Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 December 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< December 10	December 12 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. per WP:HEY. (non-admin closure) ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 14:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Germany–Tonga relations

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

Fails WP:GNG. 2 of the 3 sources are primary. There isn't much to these bilateral relations besides some minor historical interaction. The relations don't include things that typically make notable relations like state visits, significant trade/migration, embassies. LibStar (talk) 23:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Germany, and Oceania. Shellwood (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Two sources are primary sources and the other source is user-generated and unreliable. RPI2026F1 (talk) 02:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Can be improved. Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 02:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly redirect to Foreign relations of Tonga. 2 of the 3 sources are primary and the other one looks unreliable. Nor is there really any content in the article, it merely notes that neither country has an embassy in the other before discussing the general history of imperialism in the Pacific in the 19th century (which is a bit of a coatrack). Tonga is a very small country on the other side of the world from Germany so this isn't very surprising. Hut 8.5 18:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article in German language Wikipedia indicate some German language sources. My understanding is that in evaluation of notability we should only establish if there are sources in general and not if they are already included in article.--MirkoS18 (talk) 22:57, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I have inserted some additional English language sources. I haven't checked if there are relevant sources in German or any other language. It seems to me that the outcome here should certainly not be straightforward deletion but that more appropriate consideration is if you want to keep stand alone article or transfer the content to another one. It seems to me that there might be some decent argument even for the first option, especially if someone is willing to identify some other sources and other languages.--MirkoS18 (talk) 11:34, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - added refs and details of the 1876 treaty of friendship. The TBC sources also look good. IdiotSavant (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Relevant and can be improved. I would wish for more generous inclusion policy for bilateral relation articles in Wikipedia.--Afus199620 (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article has been improved and sources pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 10:02, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orit Fuchs

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject fails WP:NARTIST and WP:ANYBIO. Many of these sources are not independent of the subject, as they are promotional puffery. Indeed, this article has been deleted before. Some of the sources are mere mentions, ROUTINE announcements of an exhibition, etc. None are in-depth coverage about her independent of her. The article author has yet to disclose. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, and Israel. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Jerusalem Post is a brief mention of her, but I don't find anything else. She isn't in Getty ULAN. Oaktree b (talk) 00:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: The Jerusalem Post is brief? Please check out again because it is clear that the coverage is significantly! Anyway, because of her exhibitions, he does not pass #4 of WP:NARTIST?Azarkhe (talk) 00:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's five sentences and pictures of her artworks, it's not at all an extensive history of her personal life or work history. And there is only one source for her exhibits, so we can't confirm the rest. One show doesn't make you notable. Oaktree b (talk) 12:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: for all of exhibitions I should provide sources?Azarkhe (talk) 13:52, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would help yes, we require sources for all information presented here. Oaktree b (talk) 13:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: By Googling, I found some of sources to show the presenting exhibitions. Could you kindly re-check out the article?Azarkhe (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these appear to be commercial galleries and not art museums. These are basically to promote selling her art, not useful for GNG here in wikipedia I'm afraid. Oaktree b (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No museum exhibitions or collections. Current unsourced list of "Selected Exhibitions" are for group shows at commercial galleries. Fails WP:NARTIST WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:16, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is the second go-around for this non-notable artist who does not meet our criteria for WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST. The depth of coverage is still not there; five sentences and a few photos does not meet the bar. There are no museum collections or serious art historical reviews. It was suggested at the last AfD that this be salted as PROMO, I agree with that, as it seems to be the work of a PR firm or UPE. Netherzone (talk) 14:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Onel5969:, I have faith in you and your idea about articles. Could you let us know what you think? For example if you comment Delete, I will make sure and I will commnet Delete, too. All the best. Azarkhe (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Azarkhe It's not allowed to canvas specific users to a Deletion discussion. See WP:CANVASSING. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dubious notability, zero hits from reliable sources on Google. -FASTILY 02:28, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:57, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, salt and follow up on possible UPE - still lacking mandatory significant coverage. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:00, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is sourcing is of insufficient depth Star Mississippi 20:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Netskope

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

Fails WP:NCORP. UPE/Agency article. References are routine annoucements, press-releases, patents, funding news, Non-RS links, Forbes contributors. Fails WP:SIRS, WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 23:15, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:20, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom, all we have are funding announcements and PR stuff. Oaktree b (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Netskope has been named a Leader in Gartner Magic Quadrant for Cloud Access Security Brokers and made the Forbes Cloud 100 list." is hardly "PR stuff". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: As it is a company WP:NCORP applies. There is many companies that are leaders in their particularly field, but unless they have coverage that proves that, that they are notable, then they are not notable All the coverage here, all of it, is generated by the company in one form or another, as a startup. All that kind of self-generated coverage is explicitly forbidden by NCORP. NCORP was rewritten about 4-5 years ago to exclude these types of coverage, because it is self-generated. There is no WP:SECONDARY sourcing here. I'll go through the references and I will show you. scope_creep^Talk 09:49, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a paid editor working on behalf of Netskope, I would like to contest the removal of the Netskope article because multiple sources meet the WP:SIRS criteria. At least half of the citations include more than funding-round or press release information. I also have additional, new sources that I believe are relevant to suggest on the Talk:Netskope page. DebSchell (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets examine the first 15 references as its a good round number:

Ref 1 [1]] The cloud 100 presented by Salesforce. Corporate produced Forbes document that profiles each company. States on the article, its an advertisement. Non-RS.
Ref 2 [2] Routine funding news. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, specifically, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: of a capital transaction, such as raised capital, Funding news.
Ref 3 Magic quadrant. A Gartner produced document, prepared by extensive interviews by the company and the software. Fails WP:ORGIND.
Ref 4 [3] Techcrunch. Says it all. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Routine funding news.
Ref 5 Dead link.
Ref 6 [4] I don't it is significant. "Earlier this month, Netskope came out of stealth mode with $21 million in funding to combat shadow IT". Two sentences is a passing mentions, failing WP:SIRS as not significant.
Ref 7 [5] Job fulfillment annoucement. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH of the hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel,
Ref 8 [6] Non-RS Forbes contributor. Funding news. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH
Ref 9 [7] Dead link. Funding news. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Expansion.
Ref 10, 11 are patent information, which is NON-RS. They are WP:SPS sources.
Ref 12 [8] Funding news. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH
Ref 13 [9] Annoucement of aquasitions. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH
Ref 14 [10] Same press-release as ref 13.
Ref 15 Patent information, which is NON-RS.

Of the 15 references. 8 are routine funding news, 1 is plain advertisement, 1 is Forbes contributor site (Non-RS), 1 dead-link, 3 are patent information is non-RS. No patents on Wikipedia. It is a WP:SPS source, which is 14 out of the 15. The last one the Garner Magic Quadrant, which fails WP:ORGIND, as its due process at work and can't happen without massive input from the company. None of these references pass WP:SIRS. It is typical of startup, created by paid staff. It fails the WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 23:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NORG / WP:ORGDEPTH; sourcing is in passing, routine notices (fundraising, etc), rewarmed press releases, and / or WP:SPIP. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have to agree with Scope creep's assessment of the sources above, and the remaining sources are much the same. The article's subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Even if we accept the "Cloud 100" piece at face value as contributing towards notability (which is debatable), it's a moot point because it does nothing on its own; the article needs multiple reliable sources and it quite simply does not have that. - Aoidh (talk) 08:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTPROMOTION (reads like a brochure throughout) and doesn't meet WP:NCORP. MrsSnoozyTurtle 04:16, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow (onomatopoeia)

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

Article was created by a now-blocked editor judged not to be competent. It is an unnecessary (in my view) redirect to Wiktionary (the disambiguation page Wow already gives a link to Wiktionary). Is 'wow' even onomatopoeic? I don't think so - Wiktionary also doesn't list it as being so. Whether it is or not, I don't think we need this page. I brought this here since it failed a PROD and doesn't fall under CSD. — Jumbo T (talk) 22:59, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Jumbo T (talk) 22:59, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It might be an onomatopoeia, in the sense that wow as a noun has existed since the 1920s [11], though this feels a bit like circular logic and indeed many sources classify the word as an interjection and explicitly not as an onomatopoeia. Moreover, Wiktionary does not discuss this (only a category at the bottom), so the utility of the redirect is unclear, and unless the word itself is an encyclopedic entry (which seems doubtful), any article here—including the initial version—would run afoul of WP:NOTDICT. ^Complex/_Rational 23:13, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the existing redirect is kind of pointless since Wow exists, and even the previous two sentence article was pretty badly written. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah sure, and same as others. I don't think we need a page on this. Also maybe G5, but I'm not too sure if that's how this works. Among Us for POTUS (talk) 01:36, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because Wikipedia is WP:NOTDICT. If the word "wow" is notable then perhaps a separate article could be written about it in an encyclopedic fashion with a different qualifier such as Wow (interjection), but as of right now this is an incorrectly titled redirect to wikionary and the link to wikionary is already included at Wow. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:57, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacking GNG or any other valid rationale for keeping. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wow Wow is a disambiguation page that has a link to Wiktionary. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 04:03, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wow already contains a link to Wiktionary, so a merge would be redundant. — Jumbo T (talk) 10:32, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 14:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Marker

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. Most of the statements made in the article don't cite a source. Only five sources are cited, and they all seem to be connected to her, meaning there may be no secondary sources and the article may rely exclusively on primary sources. Two of the sources cited are models.com, which seems to be sort of like Linkedin for models. One of the sources cited doesn't seem to mention her at all. Another source is just a list and barely mentions her. Also, the article is very biased and is is clearly promoting her. Baronet13 (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fashion, and Denmark. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has anything changed since the discussion three years ago where there was a clear consensus to keep? There's lots of sigcov, e.g. [12], [13], [14], [15] and [16]. pburka (talk) 23:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a poorly sourced puff piece that fails to prove notability. If nothing has changed in three years, that's the problem. And if it still doesn't change it will almost certainly be nominated for deletion again.Baronet13 (talk) 07:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Deletion is not cleanup and the justification to delete should be made based on sources found some doing WP:BEFORE searches, not current sourcing and I see no indication that this work was done prior to nomination. CT55555(talk) 23:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I went through five pages of a Google search and found few potentially usable sources, and the sources I did find were lacking in substantive information. If the article can be cleaned up, then one must wonder why it hasn't been done.Baronet13 (talk) 07:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage, such as that listed by Pburka, supports that WP:NBIO is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 04:01, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Three years I said to keep the article, pointing out that https://www.vogue.com/article/nina-marker-versace-model-on-fashion-autism-awareness is significant coverage, and linking to a popsugar article which isn't loading up right now. More coverage of her has been found since then. Dream Focus 06:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added some sources, deleted unsourced problem paragraphs with editorializing written in machine-translated English, updated information including a sentence about the t-shirt pic on Instagram during Milan Fashion Week 2017. Need to fix a bit more before more well-meaning fans start adding more "stuff" again. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:31, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:52, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dhun (film)

AfDs for this article:

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

Unsourced, unreleased film. Sources found include this and this (brief mention).

First sources says: In 1991, ghazal singer Talat Aziz wore a gold-embroidered jacket and trousers for his first acting role in the movie Dhun. Directed by Mahesh Bhatt, the film was about the journey of a small-town boy fulfilling his dreams of becoming a rock star. Aziz, who had by then made a respectable name for himself in ghazal singing, was aiming for much more with Dhun. However, the film was never released despite the popularity of the non-ghazal soundtrack by Laxmikant-Pyarelal that harnessed Aziz’s pop singing skills

If anything, maybe a redirect. DareshMohan (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:30, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: ~~Film~~, Music, and Maharashtra. Skynxnex (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:07, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree per nom. Unreleased and has a single source, which is eBay, so there are no notable sources. RPI2026F1 (talk) 02:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: in the present state, delete. And also I didn't find notable sources Paradise Chronicle (talk) 03:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–present). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

26 July 1994 bombing of North Iraq

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

It is a one line stub and after I googled for ca. 2 minutes it I didn't find anything on it except the source and the wikipedia article. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Terrorism. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Iraq, and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–present) Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 14:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source seems a privately composed website if this is the name for it. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The source is not RS; as per you have pointed out, cannot be found anywhere on the Internet; even if there were good sources, it isn't notable enough to have its own page in my opinion. Ayıntaplı (talk) 03:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per WngLdr34. The source in the article is not reliable, but it lists this page from Human Rights Watch as its source, which is more reliable. However, the HRW page only gives a very brief mention of the strikes (and is not certain on the date). So I think we have enough to say that this event happened, but nowhere near enough to say that this meets the GNG - hence a merge. WJ94 (talk) 10:56, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:07, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–present) as stated above, citing the HRW report. Should be attributed as being reported by the Turkish air force, as that's how HRW presents the strikes in the report. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 21:28, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–present) RPI2026F1 (talk) 02:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per WJ94.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 02:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:54, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Laveesh Bhandari

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

There is nothing to indicate notability. The subject does not appears to meet any of the criteria for WP:PROF or WP:BASIC. Thenightaway (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and India. Shellwood (talk) 20:32, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Madhya Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:46, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I note that Google Scholar lists 1407 citations with an h-index of 18.[17] I don't know whether that is high or low for the subject's field. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found this, this might pass PROF.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 03:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Above looks like a self-published source. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Due to WP:NOTPROMOTION. If new sources suggest that the individual is notable, then draftification may be an appropriate WP:ATD. MrsSnoozyTurtle 04:21, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per norm. Jamiebuba (talk) 19:57, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:57, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Holden

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

Fails WP:NACTOR; none of his roles are significant enough, including his collaborations with Christopher Nolan. The Film Creator (talk) 20:15, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 20:15, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:32, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree, especially in regards to his Nolan roles. Prominent supporting roles in all three. NACTOR to me is sufficiently satisfied. Rusted AutoParts 22:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: ... and I disagree that those roles were "prominent." In Batman Begins, he's not listed among the ten leading actors in the Wikipedia article, and wasn't billed in the top dozen. In Memento, he's the last billed actor in the credits. In Insomnia, the overly extensive plot summary in the Wikipedia article doesn't mention his character at all. Somewhat helpfully, there's a crazed listmaker on IMDB who lists every actor in Christopher Nolan movies by screentime, and according to the list [18], Holden has exactly six minutes screentime in all three movies combined. There are NO reliable sources in the article, nor any evidence the subject meets the GNG. Just another Tinseltown just-some-guy. Ravenswing 05:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing we don’t use some random dudes IMDB list as a reason why an article should be deleted. Same with whether or not his name is in the top chunk of the cast list. Point remains, he had roles in those films that played a part, it’s not “Courthouse Lawyer #4” or “Bar Patron”. Rusted AutoParts 18:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NACTOR requires considerably more than "having a role in the movie," and if you're not aware of that, you shouldn't be creating acting bios. I've seen evidence that Holden's performances were bit parts with minimal screen time. You haven't proffered a single scrap of evidence to the contrary, so you'll perhaps pardon me if I pay more credence to someone's recorded observations (which we all are, by virtue of watching the movies, capable of verifying) than to your ... nothing at all.

Come to that, you created the article on this obscure actor with nothing more of a source than the funeral home-supplied online obit, which is just this side of worthless. Why no genuine sources? Do you have a COI to disclose? Ravenswing 22:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No? Where the hell did that come from? No relations of any kind to the actor, just found you citing some dude's IMDB list and that he isn't in "the top dozen" names in a cast list extremely goofy. Feel free to cite NACTOR all you wish, that's the most valid thing to cite, not this IMDB crap. Rusted AutoParts 00:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where that came from was in the inexplicable creation of a biographical article on a no-name actor, sourced only from a funeral home's webpage obituary ... something that's not only extremely goofy, but is characteristic of classic COI behavior. Ravenswing 04:58, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It came up when I googled the guy, that's it. No familial ties, no friend of a friend, I never met him or have any connections whatsoever. Rusted AutoParts 05:30, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not enough significant roles to pass WP:NACTOR and current sources are not sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 10:31, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Switchh

AfDs for this article:

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

Film appears to fail WP:NFILM. There is one review cited, but more are needed to pass notability guidelines.

Previous discussion found a review [19], but no consensus on whether or not that is a reliable source.

The result of the first discussion was "no consensus", and the notability tag remains. I am not a fan of that tag, I think that either the article should be improved to the extent that the tag can be removed, or the article should be deleted if notability cannot be proven.

Can we come to a consensus this time? Notable (keep article) or non-notable (delete article). I vote Delete DonaldD23 talk to me 13:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am now convinced that this passes notability. Keep DonaldD23 talk to me 23:50, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. The Times of India is considered marginally reliable to generally unreliable, though Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force considers it WP:RS for film reviews so whether it is reliable is borderline. Otherwise, the previous discussion linked to this review, which is from a source with an unconvincing about us page and little editorial policies, but it partners with Hindustan Times, a WP:RS. I don't think a partnership would make it necessarily generally reliable, however, the opinions of other editors might differ. Therefore, IMO this article borderline fails WP:GNG (even if both of the reviews are obviously WP:RS, WP:GNG is still, generously speaking, just borderline met). In contrast, the rest of the sources appear to be routine announcements. Additionally, none of the WP:NFILM criteria appear to be met. My WP:BEFORE search mainly found announcements or general info on the actor that are insufficiently WP:SIGCOV, e.g., 1, 2. Therefore, I'm at neutral ~~to weak delete (leaning towards neutral)~~. VickKiang (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as well as the Times of India review there is this piece here from national newspaper The Indian Express which is a strange mishmash of an article but I think it does count as a bylined review, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It’s a minor announcement on a trailer, you could say that it is SIGCOV, which I disagree but can see where you are coming from. However, I just don’t see how it could be classified as a review. Many thanks. VickKiang (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it confused me as it seemed to be a review of the film but it is actually a review of the trailor so i'm withdrawing my vote Atlantic306 (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are two reviews including this one. Regarding notability, it is owned by HT Media and they hire proper journalists. The author of the review previously worked for The New Indian Express. Other sources found: here and here. DareshMohan (talk) 23:25, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I should update to neutral as two reviews give (very generously) extremely borderline notability. On the other hand, this seems to be a routine announcement about the trailer, whereas this gives general coverage of an actor, quoting him exclusively but giving little direct in-depth independent coverage. So I personally don't think the latter two refs are SIGCOV but feel free to disagree here. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 00:37, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:07, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the sources above seem ok-ish. Oaktree b (talk) 00:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are two reliable reviews. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:57, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Consensus seems to be Keep and there are no delete votes and 1 neutral vote. If an admin agrees, I withdraw this nomination for deletion. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:24, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Carswell

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

WP:BLP of a musician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. As written, this literally just states that he exists, sources his existence to the self-published website of his own record studio rather than any evidence of third-party media coverage about his work, and then just lists a bunch of production credits. As always, simply having credits to list is not an automatic inclusion freebie for a musician in and of itself — but while I get a fair number of glancing namechecks of his existence as a producer or a band member (as well as irrelevant hits for unrelated other David Carswells) on a ProQuest search, I'm just not really finding any WP:GNG-worthy sources that are about him in any non-trivial sense, nor am I finding any indication of the kind of notability-clinching awards (Juno, Grammy, etc.) that it would take to override GNG. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have better sourcing than I've been able to find. Bearcat (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources, Google doesn't show anything reliable. RPI2026F1 (talk) 02:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources do not support that the individual is independently notable from the bands. MrsSnoozyTurtle 04:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 10:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet WP:GNG criteria. Jamiebuba (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify per WP:TOOSOON. (non-admin closure) ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 14:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2023

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

Almost no information is known (or at least not anything certain) about this future event. Only one source (Eurovoix) is talking about it. Clear case of WP:TOOSOON. I unilaterally draftified it earlier, but that was opposed. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Europe. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have articles for all the other Junior Eurovision Song Contests, so I think that we should have one for 2023. I see the argument that it was created too soon, but creating it in advance seems just the same as creating an article for an election in the future, which we know will happen. I'd keep it but work to improve it. Epa101 (talk) 23:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most future elections do not have articles, mostly because we do not know if they will happen. Things can change suddenly, and we've seen that before, for example with the Eurovision Song Contest 2020. That one does have an article because quite a lot of notable things had already happened, but with the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2023 almost nothing has happened yet and there are almost no sources. As WP:TOOSOON says: If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your first part. There are several articles linked to here: List of elections in 2023. I acknowledge that most of these articles have more sources than for the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2023, but some do not have many sources. I have just done a search on Google News, and this event has now had coverage in several newspapers in the last few days. If we delete it, I don't think that it'll be long before it'll have to be created again, so I've opted to keep. Epa101 (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify until more coverage occurs. This might require protecting the main space page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. WP:TOOSOON, the current refs are non-SIGCOV routine announcements that does not establish WP:GNG or WP:NEVENT being met; my WP:BEFORE didn't find non-announcement column/minor news stories coverage that counts towards GNG or NEVENT. Also, as per WP:GNG, Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability, which is the case here for Eurovoix. VickKiang (talk) 02:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft space. WP:TOOSOON as per nomination. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:43, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Not enough information about a future event. Grk1011 (talk) 15:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per above and per precedence. WP:TOOSOON for this. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 16:43, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per WP:TOOSOON. There is still around a year before this particular edition takes place. Vida0007 (talk) 10:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW keep; note that WP:SNOW does not actually require unanimity, but merely requires that the outcome is a foregone conclusion based on participation. At this point, there is no reasonable possibility that the outcome of the discussion will be anything other than a policy-supported keep. That being said, it may be advisable to consider potential options to merge this into something covering a higher level of abstraction. BD2412 T 04:03, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Goldman: A Documentary History of the American Years

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

Seems to be an academic book with little independent notability - a couple of very brief reviews in academic publications. Surely minor films and academic texts written about her are best preserved at Emma Goldman JMWt (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:56, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This appears to be a massive collection of novel primary sources that has received extensive academic attention. It's described in the first review I clicked on as "an invaluable contribution" to the relevant field and characterized as "particularly unique" for its format and composition. I'll work on expanding the article a little to hopefully clarify its notability. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 21:35, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, and Politics. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 21:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This doesn't seem any more notable than the previously-published Red Emma Speaks: Selected Writings and Speeches. I'd say that what little there is to say can go on the main article for Emma Goldman. The latter is not too long. Epa101 (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Epa101: The relevant benchmark here IMO is WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, comparing the book's notability to another book is irrelevant. Besides, the other book you mentioned actually has a couple of refs, 1, 2, they aren't the best but Red Emma Speaks: Selected Writings and Speeches isn't obviously non-notable. If you otherwise still believe that this topic is non-notable, it would be better if you explain how it fails WP:NBOOK/WP:GNG, e.g., why in your opinion the refs aren't SIGCOV, and why a merge/redirect (WP:ATD) would not work here. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 01:20, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you got the wrong end of the stick there. My point is that Red Emma Speaks: Selected Writings and Speeches doesn't have its own article. I was arguing that, if one is not notable enough for its own article, then the other is not. It might be that you do not like this sort of arguing from precedent. It might be that I, being English, am inclined towards the common law method of citing precedents, rather than the civil law method of citing principles. I don't think that Wikipedia favours one or the other though. I have seen others' arguing from precedents in other discussions, so I would dispute that this is invalid. The links to NBOOK and GNG that you give are for guidelines and they have caveats clearly specified at the start. I feel that how they are applied in practice is relevant. Epa101 (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So you are attempting to state that, if WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG might contradict with your argument, you will proceed to use other methods by comparing one article to another, by using the principle of "common law"? That another topic does not have an article does not mean that it is necessarily non-notable by Wikipedia standards, I'd be interested where you received that information from. And yes, guidelines have common sense exceptions and meeting a notability guideline usually only means that a topic is presumed to have an article, not certainly, and it could be up to editor's discretion, e.g., a longstanding precedent observed in many AfD discussions. But this seems to be main argument, that your benchmark is comparing article X with the notability of article Y.

But so far you are vaguely stating that you've seen other's arguing from precedents in other discussions- can you link those examples, or are you trying to argue this topic when merged/redirected is covered more cohesively, or are you trying to invoke WP:IAR, or something like that? Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. I don't think that you are following me here, although that is fine. We can disagree and vote in different directions in this system. I am not citing WP:IAR. I think that the article doesn't meet either WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, and I'm not the only one. I'm just saying that the way that I tend to decide whether something is "notable" or not is by looking at how this is applied elsewhere. It seems to me that, if we don't do this, then we might not be consistent with which books we decide are notable or not, since how we determine the word "notable" is inevitably determined by our personal biases and different people will make decisions that are inconsistent with one another. I recently participated in this debate on [The Queue]. If you scroll down, there's a lot of comparison with other articles. Epa101 (talk) 20:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Epa101: You are missing a lot of elements here. First, It seems to me that, if we don't do this, then we might not be consistent with which books we decide are notable or not- Wikipedia is a work in progress, if every notable subject has an article, and every non-notable subject have been deleted, then why are we still creating dozens of articles about many older/historical subjects that are reviewed during WP:NPP, while simultanneously having dozens of AfDs each day for very old articles? Consider this as hypothetical, I won't be doing this as it's WP:POINTY, but if I created an article on Red Emma, would you change your vote to keep? I can also use circular logic to argue that My Disillusionment in Russia has fewer refs (only three) compared to this topic, thus Emma Goldman: A Documentary History is notable. That a topic doesn't have an article is not a "precedent", if that topic had an article which was then deleted, with no refs being available, then that won't be an ideal precedent because it would still be an example of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

Moreover, this is the first time you cited guidelines, in the previous arguments you did not refer to NBOOK and GNG being failed (just saying unclearly exceptions to the guideline- what exceptions?). I haven't argued that an argument stating that NBOOK/GNG failed is not policy-based. Your comparison with The Queue is weak. You're missing that many of the arguments cite WP:NEVENT (is mentioned thirteen times), or surround its individual notability from Queen Elizabeth II etc... and whether it should be merged. That is different to comparing article X with the notability of article Y (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Some of the votes there were weak, others were strong, but that a few users voted in that way is not a strong justification here IMO.

Finally, your first reply stated that It might be that you do not like this sort of arguing from precedent- it's not just my opinion, I'm sure that you're well-versed in common and civil law compared to me, but that's irrevelant here. Some Wikipedians believe that the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument isn't strong, see Wikipedia:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments. You might be basing your contention based on Wikipedia:Notability comparison test, which is basically just written mainly by a single user. Sure, sometimes essays reflect minority viewpoints, but at least some editors believe that this type of argument isn't desirable, in contrast, I don't know if there are essays believing that this type of "common law" argument is better or on par with using policies/guidelines. Sure, some precedents are frequently used, e.g., WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES, but comparing article X with the notability of article Y is not. Still, let's respectfully disagree, given that you've already determined that you're assessing notability this way. I don't think your arguments will be the most convincing but that's just my POV, of course, let's see how the closer determines the weight of your argument. If you have suggestions on how the notability guidelines could be less ambiguous and more consistent, discussing it on notability talk pages or village pump are great ideas. If your vote could instead contradict the current refs and the ones Beccaynr provided, or reinforce the nominator's argument, it would be more convincing and policy-based, but that's up to you. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 21:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, I'd contend that, while this is obviously your intention, IMHO it might be possible that your argument could potentially be a bit similar with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ONLYGUIDELINE. You make many valid points, but from what I see (correct me if I'm wrong): The links to NBOOK and GNG that you give are for guidelines and they have caveats clearly specified at the start. I feel that how they are applied in practice is relevant- falls into the latter- sure there are exceptions but exceptions should be policy-based or clearly based upon established precedents, not comparing article X to article Y (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is what you are doing here. Many thanks. VickKiang (talk) 20:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NBOOK and WP:NOMERGE - the volumes of this 3-volume book have been the subject of multiple reviews that are already in the article, and this article can be further developed. Via the WP Library, other reviews include Library Journal (for Vol. 1) and Labor History (for Vol. 2), both via EBSCOhost, and via ProQuest, there is a citation for a Choice review for Vol. 1 and the full text of a review (ProQuest 367734728) in The Forward for Vol. 1. Beccaynr (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NBOOK. That the book might be less notable than its subject is irrelevant. pburka (talk) 23:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reviews Beccaynr provided- passes WP:NBOOK. Also unless I'm missing something, 1, 2, 3, 4 are quite lengthy (one of the JSTOR refs I downloaded via Wikipedia Library is 4 pages- certainly not very brief), does not appear to be very brief as suggested in the nominator's deletion rationale, and very likely meet WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS. Article can easily be expanded per WP:NEXIST, and merging is unnecessary IMO. VickKiang (talk) 01:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Labour/Le Travail review in the article for Vols. 1 and 2 is 9 pages (pdf now added to the cite). Beccaynr (talk) 01:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your update and addition, now this easily passes WP:GNG/WP:NBOOK IMO. VickKiang (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This book series had nine reviews listed from reliable, academic sources prior to this deletion nomination. That is more than enough to support a dedicated article. If you doubted them, I would have been happy to share them with you on the talk page. "WP:BEFORE" has not been followed here. czar 03:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, its almost SNOWing. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not quite a snowball given the lack of unanimity, but sourcing shows an indubitable pass of WP:BKCRIT. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Beccaynr and VickKiang have made a thoroughly convincing case for a WP:NBOOK pass. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 05:21, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: All all users said above. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 14:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Garuda3 (talk) 17:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Koghuzi, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

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

Like Barenis, which I just sent to AfD, This was sent to draft for improvement, since it has zero current references. I say zero, because the single "reference" is to a map on which this place does not exist. Neither of the two external links mention the town either. Was actually approved at AfC without a single valid reference. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep WP:GEOLAND states "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable". Theroadislong (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And there is no sourcing to show is it a populated legally recognized place. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:24, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Google maps shows it having a mosque, a stadium, a school, a police station and assorted businesses.Theroadislong (talk) 15:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep must be keep and improve.115.186.135.10 (talk) 17:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This place appears in censuses ([20], [21], [22]) so seems to have legal recognition. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs improvement and for that it needs to be kept. Places are usually notable. Muneebll (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I notice that, since the AFD nomination was made, an additional reference was added, but to a Google search. I can't immediately find the relevant guidance, but I thought that the citation ought to be to a specific source which supports the text concerned, rather than to a vague search result which is liable to change with time? For me the Google search seemed to lead to a Facebook page, see WP:FACEBOOK. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Rename to Koghuzi, which currently redirects to the district it's in. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there still isn't a single reliable reference which shows that this place passes WP:GEOLAND.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:GEOLAND is sufficient for notability, but evidence is needed of meeting GEOLAND, and only one !vote thus far directly addresses this need.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:09, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GEOLAND based on the sources provided by Phil Bridger showing legal recognition through government censuses. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:08, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but requires better sources. There must be some for a town. Maybe a census? Epa101 (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable article. 103.255.7.3 (talk) 15:52, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources provided by Phil Bridger support that WP:GEOLAND is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 04:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) L1amw90 22:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wilton Sampaio

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

Wouldn't it be better to delete this article, and recreate it on the Brazilian wiki page (if there is one)?... To me there's not enough information regarding him, and not enough sources... L1amw90 18:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. L1amw90 18:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - ay? If there are Brazilian sources on him then we can use just them on English Wikipedia. Why the proposal to delete and then remake elsewhere, either he is or is not notable and considering he is refereeing for the World Cup (!!), and some of his equals seemingly have bare-bone articles as well, I would say he is notable by all means. Tweedle (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If sources are needed to demonstrate this then:..

1. Gary Neville calls Brazilian referee for England's defeat to France 'an absolute joke' - Telegraph (goes into detail about the referee despite the title of the article
2. Who is England vs France referee Wilton Sampaio? - The Independent
3. Wilton Sampaio: The referee’s 4 most controversial calls from England’s World Cup defeat to France - Inews
4. Wikipedia says referee ‘lost his guide dog’ after apparent England fan edits - Belfast Telegraph

Granted these are all UK sources, but the fact remains that the above go into detail about him specifically, more then notable for inclusion. Tweedle (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 2405:201:4011:616C:E8EE:6F85:A813:49F4 (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All of the other 2022 FIFA World Cup referees have a page so not sure why Sampaio's article should be deleted. He is notable in being a current FIFA referee and I imagine that there is lots of inforamtion out there to expand it if needed. Sudiani (talk) 19:10, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Brazil. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:35, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On top of the coverage he's received for refereeing the FIFA World Cup, I also found some sources discussing him (not trivial mentions) from before all that: [23] (already in article), [24], [25]. Also, I don't understand why, if there weren't enough sources to establish notability, we'd recreate the article on ptwiki. ◇HelenDegenerate◆ 19:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per pt:Wilton Pereira Sampaio, clearly nominator is not interested in checking other wiki's or doing a WP:BEFORE. Govvy (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above and at pt.wiki which show notability. Giant Snowman 20:17, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I feel this is a failure of WP:BEFORE. As I posted on the talk page of the article this person is subject to extended, international coverage as well as the reliable sources above (BBC, The Guardian, NY Times, Eurosport etc.) . Plus pt:Wilton Pereira Sampaio.Vanteloop (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
L1amw90, I hope this is the last time you bring bring an article to AfD because you're disappointed with the subject's performance in a match your favourite team played in. Robby.is.on (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Robby.is.on Grow Up :/

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

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

The result was Keep as DABs where applicable. A bit of a messy AfD, with many disparate issues being discussed somewhat in parallel. There is clear consensus that NLIST is not met here; that is, the subjects of these lists are not notable as a group, though they may be individually notable. There is consensus that these pages may serve useful navigational functions, and as such pages that list three or more entries should be turned into DABs titled "Highway [number]". It's still unclear what we should do if and when only two or one pages are listed, and consensus isn't clear on this point. To me, common sense suggests that when a number DAB exists, that would be a logical merge target, and if none exists, then likely the matter can be handled without a DAB page at all; some PRODs and/or RfDs may be needed. However, this last is a suggestion only, as there was limited discussion of this case in the AfD. Normally, I would implement this closure, but given the size of the undertaking I'm going to duck that responsibility, and I note Primefac has offered to take up the slack, though of course he is not compelled to. That may include removing the AfD template from a number of articles, as the script appears to be upset about this discussion. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of highways numbered 1000

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

Texas and Louisiana have a lot of roads.^{[citation needed]} So does Kentucky (to a lesser extent). Each one of these roads is listed in more detail in locations such as List of state highways in Louisiana (1000–1049). These two- or three-item lists are pointless, they are not actually linked to from any article (other than themselves) and are not encyclopedic. It's pointless mass-created cross-categorisation that serves no purpose. I will also point out a previous nomination which has similar rationale, however I see zero reason to redirect any of these. Primefac (talk) 14:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, United States of America, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Texas. Primefac (talk) 14:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nominator that this type of list is pointless and not encyclopedic. Serveds no real purpose. Paul H. (talk) 14:43, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion that this group is notable as a group. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 14:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pointless. ScottWillis45 (talk) 15:11, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move all to "Highway X". The titles as is are inappropriate but I disagree with the noms claim there is no value, "Highway X" are possible search terms and these arictles would be useful to disambiguate. Another option would be to disambiguate to just the number, like how the 1187 article was closed, but that involves more work. Jumpytoo Talk 21:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If anyone is looking for a highway usually they're typing in the state or country first, then the number, or else to the highway article itself and to the bottom template to find the highway they need. These pages are so short as to be useless. Nate • (chatter) 22:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Only a couple of entries per list is not a list and serves very little purpose as a disambiguation. Ajf773 (talk) 09:16, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—I would not move any of these to new titles given that they're consistent with the other 1,300+ such pages in Category:Lists of roads sharing the same title. Given the number of articles in that category, I can see some utility to these, and I think that like redirects, dab pages are fairly cheap to have and serve some navigation utility. Imzadi 1979 → 22:36, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—to clarify, if the titling is an issue, then a massive move request encompassing the other 1,300+ articles would be in order. We shouldn't be considering these 200 pages separate from the rest. Imzadi 1979 → 08:14, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Naming is not the issue. I recognise that there are a ton of these pages, and I plan on dealing with them at a later time. These are the metaphorical low-hanging fruit, and a good place to garner opinions about the other pages without having to explicitly nominate them (i.e. it will inform my future actions as to merge or AFD similar pages). Primefac (talk) 09:07, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to numbers. I disagree with the nom, as the lists are marginally useful like Jumpytoo says. They would definitely be better as categories and/or disambiguation pages, as such pages would not be totally useless for disambiguating topics like "Highway 1000". However, they are not suitable as standalone lists. Epicgenius (talk) 23:12, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I mean: List of highways numbered 1000 can be redirected to 1000 (number), List of highways numbered 1001 can be redirected to 1001 (number), etc.
I think WP:LISTPURP overrides WP:NLIST here, namely: Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. These lists do serve a navigational purpose, but they are all so short that they do not need to be standalone lists. Redirecting these lists to disambiguation pages, or to the articles about the numbers themselves, will allow these lists to continue serving a navigational purposes. Hence, I don't think the arguments that "these lists aren't notable as a group" are applicable here. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think that if all possible entries were added, that there would be significant content for a disambiguation/set index page (which is what these are, these are not intended to be full-fledged articles). For example, Category:Roads in England, Category:Chinese national-level expressways, sk:Kategória:Cesty III. triedy na Slovensku, French national routes, bg:Категория:Републикански пътища в България etc. --Rs chen 7754 02:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the past AFDs have ended in redirecting to the number (example: 1055 (disambiguation)) and I would find that acceptable too. --Rs chen 7754 02:39, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - My only issue with that is not all pages have dab pages; to pick one entirely at random (and yes, it was literally the first one I clicked), 1126 is about the year, and there is no "number" or "dab-style" page. So we would essentially be renaming List of highways numbered 1126 to 1126 (disambiguation), which seems more like moving around deck chairs than anything. Primefac (talk) 09:09, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Even so, if we did this across the board, it would eliminate a significant number of pages. And it would open up the door to more entries as they come up. Regardless, disambiguation pages are cheap. I guess I don't see the problem. --Rs chen 7754 06:47, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to the numbers dab pages. These dab pages could be expanded to list all highways in all countries with that number, which would make them more useful. If there are too few entries to maintain a dab page, redirecting to the number dab page is a good option. Dough4872 13:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Disambiguation pages are still necessary for navigation, especially considering that categories are not easily accessible for mobile readers. Sounder Bruce 06:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now, I see a strong, early movement to delete this mass-created pages and a later group of editors asking to Keep or Redirect them instead which could lead us to a No consensus decision. Just a note, the way this AFD is set up right now, I think any Redirect for all of these pages would have to be done manually. Right now, I'm just going to relist this discussion for another week/few days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to numbers per Epicgenius and Rschen7754. Are the links on these pages useful? Sure, I guess. I personally don't use them, but that doesn't mean nobody uses them. Are there more highways out there that would potentially go into these lists? Definitely. Are these lists worth anything on their own? No. Redirecting to the numbers is the way to go. –Fredddie ™ 06:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I asked above, what numbers? Most of the numbers on this list do not have a "things for this number" disambiguator, so we would just be turning (for example) List of highways numbered 1056 into 1056 (disambiguation) without changing anything. Primefac (talk) 07:34, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most != all, especially if you are going to nominate the other articles for deletion. And it opens the door for those pages to be used by other things that come up. All the numbers under 2022 will at least have the year as an additional entry. Is there something I am missing? Do extra disambiguation pages cause the website any harm? It's not like they are stubs. --Rs chen 7754 17:21, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOHARM. Primefac (talk) 07:44, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What, it's false information to say that a State Highway X exists in Kentucky? --Rs chen 7754 02:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "it does not do any harm" claim and its rebuttal are at the center of the philosophical editing debate of inclusionism versus deletionism. In other words, I am not going to get into it with you if that's your primary argument (which it shouldn't be anyway, because it's one of the Arguments to Avoid). Primefac (talk) 07:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for one more week, in an attempt to arrive at a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jumpytoo and Imzadi1979: Since both of you have already voted for variants of keeping - would redirecting/merging to the numbers be acceptable to you? --Rs chen 7754 01:25, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is willing to make the effort to create the missing numerical disambiguation articles, then yes I would support that. Jumpytoo Talk 04:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. There is no need to bundle a bunch of highways from several different states whose sole connection is that their (somewhat) arbitrarily assigned number is 1,000. I would delete for all numbers below 1,000 as well. Frank Anchor 18:14, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(

Blocked sockpuppet of BFDIFan707, see investigation)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Delete - I also cannot find anything about this spot - WP:NOTDATABASE, no indication that it meets WP:GNG or any other relevant notability standard. CPORfan (talk) 09:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CPORfan, that is a very certain opinion for a week-old editor to have about a very extensive deletion proposal. What "spot" are you referring to? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A valid question, maybe, but not when framed was "you've only been here a fortnight how can you possibly know this". Primefac (talk) 07:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. scope_creep^Talk 21:21, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no difference at all between List of highways numbered 1000 and the very clearly necessary disambig/set index List of highways numbered 10. There appear to be fewer though so we don't need separate indexes for A1000 road, M1000, etc. and I would not necessarily be opposed to merging groups of numbers into a single set index if someone thinks that would be beneficial. Deleting this will make navigation harder without bringing any benefits to the encyclopaedia at all. Thryduulf (talk) 01:38, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did actually start writing something similar to List of NGC objects (e.g. a composite list of "all highways between 1000-2000") but was concerned that it was basically duplicating the state lists (e.g. List of state highways in Louisiana (1000–1049)). Primefac (talk) 07:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are many UK A and B roads that could go on the lists too, although only some of the former have articles and if any B roads do they will be few and far between. See e.g. A1117 road and A roads in Zone 1 of the Great Britain numbering scheme. Thryduulf (talk) 02:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Liz (the potential AfD closer) said that if a redirect was the consensus each article would likely have to be done manually, perhaps implying there's a lot more work involved than with a simple keep or delete. Being new to AfD discussions, on a practical point, who carries out the work? I'd hope it would be those who have proposed that course of action, not Liz! The redirect arguments to numbers I don't see a strong rationale for. I agree with the point that if this categorisation is of no use for roads/highways labelled upwards of 1000 then it's questionable whether it has any use for all those numbered below 1000. So my conclusion is: if this way of categorisation serves a useful purpose (and some contributors have hinted it might, though it seems without firm conviction), then keep all but if it doesn't delete all. Rupples (talk) 12:47, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The XfDCloser script likely cannot handle 200+ pages being nominated at once, and so when the discussion is closed (regardless of the outcome) the result will need to be manually implemented. As the nominator of the AFD I am fine with doing that ("it's my mess" type of situation). Primefac (talk) 13:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Generally its the AfD closer who implements the consensus - this is no bother at all when there are only a few articles considered. There are tools/scripts that help with some large nominations, e.g. XfD closer I think can quickly remove templates from many articles if the consensus is keep; but the implication is that it can't handle creating redirects (I don't use it myself so I may be wrong). This is something AWB may be able to handle (I don't know) or there may be a bot out there that can do the job. That should not be a consideration in determining the consensus though.

I too see no value at all in redirecting to the numbers, but I do (as noted) see these as valuable pages (possibly when merged) as there are more than just two US states that use four digit road numbers, e.g. the UK. France and Spain also have at least a couple each but we don't seem to have lists of them. Thryduulf (talk) 13:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:LC – not a useful search term or grouping. Stifle (talk) 15:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Stifle. I don't think the are any sources anywhere that mention together the set of roads numbered 10 (such as Highway 10 in the US, Highway 10 in Australia, the A10 in Britain, the N10 in Ireland, the A10 in France etc etc etc) and consequently WP:NOTESAL is not satisfied as the set is not notable, and hence a random bit of indiscriminate information. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- There seems to be a lot of confusion over what these pages are intended to be. I see them as disambiguation pages. Do we generally source disambiguation pages? --Rs chen 7754 17:40, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  "Officially" these are set index articles, per {{Road index}}. Primefac (talk) 17:51, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move all to "Highway X" per Jumpytoo. Each individual page has too little information to justify having a separate article, and the listed items have very little in common with each other. I'm not exactly sure what is meant by "Redirect all to numbers as suggested by Epicgenius, but if it is something similar then I'll go with that too. And if the Closer need more people to manually redirecting all the pages, please notify me in my talk page, I'll help out during the process. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is that, for example, List of highways numbered 1000 can be redirected to 1000 (number), List of highways numbered 1001 can be redirected to 1001 (number), etc. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Lacks reliable sources supporting that WP:NLIST is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Speaking as a potential closer: there is currently clear consensus that WP:NLIST is not met, but a reasonable argument has been put forward that these are valuable as DAB pages. Given the considerable input this has received it would be a shame to close this as "no consensus", so I'm relisting one more time in the hope that the remaining disagreement can be hashed out. So: do we keep all/some/none as DABs, do we retitle, do we merge? It wouldn't be the worst idea to ping those who have already participated here. Relisting manually, as this AfD breaks the script. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:54, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 17:54, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment: my first preference is still to delete these all, but if there is no consensus to delete then merging these into one or two list-of-lists type articles like List of NGC objects would be a reasonable (if distant) second choice. Primefac (talk) 19:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as DABs, but consolidate): I was confused as to the purpose of these pages, but having read through the discussion again, things are at last becoming clearer. I'd been trying to find insight or meaning between the links in the articles but failed. A1000 in the UK, FM1000 in Texas - no relation to each other, except they're both highways/roads. However, while a meaningful relationship is a requirement for a set index it's not for DAB pages. Notability isn't relevant as DABs are a navigational aid.

If successful with delete, ~~the nominator has indicated an intention to AfD the rest of these highway lists~~ what concerns me is the effect this could have on readership of the underlying articles for each road/highway because they may not be found so easily. Less links = less readers.

I don't get the argument for merging into numbers as there'd be even less relationship between the articles listed. Year 1000, highway 1000? Nah! Consolidation into DABs of highway numbers, between say, 1000 and 1099; 1100 and 1199 etc is a better alternative. Rupples (talk) 20:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a point of clarification, I did not say I had an intention to AfD the rest of these highway lists. I said that this discussion will inform my future actions as to merge or AFD similar pages. Even if this discussion closes as "delete", there has been enough pushback that I would likely not be nominating any of the other pages for deletion, and clearly pages like List of highways numbered 10 (which is 10k long) should be left alone; The 1000+ numberings are, with very very small exception, a pseudo-dab between TX and LA highways. The others have semi-useful content, even if that content should probably be merged to a super-group page. Primefac (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the misinterpretation. Rupples (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rupples that these articles should be kept as DABs but consolidated. Like many others, I struggle with the utility of individual pages where there are only one or two entries. But there is precedent for lists of highways at higher numbers such as the Louisiana page mentioned in the nomination rationale. A discussion should be had to determine what an appropriate cutoff for these merged lists is. (E.g., it doesn't make sense to have "List of highways numbered 1-10," but "List of highways numbered 1000-1050" is probably fine). Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:17, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as DABs but consolidated per Rupples. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Turn into disambiguation pages seems to be the compromise solution (and how these are presently functioning) but it isn't clear what "consolidated" means. If it means create ranges, such as Highways 1000–1099, then that's no longer "disambiguation". I recommend (1) retitling these lists in "Highway X" format, e.g., List of highways numbered 10 becomes Highway 10, which would be the term that needs disambiguating, then (2) if there are at least three entries, leave as a disambiguation page or for discussion, but if there are fewer entries, merge to the number's disambiguation page, or create one if none exists. E.g.:
- List of highways numbered 10 becomes Highway 10 and stays a disambiguation page; link Highway 10 from Ten (disambiguation), its number disambiguation page
- List of highways numbered 1000 becomes Highway 1000 and disambiguates between its three entries; link it from 1000 (disambiguation)
- List of highways numbered 1001 becomes Highway 1001 and merges into 1001 (disambiguation) as it isn't worth keeping a separate disambiguation page for just two highway entries and there are other entries called "1001" that can be disambiguated; same for 1002 and 1003, which have year pages but neither number nor disambiguation pages and would need creation

This preserves both the content and the intent of the "lists" without becoming onerous. czar 16:58, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 16:59, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Punk Bunny

AfDs for this article:

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

There is slim possibility that Sandoval himself is notable (I have found a few refs such as this that talk about him specifically) but I can find hardly anything (including archived versions of the extant sources) that actually discusses Punk Bunny itself in any more detail than "they played at XYZ gig" or similar. I will note that the previous AfD indicated that it was a weak keep with a reasonable re-nomination possible if changes are not made (which they have not). Primefac (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. Primefac (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 04:32, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not have enough notability to pass WP:MUSICBIO. Suonii180 (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Some Things You Need to Know Before the World Ends (A Final Evening with the Illuminati). (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Larson

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Little to no hits in GNews. Sarrail (talk) 15:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Various obituaries for people with this name, an NRHA racing post. Nothing for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 15:59, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sarrail (talk) 16:00, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:25, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's just a stub. 🌀 SuperTyphoonNoru 🌀 SuperTyphoonNoru (talk) 16:30, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a stub for years, and there's already tags with multiple issues, including the addition of sources. Even though it is a stub; it doesn't meet the WP:NBIO criteria. Sarrail (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Some Things You Need to Know Before the World Ends (A Final Evening with the Illuminati) ... provided that article doesn't itself warrant deletion (I did find one Chicago Reader review, so the latter is not a total lost cause.), otherwise delete for failing WP:CREATIVE, WP:NACTOR, etc. The play seems to be his sole real claim to notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Some Things You Need to Know Before the World Ends (A Final Evening with the Illuminati) as it doesn't pass WP:NACTOR. Suonii180 (talk) 10:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW keep. BD2412 T 03:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Black children as alligator bait

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

This appears to be an urban myth. I had considered it a conspiracy theory rather than a "purported practice" since there appears to be only a single academic claiming its reality whereas all other sources debunk it, similar to such claims as the existence of ius primae noctis. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and unless this article is treated as what it is: an urban legend claimed to be true by a fringe theorist, it should probably be deleted lest it turn into another Alan MacMasters. CorwenAv (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 December 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is an urban myth, and the article clearly confirms that. Seems well-sourced, not culturally appropriate these days, but it was a thing in popular culture at one point. So long as we have clearly explained in NPOV what it was and why it's "bad news", it's ok. Oaktree b (talk) 16:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the inclusion of it as an urban legend, but the article should declare what it is in the first sentence, short description, and categories rather than giving WP:UNDUE weight to the opinion of a single scholar who is of otherwise limited notability (neither he nor any works by him are notable enough to have their own entries). The categorisations and descriptions of it as an urban legend have been repeatedly reverted, and my deletion proposal is solely motivated by concern that a fringe theory is being given more credibility than it deserves. CorwenAv (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We could always request semi-protection of the page, that might help keep the disruptive edits down. Oaktree b (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:24, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keeps seems to be a thing that's discussed in academia, therefore it seems to me to be notable. I'm not a great fan of the format of the page title or the way the page has been written, but that's a different question to notability. JMWt (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if outright deletion is not available. As I pointed out on the talk page, this is entirely the assertion of one (not very impressive) academic who has been refuted. It's absolutely false, and the article's existence is trying to convert depictions of children on postcards into actual practice, despite the fact this never happened. A page like Stereotypes of African Americans where the relevant couple lines could exist would be the place to put this in context without Wikipedia helping prop up a fringe theory (which, as we've seen repeatedly people will quote Wikipedia and it will take on a life of its own.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but edit the wording to make it even more clear that we're talking about something that never happened except in the imagination of racists. Perhaps even remove Hughes from the article. NPOV does not mean "include every fringe theory". But all of that is secondary to this being a notable topic. casualdejekyll 23:10, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This and this also concern me. It looks like there's a slow / semi-active edit war about whether this is historical or not, when WP:UNDUE suggests we should be writing this as an urban legend. NPOV is not a suicide pact. casualdejekyll 23:15, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is ample evidence (both primary sources and discussion in reliable sources) of this having existed as a stereotype or urban legend (in the folklore sense); the disagreements about the article appear to be preponderantly about balance. I have restored the "legend" and "urban legend" categories added by CorwenAv, but not the "conspiracy theory" ones; the applicability of that term should probably be discussed on the talk page. I've also notified the article creator and two others who have made substantial edits to the article, since CorwenAv does not appear to have made any notifications. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:16, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Black children being called alligator bait is a stereotype/epithet/pejorative that passes WP:GNG because (as others have stated) it has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. If the article needs cleanup or a clearer title to keep it in line with our P&G, that's not a reason to delete. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but I really think "speedy keep" might apply here: the nominator presents nothing at all. "an urban legend claimed to be true by a fringe theorist"--what? We have an article here on a specific trope used by racists and race baiters. The issue is truth doesn't even apply. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are hundreds of pages in Category:Urban legends. That in itself is not a reason to delete. The relevant guideline is WP:GNG, which this topic seems to pass easily. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is coverage of Category:Stereotypes of African Americans and it is well sourced. Nominator is correct - these are falsehoods - but I do not think a reasonable person could misunderstand any of this as believable. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sangdeboeuf beat me to it, but being an urban legend does not preclude an article on the subject. This article's subject absolutely meets WP:GNG, so I don't see a cause for deletion. There is a very important difference between the deception of a WP:HOAX article presenting a false narrative as true, and an article documenting something that may not be true, but in an accurate way that does not attempt to deceive. - Aoidh (talk) 19:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator's claim that this is an urban myth (as opposed to a rural myth) is presented without evidence and almost certainly incorrect, but that does not matter much. Myths can be notable and this racist myth is notable. Encyclopedic coverage of notable racist myths is an important component of our coverage of racism. Cullen328 (talk) 09:24, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The term "urban myth" has no inherent connotations of town or country, it is merely a descriptor of contemporary folklore (as opposed to myths with extremely long history such as tales of King Arthur or Achilles). My concern was solely that undue weight was being given to a fringe theory (namely that black children actually were used as bait for alligators), I never had any opposition to covering this trope as myth. CorwenAv (talk) 10:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, those above explained well, and how can we avoid such a waste of time? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment recent edits to the article mean I am satisfied it is no longer misleading or giving undue weight to fringe theory so I hereby withdraw the proposal. CorwenAv (talk) 10:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is shaping up to be a WP:SNOW keep, so I'd like to propose renaming the article to Alligator bait once discussion is closed. None of the other pages in Category:Stereotypes of African Americans use a format like Black people as X, although virtually all could be described this way. The trope/epithet is just called "alligator bait" in reliable sources including Turner (1994), Herbst (1997), and Journal of Blacks in Higher Education (1999). Herbst specifically says that the slur is directed at Back people, not just children. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to express my support for this secondary proposal. CorwenAv (talk) 12:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Then it should be renamed Black people as alligator bait, not whitewashed. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:FDFE:2FA3:7F3A:C38C (talk) 13:27, 14 December 2022 (UTC) — 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:FDFE:2FA3:7F3A:C38C (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
IP editing is absolutely allowed during the AFD process. Labeling me as an WP:SPA is absurd. My IP address fluctuates constantly and I don’t have a registered account. At this point your rationale for these suggested edits is highly dubious. I plan to watch your edits going forward. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:7185:33B9:AA2C:7D97 (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see how the proposed change is a "whitewash". What is "dubious" about my rationale exactly? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand; are Pickaninny and Golliwog "whitewashed" titles because they don't have the word "black" in them? Most stereotypes of African Americans do not use the word "black". We usually go by commonly recognzable names, which "alligator bait" seems to be. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:56, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I originally thought that this would need to be disambiguated, but a quick Google suggests that this is indeed the primary topic for "alligator bait" (you'd think the primary topic would be, you know, actual food for alligators, but I guess not). casualdejekyll 14:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. That would remove most of what the problem seems to be in my opinion. RPI2026F1 (talk) 18:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - WP:SNOW close. Article is well-sourced and not misleading in any way. Sundayclose (talk) 14:58, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep per Sundayclose. We do have articles on urban legends, folklore, conspiracy theories, and even hoaxes if they pass GNG. Subject here passes the WP:GNG. —usernamekiran (talk) 08:21, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted blatant WP:PROMO. El_C 16:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vishal Raghwan

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

No assertion of notability, and no reporting from any independent sources. Appears to just be an autobiographical page with social media links. (Prodded by Archer1234, which was reverted.) Bsoyka (talk) 15:34, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only primary sources, no notablility, just looks like an autobiography. Page probably fits WP:CSD. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 15:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, No assertion of notability, and no reporting from any independent sources. — Archer1234 (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable at all, primary sources/SPS (Instagram, Linkedin, etc) are used throughout this article and article created by a COI (most likely) editor. Harobouri • 🎢 • 🏗️ (he/him • WP:APARKS) 15:56, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Shellwood (talk) 16:25, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:28, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no assertion of notability Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:31, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom Backgammon Federation

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

Non-notable organisation, only cites close primary sources, and a search finds nothing better (searched with 'United Kingdom', 'UK', and 'UKBGF', before anyone asks). Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see this as notable. A search on Google Books has some secondary sources, but still the article is going to be very short based on what's in them. I don't see it as worth keeping. Epa101 (talk) 17:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Organizations, and United Kingdom. DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Simone James

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

Sole claim to notability appears to be as an actress. Had one bit part for less than a year in a British soap. No other parts of note. No coverage in reliable sources. Fred Zepelin (talk) 14:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fred Zepelin (talk) 14:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:12, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not finding much in ProQuest. One quote in The Sun about her EastEnders role (which specifically doesn't count per WP:RSP, bad news for UK soap opera fans), and one mention in the 'Leicester Mercury about her role in Melody Loses Her Mojo. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Impressive find on the Melody Loses Her Mojo mention - being that it's a non-notable 2013 play that didn't run in the West End, and she appears to be 3rd-billed in it, I completely missed it. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks in-depth coverage in reliable sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 04:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

R.K. Sennaya Swamy Muthukrishnan

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

Seems to me a mix of fringe, spam, poor/unreliable sources, and missing notability. Lone-078 (talk) 14:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lone-078 (talk) 14:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:13, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for all of the above. Kazamzam (talk) 13:46, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:57, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Kynman

AfDs for this article:

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

Tried to prod, previously Xfd'd. References are cast lists and passing mentions. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NACTOR. scope_creep^Talk 12:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:58, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NACTOR - UtherSRG (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and create a new redicert to BBC - I don't know about this but i would like any of you to delete this page. 174.27.66.83 (talk) 15:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

APCOR

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

I'm finding a reasonable number of sources for this group, but they are almost all either brief mentions or industry-specific/niche publications. In other words, I do not see them meeting WP:GNG let alone NCORP. Primefac (talk) 13:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Wine, Business, and Portugal. Primefac (talk) 13:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:40, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Hartley

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

Article about an actor that doesn't meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Has only played minor roles, If the subject has appeared on 60 principal and leading roles then there should clearly be WP:RS available. The sources are basically a talent website and its IMBd page. Jamiebuba (talk) 13:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and England. Jamiebuba (talk) 13:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing found, I'm not sure if he was in well-known productions, but I can't find any critical attention about him. Oaktree b (talk) 14:00, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~* Delete~~ Change to neutral: ~~delete in the current state, there is not much to be found on the subject~~ Paradise Chronicle (talk) 02:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor claiming to be Steven Hartley and seemingly single purpose account with only edits to the article in question has just opposed its deletion here.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Times source is good enough for me to believe there could be more. The Times source has a paywall, though so I could add just a bit.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:06, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This Gale OneFile link might work if you are already logged in to Wikipedia Library (or possibly maybe even if you are not). I wish they didn't call it "CV" as it sounds like it's user-submitted but when you see it in layout like that, you think, ok maybe they fact-checked it? And more reputable source than the tabloid (an issue that Patrick also flagged)? Cielquiparle (talk) 15:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Earwig flags as "Violation Suspected" across three sites (80%, 71%, 71%). The page is so old that it could easily be a case of WP:CITOGENESIS and no reliable secondary sources are cited. Time to break the circle. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:39, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think he passes WP:NACTOR: according to the BFI he had a recurring role in The Bill of 100+ episodes; also played Matthew Jackson in Eastenders. There are various reviews of his stage work in for example the Times and The Stage. Stage roles include playing Bill Sikes in Sam Mendes' Oliver Piecesofuk (talk) 15:52, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We've had a bunch of these pages up for years and some of them have barely even met the slightest WP:NACTOR guidelines. If WP:RS that thoroughly discusses the subject can be provided alongside reliable references of his roles in movies then i'll be happy to withdraw my nomination if not its still delete for me. Jamiebuba (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe he's more known for his TV and stage roles:

Also known for voice over work: "Mr TalkSport" https://archive.org/details/storyoftalksport0000port/page/169/mode/1up?q=hartley

The following can be viewed in the Wikipedia Library which you linked above

Bad cop role ideal for Steven From:Evening Times (Glasgow, Scotland) June 13, 2002 315 words Brief article

My hols; Steven Hartley has rocked the boat in New Zealand and stewed in the cells of Marseilles Source: Sunday Times (London, England). April 5, 2009, 30

Celeb CV: Steven Hartley (41): The Bill Source: The Mirror (London, England). Oct 5, 2002, 39

Beat goes on The Bill's new faces By: JACKIE BRYGEL, Mercury, The (Hobart), JAN 19, 2002

Celeb People: My fear of a stalker; Sun Hill heart-throb Steven Hartley was bombarded with 40 letters in six months by an obsessed female fan. The Bill star tells STEVE CLARKE why he nearly called in the Old Bill. Source: The People (London, England). 2002, pages. 11

CV Steven Hartley Source: The Times, London, United Kingdom: Times Newspapers Limited, pp. 55[S3], Issue. 67448, 2002 Piecesofuk (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Piecesofuk This list is great – thanks for compiling! I would just note that "My hols" by Steven Hartley in The Sunday Times doesn't count toward notability, since it's an article written in his voice. The video of his character sketch doesn't count either. But it is great to see all of it in a list regardless. Let's see if it's enough to update the article. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have one additional concern, which is: Does Steven Hartley even really want a Wikipedia article? It sounds like he has an expectation that he is entitled to "own" the article and that no one else is allowed to edit it. If that's the case, he may not be happy with the end product, when he realises it has to change in order to conform with Wikipedia guidelines. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree about the Sunday Times article not counting towards notability, the article includes biographical information in the preamble and mentions his appearance on stage in Dirty Dancing https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/my-hols-steven-hartley-ktvskrdqg0w Here's another two page article from February 2009 also about his appearance in Dirty Dancing https://archive.org/details/living-south-magazine-2009-02/page/n5/mode/1up Piecesofuk (talk) 13:53, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Major role in The Bill and significant roles in other long-running series. Clearly hasn't "appeared on 60 principal and leading roles", but AfD is about notability of the topic not quality of the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:28, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp out of curiosity. Can your source that the roles except for with IMDb? I did try and also sourced two appearances and the talkSport. Also I am wondering why the ones who vote keep don't add the sources themselves? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 13:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sinpar

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

There are two sources, one a photo caption, and a lot of unsourced content. Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Transportation. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure if there are enough sources to justify keeping it, but I did find some additional ones. The Berliet Foundation has an article about them,[26] and there are a few entries in automobile encyclopedias like the Complete Encyclopedia of Motorcars.[27] BuySomeApples (talk) 07:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem is there appear to be two companies (or more?), so are they the same one, or one set up by two people with the same names or some other reason? Slatersteven (talk) 09:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There appears to be more information and there appear to be more sources in the German language and the French language entries of which this appears to be a summary. If anyone can be bothered to improve it, starting from those sources and building according to what turns up along the way, there is plenty of scope for that. If no one can be bothered to improve it at present, then methinks it remains informative enough to be classified as a stub+ until someone comes along with the appropriate combination of motivation and time. Be well Charles01 (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient sourcing available to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty notable, I know I have linked to this in the past. Sources suffice and I will be happy to add more once I am done moving house. Mr.choppers | ✎ 02:09, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elkhan Ganiyev

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

Not a notable person. Also, I have strong concerns about UPE issues — Toghrul R (t) 13:38, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Photography, and Azerbaijan. — Toghrul R (t) 13:38, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One photo by-line from UN News, nothing else found. Oaktree b (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW keep. BD2412 T 03:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bootleg Fire

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

I think it fails GNG, along with being very short, just 18 references and very short sections. 🌀 SuperTyphoonNoru 🌀 SuperTyphoonNoru (talk) 13:07, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:39, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It looks like it can pass WP:GNG criteria by the significant coverage of it by reliable sources, though I would tag some sections with {{expand section}}. Sarrail (talk) 16:35, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 18 sources is usually enough to meet GNG in most cases as long as some of them are in depth. The InciWeb links have gone dead, but can most likely be retrieved from an archive as it is a government site. The fire is big enough and important enough to escape a WP:NOTNEWS criticism. It is being cited as an example of the severe effects of climate change in multiple sources so likely to have lasting notability. SpinningSpark 18:15, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - New York Times and CNN alone is GNG. This New York Times source from January of this year and this local source from July of this year suggest there's enough lasting coverage to pass WP:PERSISTENCE. casualdejekyll 23:35, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Obviously passes general notability requirements given the preponderance of source material. 18 citations and many of them to news articles that exclusively cover the subject. Having short sections is not even remotely a valid deletion reason, given that we have stubs that are also notable. Steven Walling • talk 05:20, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 18 sources is a lot, and the page itself seems solid enough. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:52, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable and well sourced. Needs an expansion though.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 01:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of sources and coverage.--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 04:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources cited in the article demonstrate that the subject passes WP:GNG. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:46, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 18 references are a lot and some of these are great sources. PAsses GNG. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly and obviously notable. There isn't even a lot to say: it is well-cited and well-covered, and just because it's short isn't a reason for deletion. Curbon7 (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:16, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yannasit Sukchareon

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

Badly sourced BLP on a footballer that does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC in spite of playing one game of professional football. Best sources I can find are Ballthai, which is a basic contract renewal announcement - not sure if Ballthai is WP:RS but, even if it is, this isn't enough depth for a Wikipedia article. Super Sub Thailand also has a paragraph about him but this looks like a blog post. The depth isn't great either, it merely lists the age at which he joined Muangthong and lists a few low-level clubs that he was loaned out to. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Thailand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:03, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:27, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:16, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 03:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The WP:NOR arguments are compelling, and people also point out that it is offensive for Wikipedia to use a pseudoscientific Nazi racial classification scheme as an inclusion criterium for our lists. Sandstein 11:02, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nazis of non-Germanic descent

AfDs for this article:

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

List created by a sock puppet of a banned user. Unsupported, vague and contradictory claims and the concept (never explained in the article) clear WP:OR GizzyCatBella🍁 10:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the above. Also, it seems that during the previous deletion-nomination the original (banned) author voted to keep using a sock puppet-account. Vlaemink (talk) 10:59, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Ethnic groups, History, and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. Non-Germans serving in the Wehrmacht and SS were simply not all that uncommon, e.g. British Free Corps, Hiwi (volunteer), Waffen-SS foreign volunteers and conscripts. Then there's Axis Sally, Lord Haw-Haw, etc., etc. How the heck did this survive two prior Afds (including a keep verdict in 2017!)??? Clarityfiend (talk) 13:52, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Some of the text (and a few of the examples) could be salvaged for Jews who served in the Wehrmacht. There are plenty of sources for that.[28][29][30][31] In fact, I may start that article myself. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:16, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:LISTN. On a list level, which of the high-ranking Nazis were, say, germanized Slovenian Nazis and not "purely Germanic" is spectacularly unnoteworthy. Only something like a "list of Jews / people of jewish descent who were high ranking Nazis" could meet LISTN. The book Hitler's Jewish Soldiers is being mentioned as a source. It really is a book about this topic, but it is controversial (see this chronicle of higher ed article; the book was criticized as not advancing the understanding of Nazi Germany because "The paradoxes of Nazi policy are well known"; the author was criticized for describing these Nazis as "Jews" imprecisely). I'll note that we have a similar list already: Mischling#Prominent persons characterized as Mischlinge according to Nazi ideology (broader than just Nazis). tw^sabin 15:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is clearly a list of people with articles (so I fail to see how Non-Germans serving in the Wehrmacht and SS were simply not all that uncommon is relevant) who were of non-Germanic (not non-German) descent. Given the Nazis' racial views this is clearly a notable topic and has most certainly been discussed outside Wikipedia so does indeed meet WP:LISTN. It is also, contrary to claims above, clearly defined. Although, as I have said before, it needs retitling as not all the people listed were actually Nazis; serving in the Wehrmacht did not make one a Nazi. List of people of non-Germanic descent who served the Third Reich maybe? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp - Just a one example of a person from that list - Alfred Grislawski - how was his Polish decent established? 🙂 You see 🙂 WP:OR, (because of the last name I’m guessing). Check the the rest from that list, you’ll see it for yourself - pure WP:OR. - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I doubt whether someone called Grislawski wasn't of Polish descent and the Ruhrpolen are a recognised minority! But that's beside the point. Because a list may include some OR doesn't mean the whole list should be deleted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most is WP:OR - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp: What is "Germanic descent" supposed to mean exactly? Is there some kind of commonly accepted (post 1945) definition of what this entails? Because I'm only aware of the existence of "Germanic peoples" (of antiquity) and "Germanic languages". Vlaemink (talk) 10:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Germanic-speaking world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And Hitler was of Indonesian decent - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:51, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's about speaking a Germanic language though, whereas this is about claiming descent; which clearly implies some kind of genealogy. If a Japanese citizen would learn German, would this suddenly make him of Germanic descent? Vlaemink (talk) 13:39, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it would make him a person of native descent from a non-Germanic-speaking region who happened to speak a Germanic language. However, a person of native descent from a Germanic-speaking region would be of Germanic descent. I think that's pretty obvious. Note we have countless categories which list people of XYZ descent. Nobody seems bothered about them, so I'm not sure why this article is so opposed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The supposed definition of "Germanic world" is based on language and geography; not on ancestry. That is to say, any person born into an area (anywhere in the world) which has a sustained population of speakers of a Germanic language is included within the definition found here on Wikipedia. While this would indeed exclude the Japanese, it would include various African tribes, native Americans, Aboriginals and Southeast Asians. These people are not of Germanic descent, they are of African, Native-American, Aboriginal and Asian descent — that is, if one were to believe in the existence of relatively closed racial categories; which I personally do not, as it is not supported by science. This list assumes and implies that speaking a variant of a particular language family is intrinsically linked to ancestry, which it fundamentally isn't. Also: The list included various (partial) Jewish people, many of whom would have spoken either German or Yiddish; which are both Germanic languages proving that, at the very least, the (now blocked and banned) user who created this article didn't use your definition. Vlaemink (talk) 07:59, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vlaemink The blocked sock puppet who assembled this list mostly peeked at last names and began to assign decent based on that. Here --> Paul Radomski sounded Polish to him, so he appointed Radomski as being of Polish descent despite having no sources to back it up. - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, this entire list is OR from start to finish. Vlaemink (talk) 07:59, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:LISTN; no sources have been presented that discuss these people as a group. Unsourced original research and unnecessary cross-categorization based on bogus criteria. Note: I nominated the article for deletion in the second AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nazis of non-Germanic descent (2nd nomination). --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:25, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sameer Aggarwal

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. No indication of notability independent of his company RevFin. The company might also be non-notable. Maduant (talk) 10:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Maduant (talk) 10:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nom. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 10:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and I would add the company to the AfD as well. Kazamzam (talk) 13:48, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:03, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kaushiki (web series)

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

Tagged for WP:NWEB since 2019. Seems to be too many citations (WP:CITEKILL) - every statement seems to have a bunch of them. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 07:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and India. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 07:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Added a review. DareshMohan (talk) 03:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 08:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the 8 sources given ever proved the significance of the show. Sources 1, 5, 6 and 7 are more of promotions instead of independent coverages; Source 2 has no record of the subject in question; Source 3 is behind paywall, and from the title it reads like a promotional material as well; The video in source 4 didn't load for me so it's unclear; and the source 8 only provided two suspiciously identical ratings and an anonymous written review, with no indication of how many people participated in the scoring and no user written reviews. I wasn't able to find any other review about this series that does not read like promotion, and the only proof of significance that I can find is the 341 rated score on its imdb page. Does not meet WP:GNG as far as I can tell. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:14, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This review is not anonymous, it is written by critic Archika Khurana. Either way, no other reviews found. DareshMohan (talk) 08:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia has low inclusion standards and this show is not meeting them. I agree with Tut above - the reviews either are promotional copy or they are derived from it without obvious new critical review. I am always surprised when a production has the budget to sponsor the creation of an entire video series but not the foresight to do outreach to critics to get some kind of review published. Wikipedia relies on sources though and I am not seeing the sources here. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

400 ton-class ammunition ship

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

Source 1 fails WP:RS. I do not think source 2 talks about the article subject, so its relationship with the Type 905 seems to be WP:OR.

I cannot find such a class in Janes 2004 or 2015. In those Y834 is Qiongsha class. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 07:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 07:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Transportation. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:04, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG fail, and it's unclear if the article even accurately describes its supposed subject. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG fail and WP:OR per "no official information has been released, despite the ships have already been in service around a decade" Where is this information coming from then? Is it all speculation? Llammakey (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Article has been improved since nomination. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 15:30, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Didrik Fløtre

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

Article about former footballer who played sparingly for a club in the Norwegian top division before his career ended. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources; just database entries, match reports, and an interview with Vikebladet Vestposten. The interview is the best thing I could find, but is mostly quotes from the subject of the article, and not enough to satisfy WP:GNG on its own. Jogurney (talk) 07:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Norway. AllyD (talk) 08:32, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:04, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:19, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:14, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources below. Giant Snowman 12:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - @GiantSnowman:, I found [32], [33], [34],[35], [[36], [37], [38], [39], [40], among many many more sources from aftenposten.no, tk.no, adressa.no, etc. He made 12 appearances and scored 2 goals for a team in the fully professional Norwegian top flight. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 01:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these links are not helpful in showing that the GNG could be met. The June 2008 Adresseavisen and the May 2012 Tidens Krav links are simply match reports (nothing in-depth there). The May 2009 NRK link is a match preview that reads like his club's press release (again nothing in-depth there). Almost every other link is an interview with Fløtre (which wouldn't be coverage that is independent of the subject); the Vikebladet Vestposten, Adresseavisen and Aftenposten interviews contain small amounts of prose written by the author while the Verdens Gang interview is behind a paywall. The only exception I see is the November 2012 Adresseavisen interview which covers his loan to third-tier Kristiansund BK as there are paragraphs of prose. That said, I don't think this rises to the level of meeting the GNG, and I'm disppointed that you included match reports and previews without realizing they contribute little-or-nothing to the analysis. Jogurney (talk) 18:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've found couple of sources that have not been discussed here. This Aftenposten article/interview from 2009 does discuss his career a bit up to that point (his previous year cup success, contract status and recent success with the reserve team). Then there is this Stavanger Aftenblad article from 2008 that discusses his game winning goal for AaFK in his debut in 2008. Alvaldi (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the effort in finding those, but I think the AP article contains very little prose (much like the interviews Das posted above) and the SA article is a match report with some extra prose on Fløtre. These are better than nothing, but I still don't believe we've approached the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree with you a bit about the sources, in my opinion the SA article is specifically about his debut but not a match report per se and the AP article, when stripped of the pure interview parts, does contain about 1700 characters. However its up for debate if the content of those articles are deep enough. Personally I'm swaying between weak keep/weak delete. Alvaldi (talk) 17:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG after additional sources were added.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:11, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Chen

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

Unreferenced plot summary. PROD declined by anon (my rationale was "he coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar."). The best WP:PRESERVE alternative I see would be a redirect to Asian Saga. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:09, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Literature. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:09, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My benchmark here for "should this be a redirect or a deletion" was "how far do I have to go in a Google search before I get a result that refers to this Gordon Chen". I gave up at page 5. (Though I did pass a link to the film adaptation of Tai-Pan on the way: [41].) Not a helpful redirect - people searching Wikipedia for this name are unlikely to be looking for the Asian Saga character. -- asilvering (talk) 05:37, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:00, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The current article is just an unreferenced plot summary, and searches for any additional sources does not turn up any significant coverage in reliable sources that goes beyond plot. I have no real objection if someone wanted to turn it into a redirect to the Asian Saga article, as suggested, as well. Rorshacma (talk) 07:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close. The process for redirects is Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, not AfD. And with only a single academic publication, spinning off this redirect into a academic biography is likely to be difficult. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret J. Corasick

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

Turning her lifetime achievements into a side-note of a side-note is just wrong. -- ♦ 04:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 December 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:10, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This seems misplaced here at AfD, as the nominator AzureDiamond is making a comment seeking expansion from a redirect to a full article rather than for deletion of an existing article? AllyD (talk) 08:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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!} 23:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolf Berger

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSBASIC. I could find no sources with independent significant coverage. 4meter4 (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Austria. Skynxnex (talk) 04:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I looked at a lot of websites that mention it but I couldnt find notability in any of them.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 05:18, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean "that mention HIM", HelpingWorld? This article is about a person, not a thing or company. What websites did you look at? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:54, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at all the websites that came up when I searched for the name, almost all of them only has his name and no info.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 18:32, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, could not find any coverage outside of database listings, fails WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:41, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Perrin

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

Doesn't meet notability Nswix (talk) 01:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Perrin a legitimate competitor in the UFC and fighting a the main event of the prelims on a major card.

It's his third fight for the promotion, in addition to competing on DWCS.

Compare to his competitor tonight who has only fought on DWCS. Blackguise (talk) 01:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Not even close to meeting WP:NMMA, or WP:GNG. How did this get made in the first place? ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 01:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Per WP:MMABIO Criteria supporting notability, point 1.

- 2 Bellator fights, and 2 UFC fights. About to have a 3rd UFC fight tonight. Per WP:MMATIER Blackguise (talk) 02:03, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Blackguise: Please note that WP:NMMA is the relevant guideline. WP:MMABIO is outdated, the guidelines for sports (including MMA) were changed in March (see WP:NSPORTS2022). I cannot answer why MMABIO has not been updated as it causes confusion, but they are not the official guidelines anymore. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 02:20, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MMABIO's been updated. Ravenswing 16:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Massachusetts. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only mentions are MMA Junkie or MMA Fighting websites, neither of which are RS. Oaktree b (talk) 14:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet the relevant notability criterion, and no evidence he meets the GNG. Only coverage out there in reliable sources is routine sports coverage and casual mentions. Ravenswing 16:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Note: MMA Junkie and MMA Fighting are independent and reliable sources. However, subject fails GNG or NMMA to meet the notability creteria. Cassiopeia talk 05:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Johnny Cash Boyhood Home. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:17, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Cash Farm House No. 266

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

Notable home, though there already exists a page at Johnny Cash Boyhood Home. LoniKen (talk) 06:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This AFD wasn't transcluded correctly as I just added it to today's log (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 December 11). Consider the discussion beginning today. It would also be nice to notify the article creator of this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:20, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to be on the National Register of Historic Places, which I haven't confirmed, but it's at GNG with these articles: Arkansas Democrat Gazette [42] and Esquire [43]. Oaktree b (talk) 03:25, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Johnny Cash Boyhood Home. @Oaktree b: @LoniKen: This appears to be notable as it is indeed listed on the National Register of Historic Places, though the co-ordinates here (35.597393°N 90.244989°W) seems to be identical with Johnny Cash Boyhood Home, (35.597393°N 90.244989°W), with identical area (less than one acre). ~~Is this a duplicate? If so, IMO a merge/redirect would be a good option.~~ Per below merge/redirect votes I would support a merge, given that Johnny Cash Boyhood Home is the more plausible search term and has more citations as well as better, more relevant images. However, this version also has some additional information on history and music interpretation (though ref 5 couldn't be opened for me somehow) that are worth preserving, so a merge is a good option. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 05:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:08, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. The lead pictures, coords, and dates in both articles clearly show they are discussing the same property. Only one article is required. Johnny Cash Boyhood Home should be the target to preserve its edit history as it is the earlier article. But no prejudice to a subsequent article rename if it is felt needed. SpinningSpark 17:27, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Johnny Cash Boyhood Home As mentioned above, these articles refer to the same structure. "Johnny Cash Boyhood Home" should be the title used IMO as the most likely search term. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Restored. This article about a German district was overwritten by an article about an apparently non-notable blog. This has been reverted, and I am also blocking the user responsible, Memohwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), because all of their edits seem to be disruption of this sort. Sandstein 10:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Vach

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

Article about a town in Germany hijacked to become an article about a non-notable blog. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NWEB. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 01:08, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Opposing, should keep: article is encyclopedic. Memohwiki (talk) 01:21, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is established by using reliable sources to demonstrate that the topic passes a Wikipedia inclusion criterion, not just by throwing the word "encyclopedic" around like a nerf ball. Bearcat (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator’s rationale. Shawn Teller (talk) 04:25, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article is useful. Proposing recreation of German city as solution 92.34.206.154 (talk) 06:46, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Canada. AllyD (talk) 08:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the article on the German town as at this revision and revert its title to simply Vach; in principle, repurposing an existing page is unacceptable. Regarding the newly-launched Canadian website The Vach, there is no evidence that it has attained notability. Given the circumstances here, perhaps that title should be protected to ensure that any future attempted articles pass through AfC rather than repurposing existing articles. AllyD (talk) 08:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Restoring the article and moving the title to that of its prior subject works for me as nominator. Current subject remains non-notable.
Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 13:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:09, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the article on the German town. The same user has also hijacked Dottedline snake eel to the organization "The Dotted Line Foundation". That move has been repaired. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:48, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the old geographic article, but ensure that the poorly sourced advertorial about a website gets entirely deleted from its edit history. Bearcat (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the original article since the town is probably notable, just not the website that got plastered over it. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update: note that another editor (not otherwise involved in this discussion) has already reverted the text back to the German town, although it has not yet been moved back to its prior title. Closure of this discussion will have to address the second part of that, but the first part can now just be addressed by revdelling the website hijack out of the edit history. Bearcat (talk) 14:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, I saw the discussion and was like "I think this is hitting SNOW and restoration is quick. I will wait for the closure to see if I can use Move Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 04:34, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Jamiebuba (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sunnova

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

~~Company doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP - lacks multiple sources meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:40, 4 December 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 01:05, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The page featurs multiple sources of information from a variety of reputable publications including the New York Times, Bloomberg, etc. 69.14.164.247 (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:48, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Public company with an international presence. Probably notable, given its size. scope_creep^Talk 10:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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