of Medicine in the Neurology departments. He currently is Professor of Psychology at Northcentral University. https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/dream-catcher/201706/some-resources-people-interested-in-sleep-and-dreams 3 The list of experiment grants jointly awarded by IASD and the Dream Science Foundation to sleep labs and psychology departments worldwide in 2023 and since the first awards in 2006 is here: http://www.dreamscience.org/grant-awards-published-studies/. Many of these awards have resulted in peer reviewed journal papers, I listed six of these above. Regards, DreamerMTB 86.129.93.134 (talk) 09:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think the opponents of this deletion have proven their case for GNG. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editors, I suggest the following addition to the IASD page. Lucid dream researcher Stephen LaBerge, PhD, was one of the founders of IASD in 1983. He is listed as a founder on the IASD website in this alphabetical list of IASD Presidents and Founders, https://www.asdreams.org/booklist-presidents/, and in this announcement of his keynote address at the very prestigious neuroscience Donders Institute, in the Netherlands, his bio lists him as a co-founder of IASD https://dreslerlab.org/laberge/ . His page in Wikipedia is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_LaBerge. Regards, DreamerMTB 86.129.93.134 (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, DreamerMTB. Since that doesn't add to the notability of the subject (the IASD), if you don't mind, I'll copy that request across to the IASD's talk page, and I'll see what I can do to incorporate it into the article. Sorry, I'm engrossed in the last quarter of a book at the moment. Thanks again, and regards, Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 17:50, 17 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) 23:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blogpost by Professor Patrick McNamara in Psychology Today on the International Association for the Study of Dreams. Professor McNamara has spent most of his career at the Boston VA and Boston University School of Medicine in the Neurology departments, and has been the recipient of grant awards from the National Institutes of Health to study sleep and dreams. He is currently Professor of Psychology at Northcentral University and has not held office in IASD. https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/dream-catcher/201202/the-international-association-the-study-dreams

DreamerMTB 86.129.93.134 (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yes that's another and we have that covered. I'm hoping that someone will be able to assess the citations listed above under "Update", to establish whether or not the article now passes WP:GNG. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 17:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three quotations downloaded from archive.org 21st February 2024, https://archive.org/search?query=%22Association+for+the+Study+of+Dreams%22+&sin=TXT Bulkeley, K. (2017). An introduction to the psychology of dreaming. ABC-CLIO Page 115 The early years of the 21st century have brought many new opportunities for spreading information about the psychology of dreaming to a broad public audience. The primary driver of these opportunities has been the emergence of the worldwide web, which has radically transformed the way we communicate, teach, work, play, and interact. Virtually every researcher, sleep laboratory, and dream-related organization has a website providing access to a wealth of materials, enabling people from any place with an internet connection to learn about current findings in dream psychology. For example, the International Association for the Study of Dreams (IASD) sponsors online conferences, organizes collaborative research projects, and offers many ways for people to connect digitally with academics, clinicians, artists, etc. all over the world (www.asdreams.org). Many other groups in dream research and education link to each other through the IASD, creating an extensive network of therapists and practitioners from a wide variety of backgrounds.

Hunt, H. T. (1989). The multiplicity of dreams: Memory, imagination, and consciousness. Yale University Press. Page 4 Meanwhile, on an organizational level, the Sleep Research Society (srs) and its small cluster of researchers focusing on physiological, neurocognitive, and content analysis approaches to dreams have been supplemented by a more eclectic organization, the Association for the Study of Dreams (asp). Within ASD, a diverse group of Freudian, Jungian, existential, and other psychologists interested primarily in dream interpretation and “dreamwork” has banded together with others attempting to relate dreams to altered states of consciousness and transpersonal psychology, and a small number of srs experimenters.

Miller, J. (2017). Dream patterns: revealing the hidden patterns of our waking lives. Scotland : Findhorn Press. Page 154 The IASD is a scholarly association for the study of dreams, including dream interpretation, dreams in culture, creativity and dreams, the physiology of dreaming, and lucid dreaming. They publish two magazines and a newsletter, hold conferences (both traditional and online), and provide classes on dream work. Their website has many useful resources, including bibliographies, videos, podcasts, recordings from past conferences, and even images from dream art exhibitions.

DreamerMTB 86.129.93.134 (talk) 23:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll copy these across to the article's talk page, and have a look at them later. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 08:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have declined the first reference (author not independent, and not really that significant coverage). Have added the second and third references (with quotations: we can worry about wording and copyediting after this AfD). See article talk page section, and thanks again. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 11:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, try these archives of the pay-walled sources above: [15][16][17] Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for archiving these. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 08:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editors, Major art exhibition book published by Cornell University Press stating exhibition and book were endorsed by several scholarly societies, including the Association for the Study of Dreams.

Dreams 1900-2000: science, art and the unconscious Mind. Edited by Lynn Gamwell. Cornell University Press, 1999. Book of exhibition held in New York, Vienna and Paris (1999-2001).

Page n5 “The exhibition and book are sponsored by the Lucy Daniels Foundation, and have the endorsement of the American Psychoanalytic Association, American Psychiatric Association, Division 39 for Psychoanalysis of the American Psychological Association, American Psychological Association, Association for the Study of Dreams, International Psychoanalytical Association, and the World Psychiatric Association.”

Retrieved 25th February 2024 from https://archive.org/details/dreams19002000sc00unse/page/n5/mode/2up?q=%22Association+for+the+Study+of+Dreams%22

DreamerMTB 81.154.219.215 (talk) 18:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editors, The International Association for the Study of Dreams (1997) IASD Dreamwork Ethics Statement is cited as used in a 2014 paper on dream-sharing in the Journal of Tropical Psychology, published by Cambridge University Press. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-tropical-psychology/article/abs/dream-sharing-as-a-healing-method-tropical-roots-and-contemporary-community-potential/AB4122B8F8646BB8E184675C777F14A0 [apologies I can't access the full paper, link here goes to abstract and full reference list, latter includes IASD as author.] DreamerMTB 81.154.219.215 (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll look into these. Have copied these suggestions across to the article talk page. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 20:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Substantial analysis of the proposed source material would be quite helpful. Further walls of text would not be.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Probably the first and third Washington Post articles given a few comments above are about the organization or a conference they've put on. Rest is confirmation that they exist and provide funding for research. I think it's ok for notability now. Oaktree b (talk) 13:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the sources founded by Esowteric provide enough coverage to prove notability. Rublamb (talk) 22:17, 28 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!} 23:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grendel R31[edit]

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

Pretty much all results for a search are brief hobbyist forums, and a couple entries in lists of auotomatic rifles. Appears to be mentioned in The Gun Digest Book of Guns for Personal Defense, but I can't access that. My guess is that even that mention is a brief aside, but even granting it substantive coverage that's only one source. Rusalkii (talk) 08:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Rusalkii (talk) 08:08, 21 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!} 07:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can't seem to find any secondary, reliable sources. Doesn't meet WP:NPRODUCT. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 19:26, 28 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!} 22:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anna McNulty[edit]

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

Just a You Tuber with no significant performance as a contortionist Robynthehode (talk) 07:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Health and fitness, Internet, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG by having coverage in multiple RS over a span of at least 4 years (CBC 2019 being the oldest that's actually about her content creation). Also the claim of "just a YouTuber" doesn't particularly make sense as being a YouTuber is the primary thing she is notable for, see especially being YouTube's top Canadian creator of 2023). I would say it's more accurate to say she's a contortionist with significant performance as a YouTuber. Samsmachado (talk) 14:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't count youtube views as notable. That article just mentions her name in a list of people and isn't strictly about her. Oaktree b (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete.: Being on youtube is fine, but we need SIGCOV. The one CBC article is about her, the rest are interviews or brief mentions. The National Post isn't substantial coverage. This is typical [18]. One more big non-CBC source and I think we'd have enough. Oaktree b (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Even in French-Canadian media, only a brief mention [19]. TOOSOON I think Oaktree b (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should necessarily expect French-Canadian media to cover her. She's from an anglophone area, and now lives in Los Angeles. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:43, 29 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!} 07:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A google search brings up Global News CTV News CBC Girls' Life and CP24Jannaultheal (talk) 23:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I reviewed this as part of NPP, and I'm confused we find ourselves at AFD. From the start, the article met WP:GNG according to the sources in the article. How are [20] and [21] not sigcov? Since then, she's been interviewed all over, as Jannaultheal points out, so it's even less tenable. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:55, 29 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. Rough consensus is that while this may be a notable topic - as per Uncle G's sources - it is already adequately covered in existing articles and retaining this article would increase redundancy (WP:CFORK). Editors are free to redirect the title to wherever it may be appropriate. Sandstein 07:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mass automobility[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Relisting the neologism 'mass automobility' for deletion (or merge, suggested to history of the automobile or a new article Draft:Personal mobility (transportation)) on the basis the article only had 55 edits ever, 64 views in 30 days, and it duplicates articles including;

car - covers automobility (7293 edits, 172155 views)
automotive city - the urban planning aspect (205 edits, 1,183 views)
car dependency - the social phenomenon (219 edits, 2373 views)
history of the automobile - the level at which it may be regarded as becoming mass uptake (4,132 edits, 42,555 views)
modal share - the share of a mode of transport (400 edits, 2735 views).

The article also introduces the concept of mass automobility as something distinct from automobility which may constitute original research. Darrelljon (talk) 14:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Transportation, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 15:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. Reads like a student essay (as created in an editor's only contribution), with disjointed content, jumping in one paragraph from fast-food restaurants to appliance mass-production. Agree with nom that this is too overlapping and not cohesive enough. Much of the content is actually about Suburbanization rather than automobility, but nothing is good enough quality to merge somewhere or keep. Even if the previous AFD found sources on the titular concept, that does not mean that we have to keep this as (poorly) written. Just because AFD is not cleanup doesn't mean this is a even good basis for a cleaned-up article. Reywas92^Talk 16:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a neologism, a claim that was debunked in the last AFD discussion, and it's not original research as professor James J. Flink at UCI, out of what seems like many people, has written on this specific topic for decades, including for starters xyr 1975 paper Mass automobility: an urban reform that backfired that gets the odd citation here and there.
They even seem to agree with what's in the article at hand. Talking of the 1970s and what happened then, contemporary to Flink's paper, Alan A. Altshuler's 1984 book for example says "The initial shift in expectations came with the dawning realization of what mass automobility on a world scale might mean for the earth's resource base and atmosphere." and proceeds to talk about pollution, safety, and fossil fuels consumption. And here we have an article with a "Negative Consequences" section talking about shifts that happened in the 1960s and 1970s such as anti-pollution and safety measures. Professors Gary S. Cross pf PSU and Rick Szostak of UA talked about how "Mass automobility led to the decline of public transportation and encouraged greater dispersion of workplaces and residential neighborhoods." in their 1995 book. And here we have an article that talks about the effects upon suburbanization.
Then there are things that Wikipedia doesn't cover yet about mass automobility, such as professor David Gartman of the University of South Alabama in his 1994 book linking it to democratization, and a perceived connection to social mobility as evidenced by movies of the time such as the 1911 The Girl and the Chauffer.
The problem here is not the article, but the fact that you are unwilling to find sources and work on it instead of nominating it for deletion multiple times with the debunked "neologism" rationale.
Keep. Uncle G (talk) 11:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We have an article Effects of cars (which has 178 edits and 646 views) which covers negative impact on the environment. 'Mass transit' is a redirect to public transport. Darrelljon (talk) 16:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Number of edits and views has no relationship with notability. Please stop making that argument. Star Mississippi 16:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also Mass Rail Transit, Mass Rapid Transit and Mass Rapid Transit System redirect or disambig to other articles. As does Mass consumption, Mass manipulation and Mass opinion. Darrelljon (talk) 06:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Did Flink, Altshuler, Cross, Szostak or Gartman distinguish mass automobility from any of the other concepts?--Darrelljon (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing here that is not better covered in existing articles. Just because something is referred to differently by a prof. doesn't mean it is a different concept, much less one with significant coverage. Also concerned about giving undue weight to the profs that prefer to use this term. ForksForks (talk) 16:54, 28 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 Dhamrai Upazila. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kushura Abbas Ali High School[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NORG. Sources in article and found in BEFORE are primary, database records, and mill news. Article ends with "Also, there is an ex-student of the said school who has been very interested in technology since childhood MD SABUJ HOSSAIN and he created this page." and reading the article it is promotional. // Timothy :: talk 05:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to delete it. It has qualified to be on Wikipedia and currently has Bengali Wikipedia Sabuj.bd71 (talk) 07:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have already deleted that line, thanks Sabuj.bd71 (talk) 07:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sabuj.bd71: The existence of an article in other language versions of Wikipedia is not evidence that the topic is notable on the English-language Wikipedia. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Bangladesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dhamrai Upazila, in which the school lies. After removing the unreliable ones, the 6 sources remaining lack independence and are no deeper than directory listings and similar passing mentions. Searches in Bengali found some routine coverage, but only one source that would count towards establishing notability.[22] I don't believe it is enough on its own to meet WP:NSCHOOL and justify a stand alone article. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:20, 3 March 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 14:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity Samurai[edit]

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

Unsourced article, has no citations per WP:V. ScarletViolet (talk • contribs) 06:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Games, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:51, 21 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!} 05:40, 28 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 Three Angels Broadcasting Network affiliates. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WYGN-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG, past history as Telemundo/Univision/ABC translator notwithstanding. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Michigan. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Three Angels Broadcasting Network affiliates: this seems like the logical alternative to deletion for a not-separately-notable 3ABN affiliate. (Its pre-3ABN history of carrying various Weigel stations does not net separate notability either as it was just retransmitting other stations, and in any event even that era is as much a precursor to WCWW-LD as it is the early days of this license — WYGN and what was then WRDY-LP essentially swapped licenses/facilities in 2002.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article should have never been created to begin with and this television station was sold by Three Angels Broadcasting Network. Catfurball (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to continue to evaluate whether or not this page title should be redirected.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Three Angels Broadcasting Network affiliates per WCQ; also note Catfurball that the list is for affiliates, whether they're 3ABN-owned or not, which this certainly is. Nate • (chatter) 17:37, 28 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. There is a clear consensus right now to delete this page, a consensus arrived at by examining sources, not judging where the article subject is from. There are a lot of assumption being made in some comments here which do not serve to help save the article from deletion.

If an editor would like to work on this article in Draft space and submit it to WP:AFC for review, let me know or make a request at WP:REFUND. Know that if the draft is moved back to main space without AFC acceptance, it will be deleted via CSD G4. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yinka Ash[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. Promo/Puff piece article. Refs are PR, profiles and interviews. UPE. scope_creep^Talk 05:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Fashion, and Nigeria. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote most of this page when it is mostly had fairly biased writing initially, after request from the contributor, I felt bad that he was being labelled as a paid reviewer when he seemed genuinely enthusiastic about this person, so I removed the biased language out of the article. However, now reading upon the background context of most sources used within the article I agree that it seems to fail WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. I dowsee that he did genuinely be featured on the Forbes African under 30s. Not sure if it is a pay-to-promote scheme, but there just isn't enough sources to justify or evidence this page.

~ mohamed (talk) 05:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes X of Y articles e.g. 30 under 30, are non-rs. Although they starting appearing in 2012-2013, From 2017 onwards, Forbes started producing reams of them and they are essentially clickbait. In 2017, the created around 1571 articles of some types of X of Y. They are clickbait with random slightly prominent folk from the web (influencers) who are paid to appear, but that doesn't make them notable on Wikipedia. So if you see any Forbes X of Y articles, don't use them, remove them from the article if you can. They are junk. scope_creep^Talk 06:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, noted, what of newspaper articles, most of the newspaper coverages are newspapers that are specific or domicile to Nigeria. Though, I manually added the URL and information, are those citations valid? per, the conversation I've been having blog post are a "no" but articles from "the SUN, Nigeria" a viable source of Nigerian news and information though not international, is that a valid source? Anoghena Okoyomoh (talk) 07:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Anoghena Okoyomoh: Some of them might be good and its worth posting two or three that good. Generally per best-practice, if you show WP:THREE good WP:SECONDARY references, i.e. folk talking to other folk who don't know the subject, which is the gold standard will show it is notable Coverage generated by marketing and PR (public releations) agencies is WP:PRIMARY, WP:SPS sources and generally not accepted and can't be used to establish notability. Profiles, short paragraphs explaing who the person is without having an author can't be used to establish notability. They are often written by the person themselves. The references must be secondary, independent of the subject and in-depth, i.e. significant and of course reliable. Hope that helps. scope_creep^Talk 13:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see, true, that would be "the SUN Nigeria" article because it's an interview of the subject matter himself and removes the neutral point of view necessity required by Wikipedia. Follow-up, would it be the same if there is a source that is in interview format but with someone within the same space, like for instance, a Frank Sinatra interview piece where he mentions facts on Ella Fitzgerald - same interview source being used as cited source in the Wikipedia article for Ella Fitzgerald to establish facts? Anoghena Okoyomoh (talk) 13:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From what I can see, this is a notable fashion designer whose work is mainly known in Nigeria, but so what? Does Wikipedia have a problem with that? I see articles about people from all over the world.--Hazooyi (talk) 11:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources used the typical extravagant language found in Nigerian media, but we have more than a few of these articles about the individual, should be ok for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 13:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It might be worth evaluating the notability of Ash's brand Ashluxe/Ashluxury. Ash certainly isn't a nobody and one must consider the language typically found in Nigerian media, as Oaktree b pointed out, but most of the articles in publications we typically deem reliable are interviews (GQ South Africa, The Guardian Nigeria, Suitcase Magazine). Most of the coverage of Ashluxe is about a particular collection they released (Vogue, Punch, The Guardian Nigeria, Vanguard Nigeria). Mooonswimmer 15:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a duplication of effort across multiple venues with the same sentence indicating a significant amout of work by a PR farm. It should be plainy obvious when you look at each article what the sentence is and that shows you it is PR. Most of it anyway. The Guardian NG is a heavyweight (I think) but it takes the advertising dollar as well and sentence is there. While I'm not confident that they are particularly decent sources, Oaktree b thinks its good, which has weight. I think it is the same PR farm that did these aricles that built and maintained this article. I can't any reason why it wouldn't be. It would be all one project. There is a coi problem which is clear. scope_creep^Talk 09:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And likely a WP:UPE. scope_creep^Talk 11:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I almost AfD nominated this article myself after I came across it. What's said above is true - the last contributor was probably not a paid reviewer, but the one who created the article almost certainly was, and probably a sock account to boot (they were using an open proxy to edit). Either way, once all the cruft was stripped away, there's very little left and almost none of it from reliable sources. Interviews with the subject and a freelance writer can be set up by the subject at low-traffic sites all day long, but they don't equal significant coverage. Not only was this article likely pay-to-promote, but most of the cited "sources" look like they are as well. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO as a result. Fred Zepelin (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete was on the fence but I find the Fred's reasoning to be solid. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 21:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the cited source lacks significant coverage; it mainly consists of interviews, passing mentions, or those 'he says, she says' type of articles. The author of the article admitted they have a conflict of interest, and it wouldn't be surprising if this turns out to be a case of upe and/or sockpuppetry. GSS ^💬 06:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, it seems there might have been a misunderstanding or perhaps I didn't express myself clearly when I contributed to your COI Notice Board. What I intended to convey was that I have my own COI notice board and there's a claim against me made by @Fred Zepelin. You can find my actual response to this claim there: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1210766575, sorry for the mix-up. I will as well use this medium to reiterate that there is no affiliation between me and the subject matter nor was any transaction passed between the subject matter and myself. Thank You for your understanding.

Kind regards, Anoghena Okoyomoh (talk) 06:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep though not all the way correct and meeting all criteria, as @Oaktree b it should be good for GNG, additionally, using the comment by @Mooonswimmer the language contained in same sources are unique to most Nigerian Publications. As I reflect on the situation, I realize that my actions have caused some issues with editing this page, Wikipedia had said be bold in editing and then I went and messed it up. I want to give you some insight into how I approached editing and what I intended to do. My goal was to edit the page in a similar way to other pages I thought would be a good model to follow, like those of Olivier Rousteing, Tom Ford, and Demi Lovato. These pages often include interviews, newspaper articles, and blog posts specific to the subject person.

I understand the concerns about the promotional language, tone of the page and the need for secondary sourcing which inadvertently led to the UPE kerfuffle, I believe I was so focused on combatting and proving my innocence that I missed the goal.

I'm still pretty new to editing on Wikipedia, so I might have missed some things, misunderstood or not truly grasped the guidelines. I'm sorry if I made any mistakes; I never hogged the article nor did I ever disallow in any form other contributions from other editors, even thanked those who did.

Based on the advice from @Scope creep, I've decided to step back from editing this page. I don't want my mistakes to cause any more problems and I hope that this page does not suffer for my ineptitude. You may not believe me to not be a UPE, but I had the best of intentions and merely wanted to highlight an African voice.

I want to thank those who gave me feedback and guidance along the way.

Kind regards and I really hope I'm not breaking any more rules, Anoghena Okoyomoh (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: note to reviewer, this is the COI account that scopecreep mentioned above; they became active a few days after the account that started the article went dormant (after that account was caught using an open proxy IP). Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I went through the sources and I couldn't find one that was independent of the subject and so does not meant the general notability criteria. Best, Reading Beans 06:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I kept going through articles that are deemed "notable" and I noticed that majority of the sources fall within the problems that have been highlighted, yet that doesn't warrant a request for deletion. as a matter of fact, per Wikipedia policy Youtube is deemed to not be a verifiable secondary source, yet it is referenced in majority of specific groups of persons that are deemed notable. It should be highlighted that technological differences in parts of the world would show that sometimes references aren't littered all over the internet about significant persons, most times notability is written in paper, more so, with more research and comparisons both outside and within wikipedia, editors have established that biographical pages should be monumental persons with global coverage, Nigerian publications work very differently here. @Scope creep your mention of sources being part of a PR farm is quite frankly problematic and makes me to believe that you're not being objective in your conclusion, you mentioned one sentence found in all sources, well that's normal, most at times, we will always associate are characteristic to any given subject, a mother no longer bears her name and merely becomes "Iya *name of first child*" and all will see her as that, a house of monumental building will be given a separate name and the inaugural name fades in the background so much so that publications will use the nickname over the actual registered name. This nuances is needed in making definitive decisions and failure to see that is why you keep depriving yourselves and this page actual needed knowledge, failure to see that is why you are making claims on editors that are predicated on subjective views rather than imperative and verifiable information. And that's why pages like this exist.
Kind regards, Anoghena Okoyomoh (talk) 07:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and why does @Reading Beans user page say that your page is deleted? Anoghena Okoyomoh (talk) 07:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Anoghena Okoyomoh, I can’t comprehend what you’ve written above and why does me requesting for my user page to be deleted affect the notability of your client? Best, Reading Beans 07:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me rephrase.
Most Wikipedians have decided in an almost elitist fashion whom shall be deemed "notable" usually dependent on where the subject hails from and as such are less stringent on counterpart subject from another area of the globe

Yes it is true that secondary sources are needed, but the rule equity allows nuances and different perspectives when creating set rules, this is what allows for other pages within Wikipedia who are against these set rules to exist and not be placed on the same microscope as another would.

Wikipedia is by its nature a community powered knowledge sharing and provision platform, insistent on gathering differing and multitude of knowledge from varying sources, where you outrightly place bad characteristics on users with certain IPs or are less lenient with certain articles that bothers on subjects or persons you're not familiar with, it defeats the purpose.

I mentioned your user page being deleted merely because, the frequent argument has been that as I took up the subject matter article 5 days post someone being problematically linked to same article was "dealt with" giving them grounds to say something is wrong with my page hence the constant tags and uphill battles. Even now, users are picking on other users, being condescending and using foul languages and behaviour. Me stating the fact that on the face of your page you can be deemed problematic yet not one person pointed it out shows a pick and choose mentality.

Do not ever let your assumption override facts, merely believing someone paid for the puff pieces is not in anyway the same as having factual proof that someone did what you claim they did. You assuming all modules of publication or any aspect whatsoever of a country should work exactly as you are accustomed to defeats the purpose of the need to get as much dissenting thoughts while reaching a consensus. I hope this helps.

Anoghena Okoyomoh (talk) 10:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My userpage was not problematic. Also, this is not a thing of systematic bias—no, it’s not. I am a Nigerian and I know how the module of publication works in Nigeria. Instead of arguing, try to understand what we’re saying so that you won't make the same mistakes again. Learn, please. Using words that sounds like they were written by an AI, won't help you. Best, Reading Beans 18:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Almost may not be all sources were just interviews and blogs. Also seems to look like an advert. Per nominator, fails WP: GNG. There can be many sources in an article even from independent reliable sources yet I can't even see WP: THREE. Otuọcha (talk) 08:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the reasons given above. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 15:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional, can't establish notability. Tehonk (talk) 23:54, 5 March 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!} 22:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leila Feinstein[edit]

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

Little to no independent, significant coverage found, cannot assert that this anchor meets WP:GNG. The awards do not confer notability. Previously nominated in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas, closed as procedural keep due to the bundle's size. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, Television, California, New York, and Rhode Island. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 05:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:SIGCOV clause CSMention269 (talk) 15:59, 7 March 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 withdrawn by nominator.‎ I misunderstood his relationship to the town name. —Kaliforniyka^Hi! 03:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Fraser of Balconie[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG —Kaliforniyka^Hi! 04:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see how it fails WP:GNG, the nominator owes something of an explanation. The nomination to be honest is a bit of a head scratcher, but I'm willing to admit that perhaps I've fallen behind the latest trends in the application of deletion policy. He's a reasonably significant landowner and public figure from the 19th century Scottish Highlands, he's not necessarily going to have a lot of coverage in the Ohio Times or New England Journal of Medicine or other internet-available publications but he is discussed in relevant scholarly sources. Was just reading about this topic the other day, see here. The article maybe could do with expansion and more up-to-date citations but that's a different matter. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see how it fails WP:GNG either. Ben Mac Dui 18:02, 28 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!} 06:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hanuman and the 5 Kamen Riders[edit]

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

No coverage in credible source whatsoever. Neocorelight (Talk) 04:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Thailand. Neocorelight (Talk) 04:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Martial arts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added a source giving some context and plot. ~~Maybe redirect to Sompote Sands#Filmography?~~ (I did not search very hard, neither in English nor Thaï or Japanese~~, so if this is judged notable and can be improved, not opposed to keep)~~.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC) In light of the sources commented by Paul 012 below, Keep. Thanks.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article itself doesn't properly explain the importance/notability of the subject and is very poorly sourced—beyond the lack of credible, appropriate sources. Anwegmann (talk) 02:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article is misnamed as the result of an undiscussed move in 2023. It should be renamed back to the common English name, Hanuman and the Five Riders. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Has some English-language book coverage.[23][24] Several reviews, mostly personal blogs,[25][26][27][28] but there's also an entry in The World Wide Celluloid Massacre (thelastexit.net), which appears to be quite an established website.[29] Thai coverage exists, but much less than that for its predecessor The 6 Ultra Brothers vs. the Monster Army. Several paragraphs on its production in this master's thesis.[30] Was discussed in a 2021 conference talk hosted by the Thai Film Archive, though no full proceedings were published.[31] Recently appears in the news mostly as brief mentions in discussions of Sompote Sands's filmography following his death in 2021.[32] Such a level of coverage isn't itself a clear indication of notability, but for a film released almost 50 years ago, it hints at a lasting significance. For a project of this size, it must have received a significant amount of contemporary coverage that is no longer accessible online. If not kept, redirect to Sompote Sands. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those are some good finds. Neocorelight (Talk) 07:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think the Spinegrinder book mentioned above is decent coverage. I've also found a few sentences about the legal issues on Sci-Fi Japan, as well as Thai-language reviews on Postjung (translated) and Pescinema (translated). I think there's enough to suggest notability. Toughpigs (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:29, 6 March 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!} 06:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderland, California[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence that this location actually existed as a settlement, rather than just an isolated rural post office serving nearby campgrounds. GNIS no longer lists it, and newspaper results only get "Feather River Wonderland" which refers to the county as a whole. I can't even verify the location - Post office records put it near 40°25′58″N 121°20′51″W / 40.43282°N 121.34763°W / 40.43282; -121.34763, but this map places it about a mile to the southeast. Without anything to verify it being a settlement, I don't think this passes WP:NGEO. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 03:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:This is clearly unnotable settlement according to Wikipedia general notability guideline. Morekar (talk) 04:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your coördinates being in the wrong county should have been a red flag. That's Tehama. You've mixed up east and west of Mineral. Nonetheless, I can find no documentation of this claimed settlement, only of an early to middle 20th century post office. This is unverifiable. Uncle G (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the note - I've corrected my typo in the coords. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable per WP:GEOLAND. GNIS and a post office don't count for notability and we don't even have those, just a mention in a questionable place-names guide. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The entry has been dropped from GNIS and whatever Durham says, the original author had a history of misrepresenting him. If it was a resort, it wasn't a notable one. Mangoe (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to be found at all.James.folsom (talk) 01:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GEOLAND --Devokewater|(tαlk) 11:48, 5 March 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radoslav Holúbek[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sources I found are limited to passing mentions (1 and 2). Google searches also come up with silly namesakes. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 13:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Slovakia. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 13:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, thank you for nominating the article because it allows us to improve it. The original article only mentioned the subject's participation in the Olympic relay. But Holúbek actually does meet WP:NSPORT, specifically WP:NATH, because he is a four-time individual national champion per the sources I added in the article. Furthermore, he is covered in this book providing SIGCOV for WP:GNG: Grexa, Ján (1996). Olympijské hnutie na Slovensku: od Atén po Atlantu. Q111. ISBN 978-80-85401-56-1.

Note that he is named in reverse order as "Holúbek Radoslav" in the book and in other sources I have found, I am not sure what Slovak naming conventions are or if a page move is appropriate. Thank you, --Habst (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Habst: All countries in Europe use Western order except Hungary. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are currently zero non-database sources in the article. For that reason, the closing admin probably won't let it pass muster. The article is also severely subpar (as can be expected from a Lugnuts creation) in that it doesn't mention his two most significant competitions as an individual hurdler, the 2000 Olympic Games and the 1998 European Championships. Now, the book is interesting, but how is he covered there? 3 lines or several pages? Geschichte (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Geschichte, thanks, I tried to update the article since its nomination to add some more of his achievements. The book is 211 pages long, and there were only 71 Slovak athletes at the Olympics prior to and including 1996 when the book was published. It's interesting that Holúbek is included because our records show he didn't compete at the Olympics until 4 years later, but he was certainly a top Slovak athlete and national champion before 1996, so he is probably discussed in that context. Based on WP:NEXISTS, I think an administrator would most likely close this as keep if that was the consensus, even if we can't actually access the book as NEXISTS allows for. --Habst (talk) 14:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then the so-called "discussion" might be a sentence that "athlete X beat Radoslav Holúbek at Y track meet" or "athlete X trains with Radoslav Holúbek". Not exactly significant coverage. We don't know, but can he be excpeted to have a full profile when the book is about Olympians and he was not an Olympian at the time? Being a random national champion is not that special, there are 50 of them every year across all athletic events. Geschichte (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Was Holubek a non-starter at an Olympics or was his only selection after the book was written? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good question, it's very possible. I noticed that up until late last year, He Pan (runner) was listed as a member of the 2008 Chinese Olympic team on an archived website, known to people at the time, but she ended up not starting nor appearing on the Olympic start lists. It's plausible that Holúbek was named to the team at the time of the book-writing, but may have withdrawn due to injury. @Geschichte isn't wrong that I am guessing – but to be fair, I think they would have to admit that they are guessing just as much as me about their speculated sentence of coverage. The simple fact is that until someone checks the book out from a library, all we know is that the subject's name is definitely in Google's internal scanned copy. --Habst (talk) 00:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've submitted a request for the source. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lean keep as Habst says he found SIGCOV in the book, which I am not able to access. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Habst is just guessing Geschichte (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The presumption of WP:SIGCOV does not mean that there is any. For now, the only sources are from databases or are very brief recaps. While the book source may have coverage, we can't say that for certain. If better coverage is found, please ping me. Let'srun (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Let'srun: May I ask, how did you find both this and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ľubomír Pištek, your only two votes in the past two days, in rapid succession, considering they both happen to be discussions in which I am involved and seem to be part of an ongoing trend at AFD of you either voting against me or making sure to critique my comments when you do ultimately agree with me? Additionally, tell me, what is the purpose of having a presumption of WP:SIGCOV if it has no weight and can be simply disregarded without even searching for any relevant sources, which is essentially what your vote is implying? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Let'srun, thanks for your comment. I think the "presumption" of SIGCOV actually does mean that SIGCOV exists, that is what I think the definition of the word presumption means. Per WP:NEXISTS, if coverage is known to exist e.g. in a book, then I think that is valid grounds for keeping the article. Now, if the book text is retrieved but there is only a mention, then I think we would have to look for other sources, but that hasn't happened. --Habst (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait I am tempted to say keep based on the presumed notability of winning at European tournaments twice, but let's shelf this until that source request mentioned above comes through, for a better picture of the landscape of coverage. Kingsif (talk) 12:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are referring to the European Cup Second League, which was a nations tournament below the Super League and First League. The Second League was a container for the lesser track nations in Europe Geschichte (talk) 13:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I don't see a consensus, are there ATD possible?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATD: Close as no consensus. --Habst (talk) 11:02, 28 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!} 23:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Philadelphia School (Architecture and City Planning)[edit]

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

Much of this article appears to be a very close paraphrasing (and at times, blatant copy-paste) of a book referenced in the ref section. One of the previous editors is the author of that book, which leads me to believe this is a lot of original research and violates WP:MOS in several ways. This should be sent back to drafts at the very least. Lindsey40186 (talk) 01:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional info: I've found that there is a question about the existence of a "Philadelphia School" of architecture. A magazine article asked as much in 2017: Was There Really a “Philadelphia School of Architecture”? - Philadelphia Magazine (phillymag.com)

Much of these points could be best summed up as a section in the Architecture of Philadelphia article. Lindsey40186 (talk) 14:27, 22 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!} 02:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:TNT it. Going off the book preview alone, I've already found paragraphs worth of copyright violations. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:13, 5 March 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 speedy keep‎. Nomination is withdrawn and no support for Delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20Q[edit]

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

WP:NOT. The article currently only contains unreliable and/or non-independent references. When researching this topic I could not find any sufficiently reliable or independent references to improve the article with. I would recommend redirecting to 20Q (game show), but that article may very well have the same problem (I have not looked into it). Mokadoshi (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nice, I remember this toy. I'll take a look at what sourcing is out there before chiming in on the deletion discussion, but agree a merge is sound if the article lacks notability. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20Q was originally a web site (still up at 20q.net) , which gathered answer weights / data then spawned a toy and was arguably the first commercial application of neural networks for consumer toys. I'd say it's rather notable. The patent is now abandoned: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20060230008 and the design is interesting as LLMs and generative pre-trained transformers have gained popularity. Nutate (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reliable, independent sources we could add to the article to establish notability? The 20Q website is not independent. Mokadoshi (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mokadoshi:Here's one from Boing Boing and here's one from the NYTimes! Edit: Oooohhhh, Chicago Tribune!!! Americanfreedom (talk) 14:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Americanfreedom: Thanks for finding those. I don't know about Boing Boing, but the NY Times and Chicago Tribune references you found are definitely reliable. It's a shame that each only have a couple sentences of useful information for the article because it means we'll likely never expand this article past a stub. But is that a problem? Mokadoshi (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright lil' miss "I'm gonna complain until someone performs the WP:BEFORE I should've done", there's also the Washington Post (paywall), it's like you don't know about the search engine or something. It's a great jumping off point for people who actually follow WP:BEFORE! Americanfreedom (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate some WP:AGF. I'm not complaining, and I did research before making the AfD. From that research, and still after this discussion, I'm not convinced it meets WP:GNG. For example, is NY Times article you linked "in depth"? Is the WaPo article you linked "reliable"? (It mostly centers on how the device learns from its mistake, which directly contradicts how the device works according to the NYT article.) Thanks for the link you gave to your custom Google search, I don't know where you found it but it gives better results than a normal Google search so I'll add that to the list of things I checked before making this AfD. I do believe the Chicago Tribune reference you found is good (thanks again for finding that!), but I'm not sure if one reliable source satisfies GNG. I'll stop debating here and let someone else weigh in on GNG. Mokadoshi (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The toy is notable. There is announcement and release information about the toy ([33][34]) and some significant coverage ([35][36][37][38]). The website suggests there are some inaccessible sources ([39]) and awards ([40]) - see WP:NEXIST. Given that the Toys WikiProject is a bit dead, and there's no formal notability guidance, I think the fact there's a specific product that recieved coverage and recognition in reliable sources for its novelty and received industry awards is enough for me. The game is a combination of an artificial intelligence prototype, website, then toy; the article could theoretically merge these and further cement notability if the notability of the toy alone was in doubt. The LLM/AI angle is interesting and there seems to be a source or two on Google Scholar about this. On the WP:BEFORE debate above - look, it's inconvenient when key sources are missed, but it happens. It's no big deal, especially when the sources are ultimately found. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 04:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion of the sources presented could be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The 20Q website, toy and quiz show are all just implementions of twenty questions, the real question is merge with twenty questions or kept split as overall the twenty questions concept is notable as a whole and there have been other quiz shows with the same formula. 77.103.193.166 (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If an article subject is notable under the WP:GNG it plainly merits an article. See WP:NOTMERGE. I think these are discrete subjects even if they are closely related. A similar concept would be video games based on a board game, which plainly merit their own articles. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 03:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: still waiting on discussion of sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Vrxces and Americanfreedom have supplied a slew of GNG-worthy sources in this discussion. Left guide (talk) 05:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The toy is clearly notable per above sources. The article needs work, but deletion is uncalled for. (I'm not sure what more discussion those relisting this are looking for? The above discussion is fairly robust, and located useful sources.) –Erakura^(talk) 22:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn: I am not sure why multiple people have linked to the toy's official website or the inventor's written patents as examples of reliable sources, but everyone has found other sources that I don't disagree with. So, I'm fine withdrawing this proposal. And I'll probably stay away from AfD for a while since this is my 2nd proposal that I've had to withdraw, and I don't want to waste other people's times. But at least I've learned something, like WP:Permastub - even if all the sources for this article only give the same couple basic facts, it can still be notable enough to deserve an article. Mokadoshi (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mokadoshi: good call, but don't be too discouraged, your efforts are in good faith. I also agree that the toy company website and patents are useless for establishing notability. It might be helpful to remember WP:NEXIST for future nominations. Left guide (talk) 00:18, 6 March 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 stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

W35DQ-D[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Michigan. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: this article is rather skimpy even compared to other DTV America/HC2/Innovate station articles. That is of little relevance to whether this should go or not, but the station itself being the typical 2010s-started DTV America/HC2/Innovate with no reason for, much less any extant, significant coverage makes this another obvious call. It's another nominal survivor of last year's bulk nomination, of course. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:00, 28 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.

I have a feeling this article will be restored but with no new comments after two relistings, I'm not optimistic about a third relisting bringing any further participation in this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wellington Taira[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. I attempted to search for various formulations of his name, combined with teams that he's played for, including Romanian and Uzbekistani spelling; no meaningful results were forthcoming. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Uzbekistan, and Brazil. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – In Brazilian sources I found this article in Lance! covering about his time at Macaé Esporte and transfer to Moldova, a interview in Youtube, some posts in Instagram by account "easy.progress" covering the athlete's moments in Uzbekistan [41] [42], and a post in LinkedIn showing his presentation at Newroz SC. Svartner (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was less than I expected. Also pinging @BrazilianDude70 for input Geschichte (talk) 12:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Geschichte: I'd say it barely scraps by. There's another article about him at Linense and two articles about his move to Macaé, with the second one being from the Federação de Futebol do Estado do Rio de Janeiro. I'd clearly disconsider the Instagram/Youtube sources since they all might be promotional, plus the LinkedIn post might not be a source indeed.

So, keeping the actual "valid" sources, there's four articles: two of them directly mentioning him, and two others with his name amongst others... BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 13:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:54, 28 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Museum Ethnographers Group[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Boleyn (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. S0091 (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep sourcing isn't great, but [43], while a podcast, is a reliable podcast published by the American Anthropologist that provides non-trivial coverage of the group. There isn't a lot else out there that counts toward WP:N (lots of passing mentions though) but my searching finds that this is a long established group that meets regularly and publishes meaningful (reasonably well cited) work by experts in the field. If we had a WP:NJOURNALS that had consensus, this is the kind of thing I'd want it including. Hobit (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG and ORG. I found some passing mentions in news items [44] but there is not enough coverage that indicates this organization merits inclusion on Wikipedia. And sorry to say - this is not an academic journal. It is an organization that is involved in scholarly work. Just because they produce an academic journal doesn't make this organization worthy of inclusion. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:11, 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!} 23:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soft keep. The American Anthropologist podcast's nontrivial coverage gives me pause, and some GoogleScholar sifting is suggestive of coverage, after filtering out the name of its journal from results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by P-Makoto (talk • contribs) 06:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, P-Makoto, what is "soft keep"? We have policies on "soft delete" but I'm not familiar with a soft keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: I think I must've mixed up my words and probably meant to write "weak keep". P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 01:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I get it. At this point, I think I've reviewed and closed hundreds of AFD discussions and I've seen "Soft Keep" about a dozen times and I always meant to ask about it. I thought there might have been a line in a policy page I had forgotten. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 29 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!} 23:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flagship Airlines[edit]

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

Unnotable company. I've checked the other language versions of this article and have seen nothing that would count as significant coverage. Flux55 (my talk page) 21:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. Flux55 (my talk page) 21:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At the time, it was one of four regional airlines that operated American Airlines's American Eagle brand with 135 aircraft operating scheduled passenger service from 4 hubs, according to the article even without doing a WP:BEFORE search. The company employed between 1,100 and 1,200 pilots. The article can use more and better references but that's not a reason to delete. A quick Google search turns out enough reliable sources to easily pass WP:GNG. RecycledPixels (talk) 01:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RecycledPixels, can you find some that meet WP:RS and establish notability? I suspect you may be right about notability, but without someone producing refs, we have to delete this article. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found a good number of sources in ProQuest by searching "Flagship Airlines" Nashville, like this article about the company's history and this news story about the closure of its hub in Nashville. Sunnya343 (talk) 07:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further input on the sources that have been presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looks like there is coverage from what Sunny found. I also remember a lot of content about this airline in Robert Serling's book Eagle about American Airlines. Avgeekamfot (talk) 16:17, 5 March 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!} 23:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Impala Hotel Group[edit]

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

Non-notable hotel/property chain. all references provided are promotional, commercial, and/or branded content. No sign of independent sigcov. Jdcooper (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tanzania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "Top Arusha hotels may go under the hammer over huge bank debts". The Citizen. 2019-04-04. ProQuest 2202724275. Archived from the original on 2024-02-16. Retrieved 2024-02-16.
  The article notes: "Dar es Salaam. The curtain could be falling down on the once high-flying Impala Hotel Group of Arusha as two of its hotels are up for sale over huge debts owed to banks. ... Among the properties up for sale is the 300-room luxurious Ngurdoto Mountain Lodge outside Arusha and Impala Hotel, the group’s flagship outfit within the city. Officials of the hotel chain owned by the late Meleo Mrema, who died in August 2017, could not be reached to speak on the matter. The 160-room Impala, which opened its doors in the early 1990s, was once the leading hotel in Arusha, thanks to closure of the ‘old guard’s for major rehabilitation.This was to be followed ten years later (in early 2000) by the five star Ngurdoto Mountain Lodge, some 27 kilometres east of Arusha.The lodge was famous for hosting many high profile international and regional conferences, including at several East African Community (EAC) Heads of Summits."
2. Ubwani, Zephania (2021-09-12). "Impala, Naura Springs hotels assets for sale over Sh1.2 billion debt". The Citizen. ProQuest 2571570534. Archived from the original on 2021-09-22. Retrieved 2024-02-16.
  The article notes: "Finally, properties belonging to an Arusha hotel chain will be sold to settle accumulated debts running into billions of shillings. ... The two hotels, once among the leading outfits in the country’s safari capital, belonged to the Impala Hotels Group owned by the now late Meleo Mrema. ... The saga over accumulated debts by Impala Hotel Group such as accumulated salaries has dragged for years, roping in banks owned billions of shillings in unpaid loans. ... Properties belonging to the late Mrema once dominated the hotel industry in Arusha and were opened to cater for the increasing number of tourists and conference delegates years ago."
3. Nkwame, Marc (2014-07-21). "Tanzania: Arusha Is Not Burning, Hunt Down Rumour Monger". Daily News. ProQuest 1547175618. Archived from the original on 2024-02-16. Retrieved 2024-02-16 – via AllAfrica.
  The article notes: "However, everybody in town knows that the legendary Impala Hotel is owned by one Mrema. So popular is the property that it spawned the 'Impala Group of Hotels,' a company which has 'Ngurdoto Mountain Lodge,' and 'Naura Springs Hotel,' under its portfolio. Like their owner, the three properties, despite their fame, have succeeded in staying out of the media limelight, with the exception of the 2008 incident in which Ugandan pop star Jose Chameleon fell from the third floor room at Impala hotel and broke his limbs. Opened in 2003, the Ngurdoto Mountain Lodge, located within the former Ngurdoto Forest Coffee farm in Meru District, is arguably the biggest hotel in Tanzania with over 3,000 rooms, many being detached luxury 'huts' and while the property has been hosting many international symposiums and meetings, it hasn't made any headlines in over a decade of its existence. Then comes the 'Naura Springs Hotel' situated at the Sanawari junction along Moshi-Arusha road, which went into operation in 2007 thus becoming the newest property under Mr Mrema's property listing."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Impala Hotel Group 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) 11:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the article above, the hotels have been closed (and are still closed) since 2019. A part has been turned over to student accommodation. An attempt has been made to sell the hotels to settle debts, seemingly unsuccessfully. All of the issues noted above seem WP:ROTM for a privately owned hotel chain. MNewnham (talk) 03:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria says, "A company ... is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." The guideline does not say "Run-of-the-mill" is a reason for deletion. And it is incorrect to call Impala Hotel Group "run-of-the-mill".
The Impala Hotel Group is based in the East African country of Tanzania. The company received sustained significant coverage over a period of five years (2014, 2019, and 2021). It received significant coverage in 2014 in the Daily News, a national newspaper in Tanzania. It later received significant coverage in 2019 and 2021 in The Citizen, a South African newspaper that is considered the country's newspaper of record. A South African national newspaper covering a Tanzanian company is international coverage of the company. A "run-of-the-mill" company does not get sustained and international coverage. Cunard (talk) 11:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is not temporary; businesses being closed should have no bearing on their notability. Reading the sources indicates that, far from being routine, independent sources consider these to be particularly important hotels in the country, "Tanzania’s hospitality paradise, the Ngurdoto Mountain Lodge, which used to draw many international visitors to the country’s northern tourist circuit", "The lodge was famous for hosting many high profile international and regional summits". Besides Cunard's sources, [45], [46], [47], and substantial references in travel guides to the country. ~ A412 ^talk! 20:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above sources. Seems significant enough. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There appears to be sufficient sources that meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:18, 3 March 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 Benishangul-Gumuz conflict. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Benishangul-Gumuz bus attack[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTNEWS. No sustained significant coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Terrorism, and Ethiopia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Benishangul-Gumuz conflict, where it is mentioned. Not enough coverage to justify a standalone article, but including this information there seems reasonable. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to above target. Doesn't warrant its own article due to lack of extended coverage, but seems to warrant a mention somewhere. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Benishangul-Gumuz conflict. Although I disagree that it's wholly WP:NOTNEWS, without considerable expansion and contextualization—which would be achieved by a merge in the first place—it sits very close to it. Anwegmann (talk) 02:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Benishangul-Gumuz conflict. Not enough coverage for a standalone article. Ben Azura (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the murder of at least 34 people is not notable then what on earth is? Pure WP:SYSTEMIC. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:25, 5 March 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 Timeline of the Boko Haram insurgency. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pemi attack[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTNEWS. No sustained significant coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Terrorism, and Nigeria. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Timeline of the Boko Haram insurgency. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested above. It's obvious that this fails WP:NOTNEWS, but it does deserve to be mentioned and documented in the larger conflict. Anwegmann (talk) 02:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Timeline of the Boko Haram insurgency: Based on nominator's rationale. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Timeline of the Boko Haram insurgency: per above. DrowssapSMM 23:34, 28 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!} 01:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Williamsburg massacre[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTNEWS. No sustained significant coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and West Virginia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to have sustained coverage, as there has been a long running controversy over the DHS treatment of the children.

It also possibly had a significant impact on Virginian law [48]. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any sort of retrospective study or analysis here that would amount to sustained coverage. I just see news stories in response to new events like the lawsuit. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of WP:SUSTAINED is that it does not necessarily require that - "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. However, sustained coverage is an indicator of notability". I read sustained to be over a non-breaking news period of time (given that the heading is "over a sufficiently significant period of time"). Also from what I can see the sources do offer analysis in the context of WV's child care systems and used as an example event that demonstrates the failures of it. But I think you may have a different interpretation of that policy than me. Since this has been covered on and off for a few years, made international news, and seems to be discussed with some analysis I think it is okay to keep. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. There needs to be more sourcing and proof of extended/sustained coverage. If the DHS's treatment of the children is established, it needs to be included in the article. Additionally, the article needs a fair amount of editing. Anwegmann (talk) 02:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the time for draftifying may be a bit past, given that this article has existed in mainspace for a while. If it survives I volunteer to add the later sources/DHS stuff, draftying is either prolonging the inevitable deletion or keeping it out of mainspace for no reason PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good to me. Anwegmann (talk) 02:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per discussion immediately above. Anwegmann (talk) 02:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be a notable event, and the sources provided are all valid. Sadly, larger and intervening events are going to preclude sustained and ongoing coverage for years to come for things like this. If there were a trial, there would certainly be more coverage, but in a murder-suicide there's not going to have been one. There will certainly be more sources available, likely including online newspapers, such as the Herald-Dispatch and Charleston Gazette. P Aculeius (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SUSTAINED and PARAKANYAA's sources. Afd is WP:NOTCLEANUP. Sorry—not trying to SHOUT. StonyBrook _babble 20:23, 28 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.