Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 25	June 27 >

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 redirect‎ to Schismatrix. If you would prefer a different redirect target article, please discuss it on the redirect talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shaper/Mechanist universe[edit]

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

Unsourced and WP:OR. Little coverage of locations are found, therefore failing WP:GNG. Jontesta (talk) 23:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's sourced. The content is all from Schismatrix Plus. Notability may still be an issue. Dan Bloch (talk) 01:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep first and third entries in a default Google Scholar search are non-trivial academic works covering the fictional universe: a regrettable BEFORE failure. Jclemens (talk) 03:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens Uh-huh. And how is this not a fork of the notable novel Schismatrix? The sources you good are very good - for discussing the novel. No need to fork the plot into a subarticle. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Jclemens' sources. Toughpigs (talk) 04:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC) Retract my vote -- Convinced by others (esp Hydronium, who merged material). Toughpigs (talk) 01:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bruce Sterling per WP:ATD. While potentially notable, it requires a full rewrite and is not salvageable as-is. It appears to be entirely plot. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm Better redirect target is Schismatrix... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Schismatrix - It seems like most of the content of the article in regards to the fictional elements is already covered on the main book's article. Additionally, it looks like the the book's article already also covers the "Schismatrix Plus" reprint, which collected the entirety of the series, including the five short stories that led up to it. It looks like the only thing really missing at that article is the names of those five short stories, so a light Merge to add that information is probably needed. But, as it stands, this article is kind of duplicative to the information found at the book's title, and its very likely that someone searching for information on the series would be searching using the book's name, not "Shaper/Mechanist Universe". Rorshacma (talk) 19:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I've been tossing up between keep and redirect, and I've decided on keep, if more secondary sources, such as reviews, can be added to make the article less WP:OR. This article, and all articles in general, should be written up as information sourced from many citations, not just from the book itself. If said new secondary sources can't or haven't been added, then I will argue for redirect, or delete. —Mjks28 (talk) 08:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mjks28 Just wanted to ping you regarding what I myself missed when I commented here the first time - that we already have an article on Schismatrix. The novel is notable, but its universe? Doubtful. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the universe's notability is questionable, but as I do not know anything about Bruce Sterling, or his works, I cannot say whether or not it is influential to many people. Because of this, I just look at the attributes of the article, such as the lack of sources and overall feeling of plot summary. I am leaning more towards redirect for this article, as the universe seems to only exist in one novel and five short stories, and could easily just be a section in the Schismatrix article. That being said, if this universe is considered notable, and more secondary citations are added, then I think the article should be kept. Mjks28 (talk) 13:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now, since the article is a pure plot summary, but I'd be happy to revise my vote to keep IF anyone actually improves the article during this AfD (feel free to ping me). And of course no prejudice to this being restored from redirect into an article if such an improvement is done at a later date. That said, per my comment above, I don't see how the sources found justify the existence of this article separately from Schismatrix. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per nomination.

Not only is this WP:JUSTAVOTE, it also makes no sense considering the nomination is to delete this. Rorshacma (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Mjks28. This doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV even with some of the suggested sources. As an WP:ATD, this can be a section in the Schismatrix article. Shooterwalker (talk) 11:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above / WP:NOPAGE: I have merged the short story / Schismatrix Plus content to Schismatrix#Schismatrix_Plus, where it reasonably belongs regardless of the outcome of this AFD. Schismatrix (which could definitely some qualitative independent referencing) now more than covers all content of this article. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 01:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Owen× ☎ 15:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Ross (equestrian)[edit]

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. A search in Google news only found equestrian related sources which are not third party. LibStar (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Olympics, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A few articles about her [1], here [2] and an interview with background info here [3]. Not a slam dunk, but more info than we typically see for Olympians here. Oaktree b (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources from Oaktree b seem to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The articles and interview provide good background information and seems to meet the notability guidelines WP:GNG. Waqar💬 15:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. A merger discussion could happen to see if that gains traction as an ATD, but that does not require a relist where there's no possibility of a consensus to delete. Star Mississippi 16:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marijuana Pepsi Vandyck[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTA AND WP:GNG BryceM2001 (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article could have a better career section, but I have heard about Dr Vandyck outside of WP for her academic career, and believe from this that she is notable. Probably meets WP:NACADEMIC at least if someone can collect sources on her publications. Kingsif (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are a number of sources about the subject, but all centre around (what they see as) her unusual name. Vandyck's research has not yet made significant impact in her discipline to meet WP:NACADEMIC. All in all WP:TOOSOON. – Ploni^💬 00:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed that most articles focus on her name in some way, but there are other Wikipedia articles with that kind of focus, like Place names considered unusual. Not sure why coverage for that aspect would be necessarily less legitimate. Benny White (talk) 02:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:BASIC and I don't think the exclusions apply. There are many reliable sources. Most are from the same timeframe (2019), but not all. One that is currently included in the article is from 2009. Benny White (talk) 02:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Georgia (U.S. state), Illinois, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No pass of WP:Prof with zero cites of GS. Not enough achievement yet for WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect and lightly merge to Naming in the United States. I'm seeing a single source from 2009, and a flurry of sources from 2019, all human interest stories about the unusual name. This looks like a WP:BLP1E to me. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:BLP1E, all coverage is a single point in time about her getting a PhD. No pass of WP:Prof and no pass of GNG. --hroest 17:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article is notable in my opinion, but could benefit from more sources. Mjks28 (talk) 05:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like many good sources with significant coverage from 2019-2020. There is also a in-depth article from 2009. I think this establishes enough notability to keep the article. – notwally (talk) 23:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge. BLP1E strongly applies here, and the subject does not meet any NPROF criteria. However, there is significant coverage in 2009, surrounding her name, that could be merged. Considering how often two sources with 3–4 sentences of routine, often non-independent or non-RS,[4][5] transfer coverage each, or even merely the unevidenced presumption that such sources exist,[6] [7] pass as "GNG" for athletes,[8] it's only fair that the far more extensive biographical coverage here would count for something. JoelleJay (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinion divided between Keep, Delete and Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (I don't feel strongly about this, and just weighing in because of the relist request and the chirps afterwards) -- the one article from 2009 in addition to all the 2019 articles makes me feel like it is somewhat more than a one-event coverage. There's no exemption for notability for "one thing", it's one event. So given the long time period of coverage, seems like a weak keep, but I can totally understand those who disagree. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 23:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just clears WP:GNG with the 2009 and 2019 Stingl articles in the Journal-Sentinel counting as one (not independent of each other) and the BBC source counting as another. The other sources are churnalism based on Stingl's original work. No evidence she qualifies under WP:NACADEMIC. I am generally persuaded by MSCuthbert's argument that an unusual name is not an "event" and thus WP:BLP1E does not apply. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to France–Pakistan relations as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 16:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ambassadors of Pakistan to France[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTCRIT - we don't need list of red links.. Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Bilateral relations, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to France–Pakistan relations following WP:DIPLOMAT. Broc (talk) 12:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of recurring Orange Is the New Black characters[edit]

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

This article has been mostly unsourced since its creation eight years ago. Some of it is cited to Twitter and Instagram, plus three sources that tell us that one of the characters is inspired by Martha Stewart. This fails WP:GNG (and is a fork of the equally badly sourced article List of Orange Is the New Black characters). Jontesta (talk) 23:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is what Wikipedia is not, a massive list of minor characters. There is already a character list; any character who is actually relevant to readers should be mentioned there, minus the cruft. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Orange Is the New Black characters: This article feels unnecessary when there is already an article which details all the main characters. I suggest just merging this article into that one, and remove the unnotable (WP:N) characters. —Mjks28 (talk) 08:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: just looks to be a retelling of individual plots, precisely what we're WP:NOT. -- D'n'B-t -- 09:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This material would be better used for an Orange Is The New Black Wiki page, not Wikipedia itself. TH1980 (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not have the requisite sourcing to meet the WP:NLIST. I'd encourage the article creator and any other interested editors to WP:TRYANOTHER. Let'srun (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:G5.‎ XOR'easter (talk) 03:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Dennis Mangano[edit]

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

Draftify moved unilaterally to main space when unready. I think the subject might potentially have some notability, but the article is not written to show it, nor referenced to show it. Flagged as failing WP:GNG after arriving in mainspace by the editor who moved it to mainspace. Being charitable, this feels as if the move were in some manner accidental. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mathematics, Medicine, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per nom. Not ready for mainspace. Other than one lawsuit in 2007 (which isn't mentioned in the article prose), the references seem to just be his published research papers. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. New enough for this to be a reasonable choice, sources inadequate for current content, but with some possible case for notability (possibly through WP:PROF#C1). That criterion does not require depth of sourcing for notability itself, but it does not eliminate the need for all claims in our article to be properly sourced. In particular all claims of having invented or discovering something important should be backed up by reliable independent sources that verify those claims; his own publications are not adequate for that kind of claim. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify (the AFC reviewer who originally declined the submission). I do think the subject could meet the GNG, as there is some coverage (I have 1E concerns as it relates to the fact that a lot of the coverage will be primary in regards to the various lawsuits) but that is not demonstrated here and I have doubts that its demonstrated presently and the I have non-encyclopedic concerns about the article in mainspace presently. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 18:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G5: Sock of blocked user Harrysigma 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 21:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cooper Lutkenhaus[edit]

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT. School sports isn't notable in the world of athletics, and coverage of children's athletics is not significant enough for Wikipedia. WP:TOOSOON with a few years at best. Geschichte (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Sport of athletics. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: There's enough coverage to meet WP:BASIC/GNG as a general entry in my opinion. Doesn't appear to just be a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL HS athlete. A Google search shows significant coverage in independent sources. Ex: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] C F A 💬 22:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. Several American high school athletes with notable achievements have their own Wikipedia article and significant coverage by independent sources, such as Quincy Wilson. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 23:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination – Editør (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the excellent work sourcing done by @Clearfrienda. Also to directly rebut the nomination – school sports is actually very notable in the field of athletics, take a look at how often "U.S. high school" is covered by World Athletics here: "u.s. high school" site:worldathletics.org. The idea that children's athletes are automatically not notable is also not reflected anywhere in WP policy that I can tell – if the general notability guideline is met, an article can be written. --Habst (talk) 04:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Consensus is that this article should be Kept. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sadie Engelhardt[edit]

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT. School sports isn't notable in the world of athletics, and coverage of children's athletics is not significant enough for Wikipedia. WP:TOOSOON with a few years at best. Geschichte (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Sport of athletics. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that the vast majority of American high school athletes do not merit coverage on Wikipedia, this specific athlete is not aWP:RUNOFTHEMILL one, and has substantial coverage by independent sources as shown by this Google Search, such as [1], [2], [3], [4]. As stated by Clearfrienda for the Cooper Lutkenhaus article, this amount of coverage satisfies WP:BASIC/GNG. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 00:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of a significant high school athlete with Wikipedia Coverage is Quincy Wilson. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 00:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources given by KnowledgeIsPower9281 appear to contain significant coverage of the subject and meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Knowledge is Power. GNG pass. I have saved a lengthy feature piece on her at the foot of the article as "Further Reading". If anyone wants to expand the piece, that's a good building block. Carrite (talk) 04:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor of Benazirabad[edit]

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

Fails GNG - non-notable office Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 14:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sajjala Ramakrishna Reddy[edit]

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

Notabillity issue. Thewikizoomer (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Journalism, and Andhra Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Care to specify, how is this individual not meeting notability requirements? Oaktree b (talk) 19:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A fuller deletion rationale would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG, also WP:NPOL. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 06:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already deleted by PROD so not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes GNG from sources showing. Carrite (talk) 04:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was ‎ speedy deleted by Nyttend as a G7 after author blanking. Bearcat (talk) 13:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karoline Levitt[edit]

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

This page with the typo should be merged or deleted with Karoline Leavitt, (correct spelling). - JoeK2033

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This nomination did not appear to have the full formatting; I have fixed this. No opinion at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and New Hampshire. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the version of the article with the correct spelling. Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 04:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How does one merge a page? JoeK2033 (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Requesting non-admin closure (as the original Levitt link got deleted under G7 more than an hour ago). --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 13:07, 2 July 2024 (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. ✗plicit 14:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Synovus Centre[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Finance, Law, and Business. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. (side of IAR, but with one silent relist there's no indication input is forthcoming Star Mississippi 16:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Equinox (Amiga demogroup)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources and what's linked in the article doesn't establish notability. Surprisingly, there isn't significant coverage of the group in Freax: The Brief History of the Demoscene, Volume 1 (2005) by Tamás Polgár [hu].

I am also bundling the disk magazine European Top 20 published by Equinox in this nomination. toweli (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Organizations, Computing, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and United Kingdom. toweli (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Interactive fiction or a subsection thereof as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 17:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Wizard Sniffer[edit]

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

The game was deproded with the rationale that it won awards, but this has no bearing on notability. It lacks significant coverage from reliable sources to justify and fill out a standalone article. It cites clearly user-generated reviews in the vast majority of the reception section rather than actual critics. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah, there's not really anything else to add. The game isn't notable, and I don't see why it should have got deproded. λ NegativeMP1 18:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The game won five XYZZY Awards and won two awards in the 2017 Interactive Fiction Competition, which are the two most notable competitions for this type of work, and thus distinguishes itself in its genre. The genre is obscure which accounts for the sparse supply of sources. If the subject does not warrant its own article then redirect to Interactive_fiction#Notable_works to preserve history instead of deleting. --Bensin (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... and as for sources, I added the review in The Short Game, which adding to Sarah Laskow's and Lynda Clark's reviews, totals the number to three in addition to the three at the Interactive Fiction Database. No sources contradict eachother. --Bensin (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Short Game does not appear to be a reliable source. In fact it admits that it is fan run, with one person in the About Us being "the only person with any real credentials", something that is obvious even from a quick browse of the site. This is not the kind of sourcing we want on Wikipedia. The ability to tell whether a source is reliable is required, as well as being able to judge what topic needs an article, and your recent articles have been less than stellar. For example, Clue (information)? Wikipedia is not a dictionary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nor are the articles static. I can't see your username in the history of Clue (information). If you are certain you know its flaws you are welcome to add to it and improve it. The Short Game has made content for over 10 years, and has produced over 400 episodes which all appear to be around one hour each. If they lacked credentials in reviewing games when then started, one can hardly say they lack experience now. Their body of work makes them pretty much experts, and they are certainly more experts than any junior reviewer writing for a large media corporation. --Bensin (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Their body of work makes them experts" there are many unreliable sources with a large body of work listed at WP:Perennial sources such as the Daily Mail, being long-running does not really have a bearing on reliability. But even if we assumed it counted as SIGCOV, that's only one piece of SIGCOV which is insufficient to pass GNG.

I am not sure if there is anything to improve there as the concept of a "clue" is not notable. If you think it is, you offered no real proof in that regard. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You yourself considered Atlas Obscura to be SIGCOV, until I added the reference to The Short Game. Then you edited your statement above with an edit comment without rationale.[14] (It would have been better had you instead added a new post where you transparently stated that you had changed your mind and explained why, rather than editing an existing post to make it seem like that was your stance all along.) There's also the review by Lynda Clark. That makes three SIGCOV in addition to the rest of the sources, which all corroborate each other. Interactive fiction is a small art form and sources are inherently hard to come by, even for a game like this that won both of the two most prominent competitions for interactive fiction. If you still think sourcing is a problem, then I suggest you add {{Expert needed}} at the top of the article so it can be improved upon rather than deleted. Or request sources for any statement in the article that you think is unsourced and that a reader cannot verify and assess themselves (hint: there aren't any).

Regarding Clue (information) (a central concept in many games throughout history), feel free to improve it directly or point out weaknesses on that article's talk page. But that article is not relevant to this discussion here. --Bensin (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero WP:SIGCOV. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 04:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Had there been zero significant coverage, I would have agreed with you, and I would not have created the article. But that is simply not the case. --Bensin (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to Interactive fiction. Buster Hudson appears to be a relatively known author by the sources. IgelRM (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not going to be mentioned in the interactive fiction article, a redirect would not be very helpful. (And I doubt it should, the whole "notable works" section is already verging on listcruft). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. There is only a handful of IF games that is in the intersection of winning both IFC and XYZZY and they are worth mentioning. --Bensin (talk) 12:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Interactive_fiction#Notable_works as an alternative to deletion. I think it's just below notability. Atlas Obscura is a reliable source per WP:AOARTICLES and although Medium.com is generally unreliable per WP:MEDIUM, I think Clark qualifies as a "subject matter expert" since she is listed as "PhD Researcher in Interactive Fiction at Nottingham Trent University". Interactive Fiction Competition might be a notable award, but the fact it won doesn't alone count towards notability, it needs some coverage to go along with it. I just think two pieces of SIGCOV is not enough for notability. --Mika1h (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mika1h and Bensin. I changed my vote to Delete as I find no notability, and the small mention that it gets in Interactive fiction is enough. MK at your service. 12:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you elaborate on why you agree to a mention in the article Interactive fiction but oppose a redirect to that article? --Bensin (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just meant that it doesn't need to be redirected to the article. It's mentioned in the Interactive fiction and I feel thats enough. MK at your service. 05:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow. Is there a reason why you think there should not be a redirect from The Wizard Sniffer to Interactive fiction? If there is a redirect, the edit history is preserved and the article can be easily improved by anyone if new sources emerge. If the article is deleted, there's a risk that someone not familiar with the process of undeleting articles will start from scratch rather than building on what already exists. --Bensin (talk) 21:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think one or two sentences about Hudson can be incorporated on Interactive fiction based on the Atlas Obscura article. I partially did not say delete as preserving edit history may be convenient. IgelRM (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if other participants commented on the replies to their arguments above. --Bensin (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2017 Rugby League World Cup squads. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Ulch[edit]

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

The Q&A already in the article is the closest thing to WP:SIGCOV that I found in my searches. The subject fails WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC) A possible redirect is 2017 Rugby League World Cup squads. JTtheOG (talk) 06:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and Florida. JTtheOG (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As many references about his work as a school dean as there is about his rugby career (which isn't many). Mn1548 (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Cinderella Project of Baton Rouge[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; no WP:SIGCOV; written like an advertisement. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Louisiana. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This subject lacks any reliable, secondhand and thirdhand, sources that I can find. Also, the article is self-promotional, lacking any analysis that critically reviews its organization and charity efforts. Paul H. (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Any user can redirect this title to a suitable target if one is found. ✗plicit 14:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Kenton Council[edit]

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

Scouting council is an organization, thus is expected to meet WP:NCORP which the organization in question fails miserably. Hyper-local branch of a larger organization. WP:BRANCH. I suggest delete, and re-direct to target if suitable one can be found. Graywalls (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Scouting, United States of America, Kentucky, and Ohio. Graywalls (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Delete or redirect. Bduke (talk) 23:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 18:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

San Antonio parade shooting[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. Does not meet notability:events. BTW the lead is the main article and the whole lead is copyvio. I didn't zap it because then there would be no article. North8000 (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. but clean up the copyvios. This is part of Category:Mass shootings in Texas. In and of itself, a sub of Category:Mass shootings in the United States. And on and on it goes. Perhaps they're all riddled with copyvios - or not. How do we say one is more notable than another one? — Maile (talk) 20:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was using the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (events) to answer that question. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of figured you were. Let's see what others say. Whatever works for all, is OK with me. — Maile (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to strong keep, With the new sourced background on the killer, I am convinced this article should be kept. — Maile (talk) 02:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of ways to misconstrue WP:N. "We can't know whether anything's notable, but it's in a category" might be the most wild one I've ever seen. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a repository of news stories. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The sources found by PARAKANYAA demonstrate significant retrospective coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:01, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has SIGCOV in many books published decades after the event occurred. See:

Covered for several pages in the 2012 book The Anatomy of Motive, published by Simon & Schuster
Discussed for a page in Fatal Moments: The Tragedy of the Accidental Killer
Discussed a non-insignificant amount (idk how many pages) in They Shoot to Kill A Psycho-survey of Criminal Sniping
Discussed in the book Old Riot, New Ranger for at least 1+ full page.

This wasn't a particularly exhaustive search and was only books in Google Books so there's likely more.

I volunteer to add them if the article is kept. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have now made it less terrible. Could have done more but this is about as much work as I'm willing to do on an article that might get deleted. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive Thank you for doing this. You've really added some decent context and sourcing to this article, I'm now convinced this should be KEEP. Your editing has shed light on the overall mental picture of the perpetrator.. — Maile (talk) 02:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also might add that the Texas archives final standoff video is pretty impressive in and of itself. — Maile (talk) 13:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the extensive work done on the article since the nomination, IMO it has transitioned to one that should be kept on GNG grounds. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Parakanyaa, GNG pass. Carrite (talk) 04:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

List of common misconceptions[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Snowball chance in hell that this AfD will be sucessful, there is already sufficient consensus to keep article‎. (non-admin closure) 21 Andromedae (talk) 21:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

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

Biting the bullet here and nominating this page for deletion a sixth time. My reasoning here is quite simple: this is not an appropriate topic for a list in the mainspace. Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia which this page plainly is. Each one of the listings is, at most, appropriate for a single line on their respective pages. The sources cited on this page are often low-quality, including television (1) shows (2), recipe aggregators like Allrecipes and Cookthink, Dotdash Meredith subsidiaries like Thoughtco (deprecated), random blogs including at least one Wordpress-hosted site, and mainly, blatant plagiarism from Snopes (actually, this whole article is practically Snopes Wikipedia-style.) Therefore I think this page should be deleted from the mainspace, and if it must be kept, then moved to the meta namespace ala Wikipedia:Unusual articles since it does serve an educational purpose. wound theology ◈ 19:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I favor cleaning up and removing misconceptions with weak references like the ones mentioned, but I strongly oppose deletion or moving it off the mainspace. The list is clearly valuable to users, doesn't seem to obviously contradict WP:SALAT, WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC or WP:NOTDIRECTORY and seems well within the scope of WP:NLIST. agucova (talk) 20:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I origianlly came to this article because I am a 40+ USAmerican and was linked from a tumblr post about incorrect "facts" about the world that we were taught as children. Most of these items on this list are indeed COMMON misconceptions in the US. Pre-internet (or even pre-google) it was NOT easy to find the truth about these misconceptions. they were considered common knowledge and encyclopedias did not have enough breadth of information to prove a negative.

I have read through all 6 nominations and arguments for/against deletion of this article and it appears that the delete voters by and large have the opinion that this information is not important enough to be collected while keep voters tend to agree that the article needs to be edited but is a valuable resource. I agree with the KEEPers. Many of the items in the article i did not even KNOW were misconceptions (oil is made from dinosaurs, carrots are good for vision, and diamonds not being coal are 3 quick examples). If you feel it is too US-centric, maybe add that to the title? If you feel it should not be on the main space, they could be a sub-article under urban legends? The suggested unusual articles category is inappropriate because specifically states that the "material is not to be taken seriously". that is precisely how many of these misconceptions were started (as jokes or tall tales) and what the article is trying to clear up.

NOTE: I have never commented on or edited a wiki article before so excuse me if my format of comment is incorrect. 71.182.139.42 (talk) 21:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP ^ vote obviously 71.182.139.42 (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate your enthusiasm for the wiki process, but these aren't arguments why we should keep the article. It's not that I don't think these are misconceptions -- although some are arguably pedantic -- but that the page itself (in my view) is not within the scope of Wikipedia. wound theology ◈ 06:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know what you mean by the scope of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia that catalogues whatever reliable secondary sources say in their fields of expertise, and many entries on List of common misconceptions are attributed to such sources. I wonder if something can be done to control the quality of that article if it attracts a number of poor entries.

Since I am not here to vote, I will just say that my opinion is Keep because I do not think the article is that bad, and there are already many misconceptions that have been debunked by sources that Wikipedia accepts (as mentioned above). Do you want the misconceptions to be catalogued differently? As a prose? As a bunch of subpages? I would like to see the development of the big discussion on this page. CarlFilip19 (talk) 19:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has guidelines about what articles should cover. Many of the things here would fit perfectly fine on their respective articles, but just because a collection of ostensibly collected statements is well-sourced does not warrant inclusion on Wikipedia as an independent article. A page like List of reasons to visit Seattle, Washington might have many perfectly reliable secondary sources about popular attractions in the city, but Wikipedia isn't a travel guide. This list is functionally a collection of trivia which, put simply, is not encyclopedic. wound theology ◈ 12:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add an entry for "This article is a plausible deletion candidate". Seriously though, the problem with this article is keeping it free of cruft. Everything listed there needs to reliably referenced as both a misconception, as being common and also have a relevant article linked that has some non-trivial coverage of the the misconception. Anything that doesn't fit those criteria can be removed. There is no case to delete the whole article. Let's just clean out the crap and try to keep an eye on it for anybody adding any more crap. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of going off-topic here, agree that a big problem is preventing or eliminating cruft. Currently, the edit notice says "It is preferred to propose new items on the talk page first." but this is not a requirement. I have advocated making it a requirement, but did not achieve a consensus on the talk page for that. Interesting that an editor who has added dozens of entries over the past few weeks that are arguably "cruft" is here arguing for deletion. I would invite participants in this discussion to review the recent activity on the page and it's associated talk page. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You remove things with bad references, you don't delete an entire article because of them. Dream Focus 23:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a mischaracterization of my argument here. Bad references aren't the main problem; the page itself (in its current format) is not within the scope of Wikipedia. wound theology ◈ 06:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, this article has it's problems and could stand improvement. As one of the active editors for this page it is a constant task to keep it cruft free and make sure all the assertions are reliably sourced. I would welcome help with that. Despite the flaws, it's a useful compendium of things that are commonly believed that are false. As someone once said, "It's not what you don't know that's the problem, it's the things you think you know that aren't true." It's a valuable resource that should remain, and was once a ~~featured article~~ featured list candidate. Seeing how this article has been nominated for deletion five times in the past without success I find it odd that it has been nominated a sixth time. It's time to drop the stick. Seems like a WP:SNOW keep. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to a common misconception, the page was never a featured article, with one of the issues cited as preventing it from being promoted being: ""common" needs to be defined clearly - i.e. what makes the list not wp:OR." Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier this year List of hobbies was deleted after a fourth nomination for many of the same reasons I nominated this page. wound theology ◈ 06:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The page requires OR to determine what is common, and what is a misconception, violating WP:LSC. The idea that RS could be deferred to is a common misconception for a few reasons:

Misconceptions cannot be "common", they must be "common among X". X is undefined, and excluding an entry in a local newspaper for saying "it's a common misconception that "local landmark"" is defining common, and isn't deferring to RS. The edge cases are common among world, among America, among Jews, among historians of whipped cream etc. Line drawing is defining common.
RS are not deferred to. The talk page is huge because editors want to exclude RS when they say something is a common misconception because they don't personally believe it's common. See literally two days ago.
"Current" is said to be implied from the title (according to an apparent consensus of what "common" is defined as), but isn't defined how to establish this. Seen in a dispute a few days ago, where it was argued if it was common in 1967 it is common now because people are "still alive".
RS will not always say "it's a common misconception that", "words to that effect" are used, which includes "contrary to popular belief", but also includes "many people believe" and "etymological urban legend". Evaluating whether "words to that effect" are met requires comparing to definition of common and misconception, which is the problem that led to the idea of deferring to RS in the first place.
An entry cannot be included as a misconception if it's not false, as it is not then a misconception. The way this is enforced is usually not something being factually wrong, but quibbling with definitions: that's not a misconception, it's... a misnomer (misnomers are a type of misconception), technical language vs common language dispute, abstraction of complex ideas and many many more. i.e., entries to "list of common misconceptions" which have RS saying they're a misconception, are being excluded because it doesn't fit editor's personal definitions of "misconception."

Some of these problems are fixable, others are not. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As an addendum, to support the position that the page is a list of trivia, the phrase "contrary to popular belief" has been identified in The Washington Post as a "journalism cliche... that we should avoid". Contrary to popular belief is widely regarded in the talk page as the most acceptable "words to that effect" for "common misconception". Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of this is a good reason to delete the article. It reads as a list of complaints about how other editors on that page have disagreed with you. While some of these issues may provide a reasonable argument to review the inclusion criteria, deletion is not the right remedy. For instance, generally we (the editors on that page) avoid arguments over semantics, (the Earth is not round, it is an oblate spheroid") although that's not in the inclusion criteria. Perhaps it should be, but this is not the venue for that discussion, the talk page is. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We avoid arguments about semantics because we are essentially saying "even though it's described in RS as a misconception, according to our own personal definition of misconception, that's not a misconception, it's a .... dispute about linguistics." Inserting it into the inclusion criteria would be saying "it has to be in multiple RS as a common misconception, and also must meet our own personal definition of misconception." If you think that's not OR I would be interested in hearing your justification. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We've tried explaining this to you before, but I'll simply reiterate the gist of it by paraphrasing another editor and then I'm not going to argue about it any further.

Wikipedia editors determine, through consensus, what reliably sourced material is WP:Notable and whether including it would be giving it undue weight. Also, sometimes the sources differ and we need to use our editorial judgment to decide which to "believe" or to document the dispute (which we don't do on the List of common misconceptions - disputed entries are simply not included). Ultimately, the consensus of the editors is the only method used to determine which material warrants inclusion for literally all material on Wikipedia. Taking issue with the fact that editors must determine the notability or weight of reliably sourced information through consensus is an objection to Wikipedia itself, not this page in particular.

Your accusations of WP:OR because editors are using their editorial judgment about what to include and what not to include is a misconception of what WP:OR is. There are no WP:OR assertions on the page. And even if there were, that's an argument to remove those assertions, not delete the article. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"That's more of a misnomer than a misconception." This isn't someone arguing the entry isn't notable, or that including it would be giving undue weight. They're arguing over the definition of misconception. "Editors are using their editorial judgment about what to include and what not to include". Material can be excluded because it's not relevant to the topic. But it's not a question of relevance when "list of animals" has editors trying to input their own personal vibey definition of animal to exclude elephant, when there is a consensus of RS describing elephants as animals.

"editors are using their editorial judgment about what to include and what not to include" Again, the first line of LSC: "Selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. Avoid original or arbitrary criteria that would synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources." I know it's possible to read this as me arguing against all editorial judgement, but I am very narrowly discussing inclusion criteria and the role of editorial judgement in defining terms against a consensus of RS.

The simple fact is, if I'm an editor and I have an entry that meets the inclusion criteria, I don't know if it's going to be excluded because editors don't believe it's a "real" misconception. The current inclusion criteria is clearly insufficient, but trying to integrate editor's understanding of "real misconception" would clearly go into OR. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Common Misconceptions page does not require OR, indeed, no OR is allowed on the page. If reliable sources state that some notion is a common misconception (or some synonymous term), and that notion is included in the article as an entry, then the source for the entry is not derived from a Wikipedia editor's original research, and is, therefore, not OR. On occasions where editors have added entries without RS, all such entries have been swiftly removed. The act of editors interpreting and reiterating the content of reliable sources is not original research, and if it were, then everything on Wikipedia aside from items of WP:BLUE would need to be swiftly deleted. Joe (talk) 18:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The question is less what is included, but what is excluded. If RS say something is a common misconception, but an editor says "but I don't personally believe it's common" and removes it from the page, then that's a violation of LSC. That obviously wouldn't exclude everything on Wikipedia apart from BLUE. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's interesting, educational, and while it will never be perfect, it can be constructed so as to be well supported by sources. A net added value to Wikipedia, much more so than millions of other articles (individually I mean). W. P. Uzer (talk) 20:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two reasons: 1. There was a 1994 book The Encyclopedia of Popular Misconceptions, thus supporting it as an appropriate topic for an encyclopedia. 2. The list provides an additional research resource, for example, in the Scientific misconceptions article it is included in the See also links section. 5Q5|^✉ 10:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of these are good reasons to Keep. The existence of an encyclopedia means very little to what we as an encyclopedia should cover -- there are many wikis and many published encyclopedias and their existence alone do not mean anything. Similarly, being linked on a "See also" section means nothing. If it did mean something, many pages that have been relegated to Wikipedia's dustbin could have been saved. wound theology ◈ 12:19, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The entry for bonfires in the book: "Bonfires: To most people, especially youngsters, a bonfire is a calming, comforting experience, punctuated by fun and the crackle and smell of burning pine wood — a sort of wienie, marshmallowy fancy that warms the heart. But it wasn’t a pleasant experience for those in bygone days, because such fires were fueled by the burning bones of corpses — they were fires of immolation and funeral pyres. Christians and heretics especially hated “bone-fires”!" Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 04:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NOTOR references the List of common misconceptions article and also links to it; this is evidence that there is (or was) a consensus that it is an appropriate article, at least among the editors who worked on that help page essay. It is also of interest to about two dozen project pages, two of which list it as being of High Importance. Neither of these may be a direct argument to keep, but the implication is that a fair number of editors across multiple projects have been satisfied that it meets the criteria for inclusion. Seems to me that deleting it would ignore this reasonably large body of editorial consensus. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 02:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a request at Template_talk:Editnotices/Page/List_of_common_misconceptions to modify the edit notice for this page. Currently the edit notice template and the inclusion criteria listed at the top of the talk page say different things. (Note that the edit notice is a template only editable by an an admin while any editor can edit the text at the top of the talk page.) This discrepancy will need to be rectified and I will start a thread on the talk page to address that if and when this AfD nomination fails. I invite any editor interested in improving the inclusion criteria to participate, not that anyone needs my invitation. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 02:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NLIST, specifically Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. The link, WP:LISTPURP, says of the first, The list may be a valuable information source... [which] would include lists... grouped by theme, or annotated lists. The list, as of this comment, is grouped by academic discipline and is arguably annotated as each entry goes beyond a definition. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This whole list is very useful to have. --ISometimesEatBananas (talk) 15:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the sourcing is inadequate, then by all means, let's clean it up. But this is not a justification for deletion. The article is highly informative and useful. Wormcast (talk) 17:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and don't move to Unusual Articles. I find the claim that this page 'doesn't serve an educational purpose' to be, on its face, absurd. Phoneme for phoneme, this is one of the most educational pages on all of Wikipedia. Moreover, I disagree with the suggestion that the Common Misconceptions page doesn't meet the appropriate criteria for a Wikipedia list: it is not too broad to be useful, and if you know anything about the editors who frequent and maintain the page, harsh standards are applied to what can and cannot be included (harsher standards, indeed, than those applied to the vast majority of other Wikipedia pages). As other editors have attested above, this page is a net positive for Wikipedia. Joe (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Without a definition of "common misconception" within the article, I don't see how the list can have a knowable scope. Maybe the assumption that everyone knows what is meant by "common misconception" is a misconception. Also, how is "common" determined? The list would make much more sense to me if I could get some sense of what is IN and what is OUT. This latter seems to be essential for any list, if it isn't to be formless. Lamona (talk) 19:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lamona It is undefined. People will claim that you defer to what RS say is common to avoid defining it. But they will believe you should exclude misconceptions believed by groups they think are too small to have it be common. And then call that "editorial judgement" instead of saying that they're defining common. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's a common misconception that a WP article which is an original research compendium of trivia and fluff will get the knife at AfD. Carrite (talk) 04:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Addressing the assertions in the nomination:

Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia which this page plainly is.

Agree that Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia, whether this article is is a matter of opinion. I and many other do not think it is.

Each one of the listings is, at most, appropriate for a single line on their respective pages.

Clearly false. Many of the entries are elaborated at length in their topic article. To cite just two examples: equal transit time and Cass Elliot didn't die fro eating ham sandwich. And even if this assertion was correct, it's irrelevant to AfD.

The sources cited on this page are often low-quality...

True to some extent, but irrelevant. From WP:ITSUNREFERENCED

In the Wiki model, an article which may currently be poorly written, poorly formatted, lack sufficient sources, or not be a comprehensive overview of the subject, can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws. That such an article is lacking in certain areas is a relatively minor problem, and such articles can still be of benefit to Wikipedia. In other words, the remedy for such an article is cleanup, not deletion.

...blatant plagiarism from Snopes...

Citation needed.

Agree that the scope of this article is rather open-ended and could possibly lead to it attracting a large quantity of low quality entries. As someone put it in the 4th AfD, it's a "magnet for POV and OR edits". Which is true. But it's also not a valid reason for deletion, as per WP:LIKELYVIOLATION. In the approximately 5 years since AfD-4 it's grown by about 100 entries to about 430, so the fear that it was going to grow out of control would seem to be unfounded.

In sum, the arguments given in favor of deletion are either false, irrelevant, or just someone's opinion. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article actually has a bunch of useful information, so it would be completely unnecessary to delete. If anything, we can just remove the info from sources considered to be unreliable while keeping the info from reliable sources.128.235.85.35 (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 20:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mateo Tannatt[edit]

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

I cannot find any independent sources on this artist or his work outside of a single review published in Frieze. This fails WP:ARTIST. Rocfan275 (talk) 19:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment he is now a professor at Cal State Fullerton - [15] is a piece from the student newspaper about him. But that isn't "independent" coverage. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No listing in the Getty ULAN. This is all I could find, but it won't open from my location due to copyright restrictions [16] and it's only one source, not enough to pass notability. Oaktree b (talk) 03:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable enough. Fails WP:GNG. There is not enough significant coverage about him. The results of internet search are mostly brief mentions and/or self-published. Prof.PMarini (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I found more articles about him and his art:
1. CAMPAGNOLA, S. Mateo Tannatt. Flash Art International, [s. l.], v. 43, p. 109, 2010. Disponível in: https://research-ebsco-com.ezproxy.sfpl.org/linkprocessor/plink?id=17e8727e-1492-3c58-a112-24bf6142a05d. Acesso em: 30 jun. 2024.

2. Epstein, Edward. “First among Equals.” Art Papers Magazine, vol. 36, no. 4, July 2012, p. 59. EBSCOhost, research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=e7571334-92bb-3016-a679-01efa378e91e.

3. Abel Folgar. “Mateo Tannatt’s ‘Horse’ at Gallery Diet, a Lot More Than Meets the Eye.” Miami New Times (FL), 17 Mar. 2015. EBSCOhost, research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=aee3e6f8-2d01-346b-ae80-5d4a909ae80d.

The first is a half page (small type) about an individual show; the second has a paragraph about him in the review of a group show. I wasn't able to access the third. Lamona (talk) 19:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 18:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ignacio Uría Mendizábal[edit]

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

Not a notable person. WP:BIO1E applies; the ordinary coverage of his death are the only sources. List of ETA attacks might be a redirect option. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Spain. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the death of a businessman is not notable in itself. — Iadmc ♫^talk 11:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of notability outside a single event. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 14:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Right now, the only sources seem to be basic reports of his death. For a Wikipedia article, we'd need more substantial information about his impact and career. Waqar💬 15:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 19:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Small Worlds (presentation)[edit]

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Raph Koster. toweli (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. toweli (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to blatantly fail WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage. Charcoal feather (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm not sure this topic meets WP:GNG. I haven't seen it covered in any reliable sources. Waqar💬 15:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - GamerPro64 06:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Guna district. Star Mississippi 20:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Champavati Fort Chachaura[edit]

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

No sources given, only one I could find with a WP:BEFORE was this, of which I'm not sure of the reliability. I don't think it meets GNG, but I'm not good at navigating Hindi-language sources so I hope to be positively surprised if there are other sources on it. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that it likely doesn't meet WP:GEOFEAT as it only appears to be protected on a state, rather than national, level. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Previously moved to draftspace as Draft:Champavati Fort Chachaura and then recreated in mainspace. Johnj1995 (talk) 18:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Madhya Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is unsourced, only two sentences, and shouldn't be in mainspace. I'm happy deleting or draftifying on those grounds without looking to see if it passes GNG without any prejudice towards its recreation. SportingFlyer T·C 19:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has already been draftified and recreated, so can't really be draftified again per WP:DRAFTOBJECT. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is for unilateral draftifications, I don't think a draftify result here would be unilateral. SportingFlyer T·C 20:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Not enough WP:SIGCOV for a standalone article. This should be merged with Guna District. Prof.PMarini (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to West Visayas State University where a subsection can be created should there prove to be other such publications. Forge Media is one model thereof that might be helpful here. Star Mississippi 19:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vital Signs (school publication)[edit]

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

Non-notable student publication. No independent references. If there's anything of value in this article, it can be merged to West Visayas State University. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, can we give the article a chance to grow itself? The Philippines is not a country of sophistication; therefore, referencing might be a problem. Maybe they can submit primary sources to back it up. Lovelovetheworld (talk) 05:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need to be patronized. Everyone follows WP:RS. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sources, not indexed anywhere; fails WP:NJournals and WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 17:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with another article detailing publications within West Visayas State University 122.54.60.130 (talk) 07:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Zee Kannada. The history is preserved should someone want to implement the merger Star Mississippi 19:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by Zee Kannada[edit]

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

Fails WP:NLIST as references do not talk about the programming as a whole. In addition, these are not original programs, they are remakes or adaptions. WP:NOTTVGUIDE would apply. Possible redirect to Zee Kannada as an WP:ATD but would not suggest a merge unless any of these can be found to be original programming. CNMall41 (talk) 18:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Kannada remakes/adaptations are (all, I think) original productions for the channel (different cast, crew, filming location, obviously different dialogues and so on). Also, I personally do not think it is fair to remove so much material as you did early this month before nominating a page to deletion. It was unsourced, OK, true, but the page is tagged for lack of sources. Anyway, that's my position regarding Afds in general: even unsourced material (those series you removed were broadcast on ZK and that was verifiable) or even so-so sources, unless it is about a living person, should not in my view be massively removed before nominations.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as a detailed article/ the page about Zee Kannada (as I think should be the case for all pages of this type). WP:SPLITLIST applies imv as I've already explained extensively why I think that in at least one other Afd. If REALLY other users think a keep is not OK, redirect and merge to the main page. But then I should think users who propose this outcome should do it and as soon as the decision is taken, to avoid pages redirecting here being deleted.....Absolutely opposed to deletion of this type of pages. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC) (Clarification: if redirect is the path chosen users who suggest this outcome should imv make sure the merge is performed (and that includes not only the merge itself but dealing with all redirects from pages about series and other programs) and this, as soon as the decision is taken, to avoid pages redirecting to the new Redirect being deleted....). (repeating myself but cannot amend my comment, as another user already !voted below)-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But again, these are not original programs so WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think most are original programs (some are remakes, not just dubbed versions but original productions for ZK nonetheless but since when don't we consider remakes proper film creations). Check Category:Zee Kannada original programming and check original cast and cast in the remake. Some other programs may be just dubbed in Kannada but most of those are with a different cast, which shows they're not just dubbed versions but different and original productions. I think there is a misunderstanding on the acception of "original" which is here used as 1) a work that was produced for/by the channel although being based on 2) a story that is inspired by or following another that was produced in another language sometime before (and that you can call the original version or work, but with a different acception of the term). You can blame Zee Kannada for lacking imagination but that does not make their productions non-original programs. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zee Kannada: WP:NLIST applies without any special exception and that in general lists of programs, where needed, can be handled within the article about the channel, and don't generally merit a stand-alone list article, unless such a list would pass the scrutiny per WP:NLIST. WP is not a WP:NOTDIRECTORY nor WP:NOTTVGUIDE — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zee Kannada. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 11:19, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This list is not offering enough. Redirect to Zee Kannada. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 13:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Zee Kannada. Wikipedia is not a TV Guide. Pages like this should not exist only to list the programmes that the channel offers but should also describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on achievements. Per nom and fails WP:NLIST. RangersRus (talk) 13:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge page to Zee Kannada so you don't lose the information. DareshMohan (talk) 05:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Yaaradi Nee Mohini (TV series). While consensus is split on the target, that is not an admin decision. I have chosen the one that is not currently at AfD but someone can redirect as a matter of editorial discretion. Star Mississippi 19:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yaare Nee Mohini[edit]

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

Rehashing my nomination rationale listed in Kalyana Vaibhogam (TV series) - The references are WP:NEWSORGINDIA all out of the same publication. A WP:BEFORE found no better references. Attempted a redirect as an WP:ATD but it was restored by an IP. CNMall41 (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. CNMall41 (talk) 18:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Yaaradi Nee Mohini (TV series). Everything of interest in this article can be summarized in a section of the original series noting that a remake was made. BD2412 T 18:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Zee_Kannada#Drama_series: I am aware that the target I suggest has also been Afded (and is currently discussed but the channel is notable). I find this unfortunate. Anyway, opposed to deletion (coverage, more than 800 episodes: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/kannada/daily-soap-yaare-nee-mohini-completes-800-episodes/articleshow/77260404.cms) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC) Not opposed to the redirect and merge suggested above by BD2412.[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Neopets. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Petpet Park[edit]

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

While I played this game as a child and thoroughly enjoyed it, it is sadly non-notable. I've found no sources that weren't passing mentions: if this discussion fails to turn up SIGCOV, then it should be redirected to Neopets, which it is a spinoff of (though a sourced mention should be added to the body of the Neopets article) PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Internet. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Neopets per nom, fails GNG criteria. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Failed WP:GNG. Not enough WP:SIGCOV to warrant a separate article. Prof.PMarini (talk) 00:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 16:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Devart Ltd.[edit]

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

Doesn't Meet WP:NCORP. All I find it self-published sources, press releases and listings. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 17:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Czech Republic. Shellwood (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Recreation of content previously deleted and salted at Devart/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devart * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Land of poets[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Steps were taken to locate said sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Note that this article was previously nominated for deletion nearly a decade ago on September 2015, where there was limited discourse and the outcome was speedy keep.

Reviewing the history of this article, there also appears to be a running content dispute over the origin and application of this phrase. While this may be a plausible search term on the internet, I do not see valid sourcing to support this as an article or redirect on Wikipedia, hence my recommendation for deletion.

Please do not hesitate to contact me should appropriate sources be located during the course of this discussion. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry and Somalia. Shellwood (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an IP editor changed this from claiming that Chile was the land of poets to claiming that Somalia was the land of poets. Neither claim is well-sourced or has anything more than a WP:DICTDEF of content. If there were content, it would go at Culture of Somalia (or Chile). Walsh90210 (talk) 01:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Imo too trivial for its own article. Would be better suited as a passing mention in another article somewhere. Procyon117 (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There are some relevant sources on the phrase, El País, La Prensa (referring to the use of the phrase by President Salvador Allende), Icarito (La Tercera), Chile en el siglo XXI: ¿Nuevos recorridos artísticos, nuevos caminos históricos? ("Chile, donde el eslogan turístico reza 'tierra de poetas'"), Anales de la Universidad de Chile (used in 1861), Di/versos: Poesía queer autobiográfica, Crecimiento con equidad: discursos escogidos, 1992-1994 (President Patricio Aylwin), Escribir con estilo. While these do not go into detail in the phrase itself, these can be used as references as to the use of the phrase dating back to the XIX century. And I did not even use the Spanish translation in the article itself, "país de poetas" but "tierra de poetas". "País de poetas" gives several interesting search results in Google Books and Google Scholar, which should suffice for this article to be kept. --Bedivere (talk) 05:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest renaming the article to "Chile, land of poets". --Bedivere (talk) 05:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a content fork of Culture_of_Chile#Literature and hardly a notable subject by itself. My very best wishes (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Oreshkovo airfield. Star Mississippi 16:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mansur (bear)[edit]

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

Article is about a non-notable animal. Does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV - press reporting was fleeting and fairly trivial. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Oreshkovo airfield. The references are more than adequate to support a short paragraph there. Ingratis (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Russia. Skynxnex (talk) 19:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that sounds like a good plan. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. It appears that the issues can be resolved via editing. Star Mississippi 16:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FairVote[edit]

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

Although this article has existed for a long time, I believe it should be deleted for for reasons of notability and being promotional in nature.

The article recently came under scrutiny due to a COI discussion about the User:RRichie (who is probably Rob Richie of FairVote).

There are no sources on the page that can be used to establish notability. Most of them probably shouldn't be used on that page at all.
The page appears to have been created and maintained mostly by FairVote employees. This raises concerns about WP:PROMO
The article is in a bad state right now. There have been attempts to improve it, but I believe those will be unreasonably difficult, due to the continued involvement of FairVote employees. (See the "Vandalism" section of the article's talk page) Brilliand (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose - the article has been chaotic due to what are alleged by supporters of the organization to be ideologically-based attacks, and by involvement by supporters of the organization who didn't seem to grasp our rules about COI, etc. But that does not change the fact that this is the best-known U.S. organization advocating for IRV and related reforms. Problems with the article do not change the topic's notability. (Full disclosure: I've been a supporter of this organization for decades.) --Orange Mike | Talk 17:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep. It seems to have a decent level of coverage, and I would be curious to see a source analysis for the article indicating otherwise. BD2412 T 18:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See the discussion I started on the article's talk page. The current sourcing for the article does not include anything that can establish notability.

I suppose you're asking for something that I don't know how to do; my assumption is that if an article this old (and with this many sources) doesn't contain evidence of its own notability, then it probably isn't. --Brilliand (talk) 19:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Maryland, and Ohio. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. There is substantial coverage of FairVote's local affiliates, who have gotten instant-runoff voting passed in Seattle (FairVote Washington), Alaska, Minneapolis-Saint Paul, and Maine. There's also its lobbying work through FairVote Action. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page does seem to be ~95% links to FairVote's own website, which is incredibly egregious. There seems to be a bit of coverage in a few newspapers+magazines. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 20:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Most of the sources are simply name drops, in articles about other things. I can't find any further sources about this group. delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: and improve the article. Looks like a notable organization and there plenty of sources. The contents of the article just need improvement for neutral and encyclopedic tone.Prof.PMarini (talk) 00:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While there is definitely some COI here, that is a fixable problem with some rewriting and adding additional sources meeting the GNG. A search came up with [[17]], [[18]], [[19]], [[20]] and [[21]]. I'd say this subject meets the WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Let'srun (talk) 23:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I agree with Oaktree that most of the sources are name drops, either just "FairVote" or "FairVote" with a brief description of what the organization does. However, there are a handful of articles and scholarly articles that do provide more context, including the Axios article. So, I see this as just passing WP:NORG. --Enos733 (talk) 16:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant information about internet searches that demonstrate notability:

- FairVote is in the top hits for democracy terms like "ranked choice voting", "instant runoff", "voter turnout"" statewide recounts" and so on

- CSPAN frequently has the organization and its co-founder on the program over the years. See https://www.c-span.org/search/basic/?query=fairvote https://www.c-span.org/search/basic/?query=%22rob+richie%22

- New York Times & Washington Post have multiple hits for FairVote and stories citing it resources, quoting its staff or publishing its staff (not all hits are the org, but most) https://www.nytimes.com/search?query=fairvote https://www.washingtonpost.com/search/?query=fairvote

- Charity Navigator, the nonprofit rating entity, gives it a 100%, 4-star rating: https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/541635649

This is just the tip of the iceberg. 173.66.181.85 (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Malinaccier (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abby's Pizza[edit]

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

Non-notable pizza chain; doesn't satisfy WP:NORG or WP:SIGCOV. The current references are trivial and/or repeated from press releases and I can find nothing else. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Oregon. Shellwood (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local business which doesn't really pass WP:NORG. SportingFlyer T·C 17:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I looked for some less-than-trivial mentions in newspapers.com but I am coming up empty. An article on "Willamette Valley-Style Pizza" might have better traction, actually. It's been written about quite a bit. I'll look a bit more but I don't think this could pass WP:NORG. Valfontis (talk) 05:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. A bit early but a pretty clear SNOW conclusion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1985–86 Queens Park Rangers F.C. season[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. "Stats only" sources and a stats-only article with stats about a football club's 1985-1986 season. North8000 (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and England. Shellwood (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep crystal clearly notable as a season of a team in the first division, then the top flight of football in England. That season will have been covered pretty much every single day in the papers of the time. It just needs more sources. SportingFlyer T·C 17:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Usual coverage for an English league team, and has WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Top flight season in England, meets general notability guidelines BFC Aspie (talk) 17:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, clearly notable. Giant Snowman 18:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes the article lacks sources on view, however that doesn't negate it in anyway, League Cup finalists this season! I really don't think think the nominator put too much thought into the nomination! Govvy (talk) 09:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've nominated bad seasons articles before only to have them kept at AfD. The problem is that a poorly created sports season stub can still be notable. SportingFlyer T·C 09:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per anyone else above. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Is this a joke? Of course this is a keep. Top flight team in a major league in a major football country who made the final of a major cup. They might not be found so easily via a Google News search, but the English top flight certainly received enormous coverage in the media, and there is zero doubt QPR received a cut of it. Anwegmann (talk) 01:16, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Happy with whatever y'all decide on this, I was just working at properly doing my job, which is now done. Regarding the critiquing of my nomination, please note that nobody has said or shown anything to establish that it has the required GNG coverage. In this area, wp:notability is about having sources with in-depth coverage from which to build an article from. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's because this is such a flagrantly obvious keep. SportingFlyer T·C 05:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply @North8000: It really shouldn't be that hard to establish something, there are sources to use, [22], [23], [24], you can use just about anything of worth from the internet. That took me what, five minutes to have a look for something GNG worthy. WP:BEFORE does apply to you also. Govvy (talk) 22:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Closing early. But to correct the nominator, I don't see that any editor who worked on this article is blocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Vets (company)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability. The sources are just either announcements (e.g. on securing funding) or republishing of their press releases/self-bio. Same for the content of the article,. Creator is indeffed for COI promotional creation. North8000 (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Florida. Shellwood (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Was originally soft-deleted after being nominated for failure to pass WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Coverage is limited to news about product launches and market openings that are excluded from consideration as trivial under WP:ORGTRIV. Even after refund, there are not multiple examples of significant, secondary, independent coverage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Nomandbou, who created the account only for the article's restoration at RfU, assured us with sure! when asked if he has at least two deep or significant sources as per the previous AfD. Jay 💬 07:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed the sources in the refunded article, and they do not meet WP:ORGCRIT. See source analysis/comments below:
- Calcalist, TechCrunch, VC News Daily, NoCamels, Calcalist (in Hebrew), FinsMes, PYMNTS, and Globes: WP:PRESSRELEASE-based (WP:CHURNALISM) routine coverage of a capital raise and thus ineligible under WP:ORGTRIV.
- New year's eve fireworks: More churnalism based on press releases.
- The Times doesn't even reference this company, it's an editorial generically talking about "the vets" in Britain as an industry sector.
- KPTV is sponsored content (read down to the bottom) and thus not independent.
- DVM 360, Community Impact, Pet Age, and ABC6: coverage of new location openings and thus ineligible under WP:ORGTRIV.
- Spectrum News 1, Tampa Beacon, WFTS Tampa Bay: local news and thus of questionable value for WP:NCORP per WP:AUD.
-- Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the source analysis above, an abuse of the refund procedure, topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:32, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above Traumnovelle (talk) 21:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 16:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zugara[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Some days ago, Wikilover3509 (talk · contribs) tried to nominate this article for deletion, but ended up editing a previous nomination for a previous article at this title. Their rationale follows:

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. The sources are almost entirely PR-based or non-independent. No actual in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources, just press releases and blog posts.

This is mostly procedural on my part; I offer no opinion or further comment beyond noting that this has been tagged as, among other things, a possible WP:CORP failure since 2012. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Software, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this company not noteworthy for inclusion when other similar advertising/technology companies such as The Barbarian Group (https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Monkeypox &lang=en&q=The_Barbarian_Group) and AR software companies such as Metaio (https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Monkeypox &lang=en&q=Metaio) and Total Immersion (https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Monkeypox &lang=en&q=Total_Immersion_(augmented_reality) seem to be fine? MHSzymczyk (talk) 11:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MHSzymczyk That is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and not a valid argument. If you can show significant coverage in reliable sources, that would be much more convincing. Toadspike [Talk] 12:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: The Venture Beat articles are RS, they're mentioned about the virtual dressing rooms in the NY Times article. The virtual dressing room seems to have gotten traction, I'd say we have just barely enough to pass. Oaktree b (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree the VB website is RS but which one of the stories meets GNG/NCORP? There are 4 stories, I can't figure out which one you might be referring to, for me the all fail either/or CORPDEPTH/ORGIND. The virtual dressingroom details are all derived from their Press Release on their patent grant. The NYT article mentions the company once, because it included a quote from the company's CEO. Fails CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous relist has not cleared things up.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Article is REFBOMBED so I won't provide a source analysis but if anyone feels there are sources that have been overlooked or missed, please link below and indicate which page/paragraph contains content that meets GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough significant coverage at this time. The results of internet searches are either self-published, blogs, and mere brief mentions. Prof.PMarini (talk) 01:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Malinaccier (talk) 15:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Duck[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NWEB. Contested CSD. Mdann52 (talk) 14:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mdann52 (talk) 14:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no significant coverage in independent reliable sources that are about a plush toy known as "Paper Duck". The article has as three references. Reference #1 is about a Tiktok trend of making paper ducks, and is not about a plush toy, nor does it even mention a plush toy. Reference #2 is a youtube video showing how to fold an origami duck and is not at all about a plush toy. Reference #2 is not accessible to me, but I highly doubt that an academic paper from 2001 about beetles published in the Australian Journal of Entomology would be about a plush duck toy. The only relation that paper would have to a duck would be that the surname of one of the authors is "Duck". It looks to me like the article's creator simply googled "Paper Duck" and slapped three of the results that showed up as references without actually evaluating the references. -- Whpq (talk) 14:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article creator was just mistaken in using the term "plush toy", possibly English isn't their first language. I corrected it to "paper doll" - the copyvio image they illustrated the article with (which has since been removed) did seem to be the same paper cutout as in the TikTok article, I think that's the only possible subject in question here. Belbury (talk) 15:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even with the change to being a paper doll, it is still not notable. -- Whpq (talk) 15:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but we should weigh up whether there are enough sources to consider the paper doll as notable, rather than the plush doll, when no such plush doll exists. Belbury (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Whpq: out of interest, have you found a copy of the paper cited in reference #2? Looking at volume 40(4), the page numbers don't line up, it hasn't been published in the previous edition or volume, and I'm suspecting more of a hoax reference. Mdann52 (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have access the journal, so I can't see inside. I was unable to find any reference to the paper in other searches, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It may be a hoax reference, or it may be a real paper, but I doubt very much that if it were a real paper, the contents of the paper would be of any relevance to this article given the other two references. -- Whpq (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. I've posted a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request#Australian Journal of Entomology to see if anybody might have access. -- Whpq (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the result is in. There is no such paper. It is a hoax reference. -- Whpq (talk) 15:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd guess that an AI hallucinated it, given the article creator's otherwise low level of English fluency. Which would also explain the "plush toy" thing. (I asked the user on their talk page if they used an AI to generate the text and they didn't understand the question or make any sense in their reply.) Belbury (talk) 19:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you are right. It looks like it may be a combination of a AI tools and machine translation tools being used. -- Whpq (talk) 19:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. I mean, they're cute, but... ehh... Aaron Liu (talk) 15:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the only relevant sources I can find are the existing wegotthiscovered.com article and a Dexerto article from one day earlier. Both are very superficial overviews reporting that a TikTok trend for paper ducks existed for a month or so around the start of 2022. I see no WP:SUSTAINED coverage of it. Belbury (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Toys, Japan, and South Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG. Does not warrant a separate article, except may be merging with a relevant list. Prof.PMarini (talk) 02:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Murree#History. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Murree rebellion of 1857[edit]

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

Well it has needed more sourcing since 2014, much of the content seems to be about other events, and there is no real; evidence of notable coverage.

As well as some of the sources being a bit iffy. Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Pakistan, India, and Punjab. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that more sources should be added, maybe also an infobox to sum everything up since it's a pretty long article. However I could find multiple reputable sources with a quick google search such as articles by the University of the Punjab, the Pakistan Perspective, the United Service Institution of India, and a book titled Murree Rebellion of 1857 by Barnabas Crist Bal. I think it's important that we expand on this article instead of deleting a piece of history. Thomas Preuss Harrison (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the article needs improvement but the event recorded was not an insignificant one in the context of the chaotic developments of 1857. Saul David's 2002 history The Indian Mutiny records the concern expressed by Sir John Lawrence as "disaffection and mutiny spread" during August of that year and that this included the Muslim tribal unrest in the Murree Hills. Buistr (talk) 07:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor, unreliable sources and many fails verification. Some of these unreliable sources are WP:RAJ era and primary sources. The event was not significant and if reliable sources with coverage is to be found, it can very well be merged to Indian Rebellion of 1857. RangersRus (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Murree#History. As noted by source #3 in the current article, ...Murree had played a small and insignificant role [in the Indian rebellion of 1857, and goes on to detail minor disorganized skirmishes. This seems appropriate to mention in the location's history as its local, minor participation in a major historical event (and it already is mentioned there), but it doesn't seem to be DUE for more than a sentence at Indian rebellion of 1857 and currently isn't mentioned there at all. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Indian Rebellion of 1857 as that is the event it is directly related to. There doesn’t seem to be significant coverage of the subject to warrant a standalone article. Prof.PMarini (talk) 03:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's essentially no information about events in Murree at that page, whereas there is coverage of the 1857 rebellion at Murree#History. What's your reasoning for preferring the 1857 rebellion page as a target? _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Murree#History: Searched for sources but could not find any that can make this event as notable and keep the article. Hence, there are two options for redirecting: the first is Indian Rebellion of 1857, as this event was part of the Indian Rebellion of 1857, but that article does not mention anything about the ‘Murree rebellion,’ nor does it mention Murree even once. Therefore, I support the second option, Murree#History, proposed by Rosguill, which mentions the event. GrabUp - Talk 14:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 16:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert L. Ord[edit]

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

Obscure businessman, lacks direct and in-depth coverage as a person (not as a business). Fails WP:GNG. FinnPanda (talk) 12:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Maryland. Shellwood (talk) 13:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found one substantial article about him in the Washington Post. I see the court case, but that doesn't say much about him, and the short ACLU article about that isn't independent as they were representing him. Many of the sources listed here do not mention him. I found one brief quote, also in the WaPo. Lamona (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

204 (Tyneside Scottish) Battery Royal Artillery[edit]

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

The subject of the article does not seem to be notable. The article has not been edited in 3 years and only contains two independent sources. PercyPigUK (talk) 12:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United Kingdom. PercyPigUK (talk) 12:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is capable of expansion: the articles relating to the other batteries of this regiment are substantial and this battery has quite a history as well. I will expand it a bit. Dormskirk (talk) 12:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the article and added a lot more sources: hopefully the proposal can now be withdrawn. Dormskirk (talk) 17:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dormskirk. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Rickfive you are our expert here, your thoughts would be welcome. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after Dormskirk's work expanding the article. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 11:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leo (band)[edit]

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

There are a couple of marginal reviews of the band's album Nightmares, but not much else, nothing that suggests WP:BAND is satisfied. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Ohio. Shellwood (talk) 13:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't find any good-quality sources to use in the article, and Leo doesn't seem to meet any of the provisions in WP:NBAND. Geschichte (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Maybe Leo deserves a Wikipedia page someday, but right now, there just isn't enough reliable information to keep this article around. Waqar💬 15:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Hignell[edit]

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

Non-notable cricket writer. Article was previously deleted in 2007, but there is still no evidence of the subject's notability. – Pee Jay 11:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Cricket, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Ledbetter. Suriname0 (talk) 14:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Based on a quick search, doesn't seem to meet WP:NAUTHOR. I found this review of one of his books. Suriname0 (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Radio, History, England, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Suriname0 found a review of A 'Favourit' Game, reviewed by Jack Williams. I'll add to that a review of Rain stops play, reviewed by Robert Thorpe, doi:10.1256/wea.112.02. But I'm doubtful that [25] is sufficiently reliable, so that gives us only two reviews. I'd want more than that for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His books are reviewed in serious publications and he is generally considered the pre-eminent historian of Welsh cricket. Sammyrice (talk) 04:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Surprised to see this nom. Hignell is one of the best known and pre-eminent living cricket historians. Meets WP:GNG. AA (talk) 09:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:AssociateAffiliate, it would be very helpful for me and for other voters if you could clarify which 2-3 sources best demonstrate that Hignell meets WP:GNG. I couldn't find any when I looked, and the current article doesn't cite any that contain SIGCOV in my opinion! Thanks! Suriname0 (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Now up to six reliably published book reviews (of six different books, not counting reviews in specialist cricket web sites), enough for WP:AUTHOR for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Owen× ☎ 11:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Union Stadium[edit]

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

The article has no non-dead sources and searches for "Union Stadium south africa" return real information (i.e. not maps or directions). The only search results on JSTOR are a university paper in Wisconsin and a local paper in Ohio, both of which are hardly reliable sources for a stadium in South Africa. For this reason, I feel the article does not meet general notability guidelines. WikipediaNMP (talk) 09:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I had a hard time figuring out what this was supposed to be, but references show that it has significant historic importance but has fallen victim to the times. Some examples: [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]. Geschichte (talk) 20:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 18:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Geschichte's sources which show GNG. (Sources found by nom are probably for a stadium in the USA.) SportingFlyer T·C 19:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per all above. Svartner (talk) 04:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 11:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wo Wo[edit]

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

I took a some time to dig sources and find the reason why this article meets WP:NSONG but can't find either. The song topped a non notable chart and hasn't been covered significantly in reliable news sources. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Albums and songs, Music, Africa, and Nigeria. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The song fails WP:NSONG and has not been discussed in reliable sources. The artist himself isn't notable. Apple Music chart is not a reliable chart. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There's no mention of coverage in established news sources or discussions by music critics. Waqar💬 17:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, because a redirect to Minz (a DAB that doesn't include the artist here) isn't an option. Native Mag has some coverage, and Bella Naija has an interview with Minz about the song. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Native magazine source you linked here is primarily about the artist and not the song. Although it mentions the song and is a useful source, it is not enough to warrant a stand-alone article. The song fails all of the criterion outlined in WP:NSONG. The Bella Naija source is an interview and isn't independent of the subject. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there does not appear to be significant coverage from third-party, reliable sources and there is not a viable redirect target. Aoba47 (talk) 19:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NSONG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 04:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Demetrio Cortes[edit]

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

Does not have references even though it is a biography, the only thing I could find were news outlets talking about his son, Demetrio Cortes Jr. TheNuggeteer (talk) 08:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, and Philippines. TheNuggeteer (talk) 08:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Found a couple passing mentions in books, but nothing to establish WP:NBIO. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 09:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

San Sombrèro[edit]

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

~~Nonnotable parody travel guide.~~ I found only a single reasonable ref - Altenmann >talk 09:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing. Can we SPEEDY KEEP it now? - Altenmann >talk 21:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
1. Fraser, Benjamin (June–December 2007). "San Sombrero: A Land of Carnivals, Cocktails and Coups: Henri Bergson's theory of laughter and the problems of travel guide humour". Journeys. doi:10.3167/jys.2007.081207. Archived from the original on 2024-06-26. Retrieved 2024-06-26 – via Gale.
  The review notes: "Travel writers Santo Cilauro, Tom Gleisner and Rob Stich are at it again. In their new guide to the fictional land of San Sombrero (San Francisco: Chronicle Books LLC, 2006) they serve up a tantalising platter of tropicalizations, exoticized culinary fixations, superficial politico-economic analyses and a hefty dose of feel-good in-group reinforcement, all for 'the undiscerning traveller' (cover). But before you rush out to buy San Sombrero: A Land of Carnivals, Cocktails and Coups, you might take a moment to consider why this type of work is considered humorous. Although you may be tickled by its approach and impressed by its slick appearance, the guide is no less problematic for taking on a fictionalized topic."
2. "Travel books: Journeying cover to cover". The New Zealand Herald. Archived from the original on 2024-06-26. Retrieved 2024-06-26.
  The review notes: "This guide to a land whose main attraction is its lack of extradition treaties is the latest offering in the Jet Lag series which brought us the hilarious Molvania and Phaic Tan. I don't think it's quite as funny as its predecessors - though that may be because having chuckled my way through both I knew what to expect - but it's still a delight to read. ... Bad taste? Sure. That's the point."
3. Larsen, Alexis (2007-04-27). "'Jetlag Travel Guide'". Dayton Daily News. Archived from the original on 2024-06-26. Retrieved 2024-06-26.
  The review notes: "If you're not taking a vacation this summer, then you're dreaming of taking one. Either way, you'll get a lot of laughs out of the Jetlag Travel Guide series. ... Of course, it is all these things — and more — making this sun drenched republic one of the most exciting travel destinations in all of Central America." Go to www.jetlagtravel.com and get a taste of these books for yourself. Just be prepared to laugh. A lot."
4. "Cocktails and coups". Geelong Advertiser. 2006-09-30. Archived from the original on 2024-06-26. Retrieved 2024-06-26.
  The review notes: "First there was Molvania, followed by Phaic Tan. Now, welcome to San Sombrero, a land of carnivals, cocktails and coups. The third Jetlag Travel Guide comes once again from the fertile minds of the Working Dog Productions team. Santo Cilauro, Tom Gleisner and Rob Sitch have come up with the definitive guide to what you can expect if you go to South America. Well, sort of. San Sombrero, like Molvania and Phaic Tan, doesn't exist, but, in line with the first two, it can give you a definitive taste of a people and their culture. San Sombrero could be a smattering of Brazil mixed in with a pinch of Cuba and a dash of Mexico."
5. "Fun-filled break at Sombrero". Birmingham Mail. 2007-01-26. p. 63. ProQuest 321699023.
  The review notes: "San Sombrero, which is a follow-up to previous guides on Molvania and Phaic Tan, is promoted as a "land of carnivals, cocktails and coups". The guide, which comes with a convincing array of photographs, describes San Sombrerans as essentially laid-back people, so much so that the inaugural marathon race had to be abandoned as most of the field were still chatting several hours after the official start."
6. Owen, Katie (2006-12-10). "Paperbacks". The Sunday Telegraph. p. 57. ProQuest 309516600.
  The review notes: "This is a hilarious spoof travel guide to a fictional Central American country. Extremely lightheartedly, it satirises eco- and adventure-travellers and the way many guides gloss over negative aspects of a place. As well as ludicrous detailed descriptions of San Sombrero's culture, history and politics ('it boasts the only Nobel Peace Prize winner to be accused of war crimes'), there are useful symbols denoting everything from 'military installation' to 'illegal wildlife for sale'."
7. Chipperfield, Words Mark (2006-10-26). "Final Call". The Sydney Morning Herald. p. 114. ProQuest 364294552.
  The review notes: "From the authors of Molvania and Phaic Tan comes San Sombrro: A Land Of Carnivals, Cocktails and Coups (Jetlag, $29.95). Santo Cilauro, Tom Gleisner and Rob Sitch explore Central America's most politically incorrect nation. Its attractions include "tropical charms, an exotic lifestyle and lack of extradition treaties". San Sombrro is a place where the church permits animal sacrifice, school canteens sell rum and its most famous war criminal won a Nobel Prize. There are useful chapters on cigarette brands, bull fighting, feminism and the telephone system. Totally hilarious - even the contributor profiles are funny. Available at all silly bookshops."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow San Sombrèro to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Please add there refs to the article. I honestly tried to find these refs in google, but found only one, which is now in the article. Something wrong with google search? (And I also found the book text in google archive). I did apply due diligence. - Altenmann >talk 16:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Cunard's sourcing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The keep arguments do not have policy behind them making this not as close as it appears Star Mississippi 16:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nasty Blaq[edit]

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

Upcoming comedian not notable for a page. References from unreliable sources and mostly trivial mentions Runmastery (talk) 07:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bibliographies, Entertainment, and Nigeria. Runmastery (talk) 07:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming?? Nah, he's a blown stand up comedian in Nigeria 75DD (talk) 07:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that Nasty Blaq is a well-known and accomplished comedian in Nigeria, but I still believe the article doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. While he has a significant following in Nigeria, the reliable sources required to establish notability are lacking. 2RDD (talk) 06:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This article is worth keeping, but the sourcing needs to be improved. 71.246.78.77 (talk) 12:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC) Checkuser blocked. Queen of Hearts ^talk 23:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A lot of coverage seems to show this is a notable Nigerian celebrity (see for example https://www.pulse.ng/entertainment/celebrities/comedian-nasty-blaq-bags-ambassadorial-deal-with-dubai-based-fashion-line/rxffl59) and that the subject meets the requirement for a page; deletion does not seem necessary but trimming does. I am not sure the mention of the cars he owns is of extreme interest, for instance, but maybe I'm wrong. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm concerned that this article doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO as there is limited coverage of the subject in reliable sources. I think it's important to prioritize notability and ensure that our articles meet Wikipedia's standards. — talk 7:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 09:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He has worked with worked so many famous brands, few are Kubanah Whiskey Unveils Nastyblaq As Brand Ambassador, Cardtonic signs Mega Influencer, comedy star Nasty Blaq as their latest Brand Ambassador and so many more but I intended not to put it in the article because it will sound promotional

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

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

The result was speedy delete per tagging for WP:G4 -- article previously deleted per discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chioma Rowland ‎. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chef Chioma[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Being a wife of a notable person doesn't mean the wife should be notable. No! It's WP:INHERITED. Besides, celebrities can be influential but not notable. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, Africa, and Nigeria. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
del - thoroughly nonnotable. - Altenmann >talk 09:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I've reviewed the article and understand the nominee's concerns. While Chef Chioma may be a notable figure in Nigeria, the article lacks sufficient reliable sources to establish their notability on a national or international level. The content is also quite brief and doesn't provide enough context or depth to meet Wikipedia's standards. Based on these factors, I support the deletion of the article. - 2RDD Talk🔊 10:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable individual. Article was previously deleted via an AFD discussion in May 2024. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎ No good arguments provided to delete this article. Discussion of a merge can continue outside of an AfD if editors still think it might be worth doing. Malinaccier (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Xi Jinping–Li Keqiang Administration[edit]

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

already have Li Keqiang Government & China under Xi Jinping Coddlebean (talk) 08:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Coddlebean (talk) 08:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: WP:CSK#3. Those three articles are obviously about different topics. Li Keqiang Government refers only to the composition of the State Council of the People's Republic of China after the 12th (2013-2018) and 13th (2018-2023) National People's Congress. China under Xi Jinping covers the socio-political governance and influence of China during Xi's chairmanship, which extends past 2023 as Xi remains Chairman after the 14th National People's Congress. The subject article is about the Fifth Generations of Chinese leadership, which is a common term coined for categorizing distinct periods of communist leaderships and inherited from the Hu–Wen Administration. In other words, the article is about political institutions of China during the combined rule of Xi and Li from the period 2013-2023, which discusses the distribution and swift of power between Xi and Li during their governance. A simple BEFORE already shows the broad usage and actual meaning of this term, and the nominator (once again) did not provide a deletion rationale grounded in Wikipedia guidelines. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 13:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: as above. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Prince of Erebor. Agree that WP:CSK#3 applies. Sal2100 (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Li Keqiang Government is the Central People's Government of China from 15 March 2013, when Premier Li Keqiang took office, until March 2023, while Xi Jinping–Li Keqiang Administration is the administration of China from 2013 to 2023. Both articles list the State Council members, and do little else; it's not obvious that the articles should not be merged. (I agree that China under Xi Jinping is clearly very different). Walsh90210 (talk) 01:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Walsh90210: Not really, they are quite distinctive. The key difference is that the subject article includes details about the distribution of power between Xi and Li, which Li Keqiang Government would and should not cover. Another distinction is that the discussion/analysis of this term usually focuses on the power shift from a more equally distributed structure to one more heavily leaning towards Xi, as well as the conflicts between Xi and Li's policies and governance. This is clearly differentiated from Li Keqiang government again, which solely covers the administrative structure of the State Council. Rather than a merge, this article requires an expansion. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 05:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think I lean towards merging this article with Li Keqiang Government. Either title is fine, but these are quite redundant. I don't see why details about the distribution of power between Xi and Li cannot be included in Li Keqiang Government.

What bothers me more is the title. Shouldn't this be at Xi–Li Administration, per the Chinese name and Hu–Wen example given above? Toadspike [Talk] 21:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Toadspike: I beg to differ. The term "Xi Jinping–Li Keqiang Administration" (習李體制) has both broad and specific usage. (See Radio Free Asia[31], Radio Taiwan International[32], and academic journals from Journal of East Asian Studies[33], Peterson Institute for International Economics's Policy Briefs[34], etc.) Merging (/redirecting) it to Li Keqiang Government would not be helpful unless there is a whole subsection explaining the nuances. However, the discussion of power shifts and struggles would cause the focus to swift more towards describing Xi Jinping's political influence, rather than Li Keqiang, and the article would digress (similar to the corresponding article in zhwiki where Xi was given significantly more content). So I do not think merging X–L Administration into Li Keqiang Government would be a good option.

Instead, Wen Jiabao Government currently does not exist, and articles mentioning Wen Jiabao Government is pipe-linked to Hu-Wen Administration, which makes more sense, as the discussion of power distribution is broader than just the composition of the State Council. However, whether Li Keqiang Government should be redirected to X-L Administration is another discussion at another time, and this current AFD is not going in the right direction as it proposes to delete the article that is more worthwhile to be kept.

A rename is also unnecessary, since Li Keqiang's successor, Li Qiang, is also surnamed Li, redirecting the article to Xi-Li Administration would cause confusion (I think Xi-Li Administration should be turned into a disambiguation page if Xi Jinping-Li Qiang Administration is created in the future). Given the above, I still think WP:CSK#3 should apply, as the nominator has misinterpreted the subject article's topic (at least everyone in the discussion agrees that the subject article differs from China under Xi Jinping), and this article clearly has enough notability to exist. Walsh90210 and Toadspike's suggestions of a potential merge of Li Keqiang Government can be done on the article's talk page or in another AFD. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 08:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that "Xi Jinping–Li Keqiang Administration" is the COMMONNAME and that certain content is appropriate only under that title and not under Li Keqiang Government. In that case, we should merge Li Keqiang Government into Xi Jinping–Li Keqiang Administration. I think your second paragraph agrees with this. Just because AfD is "Articles for Deletion" doesn't mean we can't come to a consensus to merge instead.

As for renaming the page, Xi Jinping–Li Qiang Administration is a redlink. If you are correct that Xi–Li Administration (习李体制; 習李體制; Xí Lǐ tǐzhì) is the COMMONNAME of the Li Keqiang Administration, and I believe you are, then we should move Xi Jinping–Li Keqiang Administration to Xi–Li Administration. Once someone creates Xi Jinping–Li Qiang Administration, we can add a hatnote to that page, but I am fairly certain that right now the Li Keqiang Administration is the primary topic of "Xi–Li Administration" by a wide margin. Toadspike [Talk] 13:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify for the closer, my current !vote is to:

Merge Li Keqiang Government into Xi Jinping–Li Keqiang Administration, and
Move Xi Jinping–Li Keqiang Administration to Xi–Li Administration

Toadspike [Talk] 13:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Toadspike: Yes, you have interpreted my rationales correctly, although I am only suggesting that a merge of Li Keqiang Government article into this article makes more sense. Personally, I still have some reservations, given that both articles are about very different topics. There might also be opinions from other Wikipedians regarding that potential merge, so I think another discussion on Li Keqiang Government is much needed. But since this current discussion is about the fate of X-L Administration, I do not think it is the right place to discuss how to deal with another article, especially since we both seem to agree that X-L Administration is the more notable and worthwhile one to keep (along with some speedy keep !votes agreeing that all three articles are covering different topics). That is why I was suggesting a new and separate discussion for Li Keqiang Government, and this current discussion should be closed as a Keep, since Xi Jinping–Li Keqiang Administration will not be not going anywhere.

Regarding the renaming, the sources I listed in this discussion all use the term "Xi Jinping-Li Keqiang Administration", and I think this should be the COMMONNAME (due to more frequent use in reliable sources). But I also found some using the shortened Xi-Li Administration (like The Straits Times[35] and South China Morning Post[36]), and I do not oppose a rename per WP:CONCISE. The full term could be mentioned in the lead. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 14:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Aushenker[edit]

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

No independent significant coverage anywhere, seems to just be WP:TRIVIAL coverage online. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 08:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, United States of America, and New York. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 08:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not finding anything substantive about him. I see that he has written for one or more possibly fringe publications. There are quotes and cites to someone with that name in books about Hollywood, but I don't know if it's him because there isn't enough information to determine that. Lamona (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing any SIGCOV to establish notability. Longhornsg (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While there's some information here, it doesn't quite meet the bar for an article. Reliable sources like established publications would make a stronger case for keeping it. Waqar💬 15:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News9Live[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP as well as WP:GNG. Twinkle1990 (talk) 07:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Entertainment, Organizations, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Twinkle1990 (talk) 07:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Looked for reliable sources with in-depth coverage of the subject, but was unable to find any. It fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Ping me if someone finds one. GrabUp - Talk 10:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Poor sources with no significant coverage on the channel. Fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 13:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very poor sources for yet another indistinguishable 'screen, shouter and L3 generator set to 135 pt font' Indian news-to-debate channel (do they even have quiet ones now?). Nate • (chatter) 04:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Struggling to find reliable sources that give this topic the in-depth coverage it deserves. It might be best to remove it for now unless strong sources emerge. Waqar💬 15:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shore Acres, Mamaroneck[edit]

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

Non-notable location within Mamaroneck, New York. Only thing I can find out about the place is that a 2021 trench collapse that killed a worker occurred there, but I doubt that alone would pass the notability criteria. Procyon117 (talk) 15:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Procyon117 (talk) 15:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the best that I could find. Appears to mostly be important to the Shores Acres Point Club. Supporting Delete given lack of available sources or obvious notability, and it got moved to mainspace after being rejected by the AFC process. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Censorship in Turkey. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Tema[edit]

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

Non-notable YouTuber Runmastery (talk) 07:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bibliographies, and Webcomics. Runmastery (talk) 07:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albania and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 08:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Tema is a well-known YouTuber and writer in Turkey. She has been featured on all major news channels and websites such as TRT. See the references in the article. Kerim Demirkaynak (talk) 12:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Per the other commenters, like Kerim Demirkaynak, I'd vote weak keep in this discussion and hope that the sourcing is improved. 71.246.78.77 (talk) 12:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)~~ Checkuser blocked. Queen of Hearts ^talk 23:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Censorship in Turkey: This article was created after a recent controversy. I can't find much coverage of him in the news prior to that. There isn't anything that contributes to his wikinotability on Google Books as far as I can see. Current coverage appears to be largely of the arrest warrant, so if there should be a standalone article, it should be of the event rather than his biography, but I'm not sure about that as well. Unless an editor demonstrates its notability through WP:NEVENT, it may be considered routine news coverage. By the way, self-published and primary sources such as Twitter, Youtube, his books do not determine his notability and should probably be left out when merging. Aintabli (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Merge: Coverage is significant but there is not that much of it. Seems likely there will not be much lasting coverage, and the event would probably benefit from context. The Censorship in Turkey article is very long already but if it has to be split it can be (and hopefully will be). Mrfoogles (talk) 07:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 14:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanghamitta Balika Vidyalaya[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 02:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Sri Lanka. Dan arndt (talk) 02:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Buddhism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Eastport–Kingsgate Border Crossing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsgate, British Columbia[edit]

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

There's not a single reliable source online to put in this article, and it seems like nothing more than a small stub. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 03:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 03:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eastport–Kingsgate Border Crossing. Reywas92^Talk 03:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/do-rb/offices-bureaux/536-eng.html

Would the Canadian Border Control as a source do the trick? It may be a small article but if you could find a source, it might not be worth deleting. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 03:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing doesn't really matter as long as the content can be easily merged to the border crossing article: there's no reason to split it into one article for each side of the crossing, and another for the crossing itself. It just splits the sources. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect.The article says nothing of significance that can't be included as a sentence or two in Eastport–Kingsgate Border Crossing. Athel cb (talk) 07:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per prior comment. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some content. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you also included the information at Moyie River, but I don't think this should be included here or that it justifies this article. This is not significant coverage, it just identifies the place, which is the border crossing area. They have 199 locations where water was tested, and this primary source data isn't the sort of thing that belongs in the articles of each sampling site. The border crossing article should certainly mention it's along the river though. Reywas92^Talk 15:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kang Ju-hyok[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've found a coverage about this player on Choson Sinbo which is a complete introduction the player, and there's another article in Tokyo Sports praising his performance against Japan national team last March. I think it should pass the WP:SPORTCRIT with those references since it's very difficult to find numerous coverages for North Korean players. Lâm (talk) 10:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per coverage found by Thplam2004. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per Thplam2004. Normally there are no sources for WP:V regarding North Korean players, this time it appears there is minimal. Svartner (talk) 18:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which appear to show notability. Giant Snowman 18:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see lack of extensive coverage, but the sources provided seem to establish notability. Waqar💬 15:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Football at the 1998 Asian Games – Men's team squads#North Korea. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Yong-chol[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – To Football at the 1998 Asian Games – Men's team squads#North Korea as WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 18:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 18:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. I want to vote keep, because 18 senior caps is substantial, but I think a redirect is a better option. Anwegmann (talk) 01:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Drag panic[edit]

The result was Keep. Per WP:SNOW there is no chance this discussion will arrive at any other outcome.‎ Thryduulf (talk) 13:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article describes social concerns about the exposure of drag to children as "hysteria," "moral panic," and "extremism." Regardless of whether one might be inclined to agree with such statements, there is not sufficient evidence to call one side of a very polarized political divide "hysterical." This article thus claims a seriously contested assertion to be fact, something which has a strong prohibition on it in WP:VOICE. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 02:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Félix An (talk) 02:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Conspiracy theories, Fashion, Popular culture, Sexuality and gender, and Social science. Skynxnex (talk) 03:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article describes a well-documented phenomenon involving opposition to drag. The nomination disputes the article title and characterization of the phenomenon, which is a valid discussion but not a reason to delete the entire page. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that the general theme of writing about "opposition to drag" or something along those lines could be done neutrally, though this would take such substantial rewriting that it may be better to start from scratch, or incorporate elements of this page into a "criticism" or similarly titled section on the article about drag. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 03:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not taking a position on whether the characterization should be changed. If it were to be changed, only the first sentence would need substantial rewriting; the rest of the article mostly describes protests and events. The word "panic" only appears 7 times in the article (besides the title) and only once outside the lead. If there is a consensus that the terms are non-neutral (the consensus doesn't exist now), what is wrong with renaming the article to, for example, "Protests against drag" and removing the terms in the first sentence? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the outcome of this AfD is Keep, I strongly agree with the Helpful Racoon's proposal, and I think a move discussion should be started to move the page to a more neutral name. However, I will still maintain my Delete !vote. Félix An (talk) 05:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic, but after a bit of thought I believe "Anti-drag movement" might be an appropriate title if "Drag panic" is found to be non-neutral. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as by above: subject is clearly notable, and arguments about article quality, POV, or title are irrelevant.

Also, consensus for the article name already exists on the talk page: Talk:Drag_panic#Move_to_"Criticism_of_drag". Complaints about that should follow the requested moves process, not the AFD process, and should be done there.

See the statement of Daniel Rigal in the linked discussion. Further discussion of this should be done at the talk page. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the name stems from its use it reliable sources, as opposed to Fox News (see WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS). The fact that a large number of reliable sources refer to it in this way is sufficient evidence that it's reasonable to characterize it that way. Mrfoogles (talk) 08:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Lewisguile (talk) 11:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes notability, and WP:IDONTLIKEITis not a valid reason to delete, nor is WP:FALSEBALANCE, by claiming no on has proved it is not a threat, it is down to those who claim there is a threat to prove there is one. Slatersteven (talk) 09:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep obviously notable topic. Skyshiftertalk 09:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Even if the claims in the nomination were correct, which they are not, bias is not a reason for deletion. The topic is obviously notable. The hits in Google News and Scholar linked above are sufficient to demonstrate notability even before adding in synonyms. If there was a bias problem then that would be one to be fixed in editing, not in deletion. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP Schützenpanzer (Talk) 13:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep this is clearly a Notable topic, and has good enough sources. Babysharkboss2 was here!! ^{Dr. Wu is NOT a Doctor!} 13:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is pretty notable and it points out the opposition of drag, hence the name "drag panic" which is a moral panic. Obviously, the article is a bit opposed rather than neutral, but it doesn't mean the article should be up for deletion, it's just need a cleanup from various WikiProjects that are involved in it. Please know the editor is still new to this, remember it's a privilege to edit on Wikipedia. Now, for the name of article, @Félix An requested to rename the article to "criticism of drag" in which I disagreed, because no one else calls it that. Although, other editors from that discussion pointed out it's "overly broad" or "would be a completely different topic" since the article is about the opposition of drag. With the name not being suitable for the article, I do agree with @Helpful Raccoon's proposal to rename it "anti-drag movement". If the outcome is keep, it just need a cleanup and a name change so it doesn't be opposed and stays neutral. — JuanGLP (talk/contribs) 14:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: OP hasn't outlined convincing argument for deletion. Any problems outlined can be resolved with edits, if they exist. Topic clearly notable from looking at Google Scholar and media usage alone. Lewisguile (talk) 11:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that sometimes an article is so Broken that deletion is the only way to fix it (or to put it another way, there is nothing worth saving), but this is not one such article. Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. This is really disruptive and clearly "I don't like it." An old article may need improvement, but this one clearly passes GNG. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic seems to be notable judging by media citations, and even ongoing laws. Maybe there exist some responses/pro-advocacy to add some or more WP:UNDUE. Although it is part of a deeper ongoing moral panic, perhaps, it can be retitled to "Criticism of Drag", "Drag hysteria", "Anti-drag movements" or "Drag and social responses". Regards, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 16:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: This deletion attempt seems disruptive and driven by personal preference rather than objective criteria. I believe the article's content is factually sound. Even if minor revisions are needed, deletion is not the answer. Waqar💬 17:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are more than enough reliable sources to make this notable. --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also if there's such WP:REQUESTMOVE to a bland tone Anti-drag movements I would concur it too. --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the topic is clearly notable, not only for the number and quality of the sources, but also the fact that they document a phenomenon that is widespread enough that there are sources from many countries around the world. Mathglot (talk) 01:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this is heading for a snow close. Slatersteven (talk) 08:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Thank you to the editors who did their due diligence, looking for actual sources about this middle school and evaluating Chinese sources. When AFD works, it is because of contributions like yours. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No.3 Middle School Of Lingshan[edit]

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

Pure vandalism, cross-wiki abuse, the article with the same name in Chinese Wikipedia was deleted by a sysop. Allervous (talk) 02:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and China. Skynxnex (talk) 03:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you for reporting this, Allervous (talk · contribs). Here are the sources listed in the article:
1. Website: https://lcsz.pages.dev/
2. "立志存高远腾龙震乾坤_科教文体_校园天地_今日广西". 广西新闻. 2024-03-24. Retrieved 2024-06-10.
3. "寻找灵山"最美中学"，老乡们快来看看有你的母校吗?_办学". www.sohu.com. Retrieved 2024-06-21.
4. 倪峥 (2023). 学校德育制度变迁研究 - 以广西某中学为例. 福建: 福建教育出版社. ISBN 9787533496418.
5. 中共广西壮族自治区委员会党史研究室 (2021). 中国共产党广西历史. 中共党史出版社. ISBN 9787509857328.
6. 施丹宁 (2023). 从传统到现代：广西教育的转型与创新. 广西教育出版社. ISBN 9787543538474.
7. "灵城第三中学官网". 灵城第三中学官网. Retrieved 2024-06-22.
8. 刘世济. 广西教育的军事化管理研究与参考. 广西: 广西教育出版社. pp. 11–12. ISBN 9787543546578.
Cunard (talk) 11:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The creator, zh:Special:Contributions/鸡景行, was blocked on the Chinese Wikipedia for "純粹破壞：屢次增加沒有來源的不實資料：見用戶提報。製造不實資訊：靈山縣靈城第三中學。並非在此建設百科全書。" This is translated to "Pure destruction: repeatedly adding false information without sources: see user reports. Producing false information: Lingcheng No. 3 Middle School in Lingshan County. This is not the place to build an encyclopedia."

The block discussion is here. Here is a Google Translate of that discussion:

Extended content

鸡景行

鸡景行 (Discussion · Contributions · Log [Ban · Filter] · Global Account Information)

Just making it up.

The school’s official website is suspected to be a website built by the editor.
The school emblem and school song are suspected to be composed by the editor. The entry states that the school song from 2024 will be "People from No. 3 Middle School Pursuing the Other Sun" and the audio file is uploaded. However, according to [1], the school song in March 2024 will be "Brilliant Talents Grow in Lixiang".
The chapter "School History" is completely inconsistent with [2] "Lingcheng No. 3 Middle School was founded in November 2001 and was renamed Lingshan County Lingcheng No. 3 Middle School in December 2011."
The school motto "Inspiring students to study hard and pursue excellence" should be "Study diligently and achieve excellence" ([3]), and the philosophy "Let students be admitted to good high schools and make students become obedient and good children" should be "education with ideals" To realize the ideal of education” ([4])
"Internet Censorship" is an entire chapter of original research and fictitious reference materials. The ISBN of "Research and Reference on the Militarized Management of Education in Guangxi" is found to be a Chinese textbook for the first volume of ninth grade.
User:鸡景行 also translated the entries into English Wiki and Cantonese Wiki.

Discovered by: Kcx36 (Message) 17:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

zh:Special:Diff/82824332/83166384, suspected to be imitating Zhemao. --Kcx36 (Message) 17:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Cantonese Wikipedia may also have to assist in the cleanup - Qiancun Foxtu (leave a message) 23:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Cross-wiki vandalism, I have deleted the disruptive content from the English Wikipedia, and I recommend that the user be submitted to a global lockout. --Allervous Hatsune MikuのセーラーServer 02:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

zh:User:鸡景行/钟娟章, seems to be pranking his teacher. --Kcx36 (Message) 17:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

pages.dev is Cloudflare Pages. It is hard to believe that this is the official website of the school. --HeihaHeihaHa-Muggle... (Message) 17:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Cunard (talk) 11:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In these edits, the article creator gave a barnstar to User:折毛, who was blocked for the hoaxes described in the Wikipedia article Zhemao hoaxes and was the subject of this declined arbitration case request in 2022. Cunard (talk) 11:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the analysis I posted above. This editor gave a barnstar to an editor who created numerous hoaxes (Zhemao hoaxes and Wikipedia:Fabricated articles and hoaxes of Russia in 2022) after creating an English Wikipedia article that was deleted on the Chinese Wikipedia for being a hoax. Delete per Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes and Wikipedia:Vandalism#Hoaxing vandalism. Cunard (talk) 11:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I started Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:鸡景行 and suspected hoax article. Cunard (talk) 11:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A school with the name "灵山县灵城第三中学" (No.3 Middle School Of Lingshan) is mentioned here in The Paper and here on gxnu.edu.cn. The school likely exists though I've been able to find very little coverage of it. According to the Chinese Wikipedia editors' analysis, the article contains false information and fabricated sources. Cunard (talk) 11:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to your advice, I think the article should first be deleted and then re-created. Allervous (talk) 12:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, TNT, likely hoax. -Lemonaka 02:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems to be a hoax based on the page creator's block summary. The Wikipedia policy for hoaxes, per WP:G3, is to delete them (although you already know that) 24.115.255.37 (talk) 02:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for deletion (G3) As it's pretty clear from evidence here that this is a hoax made by a Zhemao follower or something. I'm assuming there's consensus for deletion, and this hoax is pretty blatant, so let's not waste time here. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 13:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete (I'd have speedied, but it was just declined). Clear hoax, if school is notable it can be re-created with legit sourcing and information. FWIW, if Cunard !votes Delete, there is no hope of salvaging an article's content and there's no one I know with better assessment of Chinese-language sourcing. Star Mississippi 22:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Star Mississippi I'm a little bit familiar with Chinese.

https://lcsz.pages.dev/ is likely to be a website written by the one who created the hoax.
This source noticed No.3_Middle_School_Of_Lingshan, however, it's just about some events host on that school previously
Unreachable source
Unknown
They cite a book about "the history of Chinese Communism Party in Guang Xi", how can this book has anything related to a school
Unknown
The site built by vandals
Unknown

-Lemonaka 12:51, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The website you mentioned is probably created by the user 鸡景行, because I didn't find any info about the school's homepage on Baidu, and most Chinese school website has .edu (second-level domain) and ended with top-level demain .cn (Sometimes ended with .com). Also, the coat of arms is very rough.

There may be local factbook like "灵山县志:1995-2005 [Lingshan County History Factbook:1995-2005]. OCLC 1336361481." that notice the existence of Lingshan NO.3 school, but I couldn't get the content. To avoid further abuse, the article should be deleted. Allervous (talk) 00:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete as nonverifiable. - Altenmann >talk 18:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've only found what the content from website on a county government and literally it's very hard to access them from my end. Donno if there's any infomation can obtained from there. I've also seen there's a speedy request in Cantonese Wikipedia and see what's the outcome here first. Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 08:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Hindi films of 1977. I don't see a strict consensus for any outcome but this closure would accommodate the opinions of the most participants. I would have closed this AFD discussion as "No consensus" if the references had included page numbers, ensuring that the article subject was actually discussed in them, but just listing books doesn't give me confidence this is the case. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kali Raat[edit]

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

fails general notability guideline. search only turns up a song of the same name and the phrase "kali raat". ltb d l (talk) 01:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. ltb d l (talk) 01:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Hindi films of 1977: notable cast and musicians, is verifiable (see Books) not opposed to keep if sources can be found to expand this. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see it has an entry in Encyclopedia of Indian Cinema. It needs expansion, not deletion. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Expand it? There are no reliable sources. What exactly will you use for content? Meanwhile, why don't you cite that enclopedia article somewhere so we can all read it. Yappy2bhere (talk) 02:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Shahid, notable. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to List_of_Hindi_films_of_1977#A-Z. No sources with enough coverage and reviews. Fails WP:GNG and fails to warrant a standalone page on the film. RangersRus (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Hindi films of 1977 or Delete. The only source I've seen is IMDb, which is as questionable as the current wiki page. I'm not even sure how one would be able to appropriately expand the article, given the lack of WP:SIGCOV. I'm pro-redirect given the notability of those involved in the film. Lindsey40186 (talk) 01:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Keeping it is out of the question. Google finds no reviews, no interviews, no box office, nothing - fails WP:GNG with knobs on. There isn't even a reliable source to establish cast members or release date. I find a monochrome movie poster (VHS box? idk) that names the production company and five members of the crew but no cast and no year. There is no way to write a "reasonably balanced article" without sources. Redirecting to List of Hindi films of 1977 isn't an option. There's no reliable source that confirms it even belongs in that list. I find a movie poster (VHS box? idk) that names five members of the crew but none of the cast or the release date. Without support that entry will be removed sooner or later, the proposed redirect will then redirect to a page that doesn't mention the topic, and we'll waste some time at WP:RfD disposing of an ill-considered redirect. Yappy2bhere (talk) 02:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless more or better coverage at WP:Library or elsewhere convinces us otherwise, redirect to List of Hindi films of 1977. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 08:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Entries exist in six books. DareshMohan (talk) 05:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@dareshmohan: where??? ltb d l (talk) 06:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oh, you added them to the article. but entries are not remotely significant coverage. ltb d l (talk) 06:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please review recently added sources to article to see if this satisfies the need for sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. None of the recently added sources satisfy notability. Recently added sources are google snippets. Source snippet 1 has an entry with the names of director, producer, Musician and cast but misses the year. Source snippet 2 has List of entries starting with Kala but does not list Kali Raat. Source snippet 3 has an entry for Kali Raat with name of director and year. No significant coverage or any critical reviews for the film. I still stand by my vote earlier to Delete or Redirect to List_of_Hindi_films_of_1977#A-Z. RangersRus (talk) 12:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Online it is often difficult to find extensive coverage of pre Internet Indian films. But films with notable actors will almost certainly have had reviews in newspapers. We don't even mention the Hindi title for the film. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
काली रात. It means "Black Night". Hard to believe that so many of the stars, singers etc. deserve articles but not the film itself. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Judah Lavulo[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough significant coverage of this subject, an American rugby league footballer, to meet WP:GNG. My searches yielded a few trivial mentions. JTtheOG (talk) 01:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and California. JTtheOG (talk) 01:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minimal sources and career doesn't appear notable. Mn1548 (talk) 07:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Given the lack of in-depth, reliable sources, it's difficult to establish the player's notability for an encyclopedia entry. Waqar💬 17:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to British Rail departmental locomotives. I see a consensus to retain the content here but move it to a different article and turn this page into a redirect. I hope an editor knowledgeable on the subject will undertake this project of merging this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

British Rail Eastern Region departmental locomotives[edit]

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

Wholly unsourced article since 2009 Danners430 (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Danners430 (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Danners430, were you aware that there isn't actually a requirement in any policy or guideline to cite sources? Our rule is that a subject can qualify for a separate article if sources exist in the real world, even if none are cited in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am aware. However, if you continue reading through that guideline, you’ll find more info - specifically regarding whether editors can find sources elsewhere. I’ve done a search through sources that I know of, and through search engines, and can’t find any sources whatsoever. As per that guideline, that seriously casts into question the notability of the article. Danners430 (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is contextless data with no indication of importance or discussion as a group in secondary sources; as such, it fails WP:NLIST. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found a book source which I think is enough to establish the topic's notability. Smith, Paul; Smith, Shirley (2014). British Rail departmental locomotives 1948-1968 : includes depots and stabling points. Hersham: Ian Allan Publishing. p. 96. ISBN 978-0-7110-3800-4. OCLC 897871236. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NLIST. These statistics are not given any context or meaning. Eastmain above fails to distinguish between departmental locomotives as a whole (we already have British Rail departmental locomotives) and eastern region departmental locomotives. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Switching to Merge with British Rail departmental locomotives in the interest of developing a consensus. I'd rather we have one of these list articles than three, that's for sure. There is no reason I can see to have separate list articles when one will do. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – there is a whole chapter devoted to this subject in volume 10A of Locomotives of the LNER. I have added this source as a reference to the article, along with one for each main section. I don't mind expanding it to one citation for each loco, but it a fair amount of work, and it would be a waste of my time is the article is deleted...

The source also states the location the locos were used at.

This is also part of a series of three articles – the second covers the Southern Region and the third every other region. — Iain Bell (talk) 10:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need a series? These are just lists, and British Rail departmental locomotives could easily hold the entire contents of this article if people think it's worth including in the encyclopedia. Splitting them up seems arbitrary and not particularly helpful. We don't need three articles where one would do. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - First and foremost, I concur with Eastmain that sources exist to demonstrate notability, and two of these sources have been integrated into the article as of time of nomination. By definition, GNG is satisfied. Being said, looking at WP:NVEHICLE, this subject falls somewhere between the "type" and "subtype" categories in my view, and leans towards the "subtype" classification, falling under the "type" of British Rail departmental locomotives. Beyond functioning as a quasi-"list of" article, prose in this article focus predominantly on the history and numbering structure, which would substantively improve British Rail departmental locomotives. Ergo, I !vote that the article be merged and redirected to a subsection of that article. Ultimately, I will also cite ease of navigation as a factor to consider here. The linking between these articles, especially without the 'British railway locomotives and miscellany, 1948 to present' navbox on some mobile platforms, makes information unnecessarily segmented across articles. Condensing and combining content here seems the best course of action. Bgv. (talk) 09:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are the two sources enough to establish notability? Are there more sources we are missing?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 01:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect: Although this information is sourced now, I don't think there is much point treating the Eastern region in a separate article (same for SR departmental locomotives, as far as I'm concerned.) — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 16:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, and I have just proposed a merge of SR departmental locomotives into the main article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, no consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into British Rail departmental locomotives. A good compromise for this AfD. gidonb (talk) 02:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Framework7[edit]

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

No significant and independent coverage. Northern Moonlight 00:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Total lack of secondary coverage — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 03:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm afraid this fails WP: GNG. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There doesn't appear to be enough independent coverage of this topic. Waqar💬 15:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Jimmy Merchant. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Teenager's Dream: Why Do Fools Fall in Love[edit]

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

I could find no secondary sources, ie reviews or commentary, about this book. Merge to Jimmy Merchant (as it is a memoir)? PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with the nom; there doesn't seem to be any critical notice of this book. No reviews, no mentions in RS (or any media), other than what's given in the article. Sourcing used are sales listings and one media item that talks about it; neither of which helps notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Inajd Inajd0101 (talk) 02:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know what to say, but if it isn't notable enough. I guess it is MOST LIKELY to be deleted. However, I added some secondary source for the article but I don't know if that's enough. Inajd Inajd0101 (talk) 02:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect per Cunard: Fails NBOOK, found nothing on ProQuest/Google. At first glance, the tremg.info source added by Inajd0101 doesn't seem reliable. Other sources on article are not independent or are customer review sites. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC) Changed to redirect ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 18:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jimmy Merchant, the author, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I did not find significant coverage about the book in my searches for sources.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 08:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Oaktree b (talk · contribs), Inajd0101 (talk · contribs), and ARandomName123 (talk · contribs), would you support a redirect to Jimmy Merchant per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion? PARAKANYAA suggested a merge in the AfD nomination. Cunard (talk) 08:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cunard: Yes, a redirect would be fine. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 18:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jimmy Merchant: I believe that his memoir should be redirected since there are no secondary source that leads to notability when it comes to its own article, which is fair enough unfortunately. Inajd Inajd0101 (talk) 12:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Participants have brought up some additional sources that would address the nominator's concerns. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon Battle of the Books[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG. Apart from a momentary controversy six years ago which was written up in the New York Times, the only independent coverage is from brief articles in local media, which per WP:AUD are not an indication of notability. Astaire (talk) 00:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Events, Organizations, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Stevens, Janet (2015-02-20). "Column: In the Battle of the Books, everyone wins". The Bulletin. Archived from the original on 2024-06-26. Retrieved 2024-06-26.
  The editorial notes: "You might not have heard of the Oregon Battle of the Books, but for kids from 37 public and private schools in Deschutes County, it’s a big deal, and it’s coming up soon. ... Students across the state get lists of books geared to the competition’s three divisions, third through fifth grades, sixth through eighth grades and high school. There are 16 books on each of the lists for the younger two groups, and a dozen on the one for high schools. ... So I hope the Battle of the Books draws not only confirmed readers but also kids who’ve never really discovered the pleasure that comes from reading."
2. Himstreet, Kim (2017-02-15). "Reading becomes a competitive sport: Local school children duel in Oregon Battle of the Books". The Bulletin. Archived from the original on 2024-06-26. Retrieved 2024-06-26.
  The article notes: "OBOB was initiated in 2006 and modeled on Battle of the Books programs that have been operating in other states for up to 25 years. The first competitions in Oregon were during the 2007-08 school year. ... Each team comes up with a name (Read S'more, Moustache Winners and Slightly Radioactive Gummy Bears are just a few of this year's examples), and some wear team T-shirts or colors to their battles. Many use strategies such as dividing the required reading up amongst the team members to create subject matter experts, while others take extensive notes and get together after school to quiz one another."
3. Buxton, Matt (2011-04-17). "Brains and books team up at the Oregon Battle of the Books state finals". The Oregonian. Archived from the original on 2024-06-26. Retrieved 2024-06-26.
  The article notes: "Emotions ran high at the fifth annual Oregon Battle of the Books, a statewide reading and literacy competition for students grades 3 through 12 Saturday at Chemeketa Community College in Salem. The tournament, sponsored by the Oregon Association of School Libraries, was the culmination of nearly a year of preparation by dedicated students and librarians. Competitors were in three categories, third through fifth grade, sixth through eighth and ninth through 12th. Each group had a reading list of 16 books, from which questions were selected. In all, there were 45 student teams from both public and private schools throughout Oregon."
4. Woolington, Rebecca (2010-03-11). "Book Wars Come to High School: The popular reading competition opens to older students". The Register-Guard. Archived from the original on 2024-06-26. Retrieved 2024-06-26.
  The article notes: "This year marks the first time that the popular reading competition, which made its name in middle and elementary schools across the state, has expanded to the high school level. During this weekend's regional competition at Springfield High School, The Bibliophiles will compete against winning teams from 12 high schools in Lane, Douglas and Coos counties. ... Most teams split the reading load of 16 books among their members, with each member becoming an "expert" on four or five books. Members of both The Bibliophiles and It's a Secret were required to participate for their honors literature course - but they insisted they would have taken part anyway."
5. Davis, Chelsea (2014-01-16). "Battle of the bookworms". The World. Archived from the original on 2024-06-26. Retrieved 2024-06-26.
  The article notes: "Students read 12 books to get ready — from John Green’s “The Fault in Our Stars” to Gaby Rodriguez’s “The Pregnancy Project.” During the round-robin, “quiz bowl” type contest, the bookworms had to answer “In which book...?” and content questions. Teams huddled together, whispering excitedly to get the answer within 15 seconds. Their teammates mouthed the answers to each other in the audience."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Oregon Battle of the Books to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience says:
The source's audience must also be considered. Significant coverage in media with an international, national, or at least regional audience (e.g., the biggest daily newspaper in any US state) is a strong indication of notability. Attention solely from local media (e.g., the weekly newspaper for a small town), or media of limited interest and circulation (e.g., a newsletter exclusively for people with a very unusual job), is not an indication of notability. At least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary.
The Oregonian and The Register-Guard are the largest and second largest newspapers in the American state of Oregon. These two sources, which provide significant coverage about the subject, meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience. Cunard (talk) 09:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Pretty easy and obvious GNG pass. Here's THIS FOR YA, a piece by Karen Bish from the Salem Statesman-Journal of Feb. 6, 2011, "Battle of the Books Adds Fun Twist to Reading." Carrite (talk) 04:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Discussions about moving the article can occur on the article talk page.

The nominator, who has been active for just 2 weeks, is advised to acquire more editing experience and policy knowledge before nominating articles for AFD discussions. That's my opinion, not consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cato Street[edit]

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

It doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV because it's singularly sourced to meet WP:NOTABILITY. I have notability concerns for this article; it must either be deleted or moved to a general article that lists this play. I've looked on the news, Google, books, and scholars but couldn't find anything. Normanhunter2 (talk) 00:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. The stub cites reviews in The Guardian and The Sunday Times, as well as the Theatricalia listing. Here and Here are more mentions. The V&A Museum even has a feature about the play and its costumes. This play was written well before the internet existed, so most of the sources would be print sources. The play had a starry cast led by Vanessa Redgrave. I disagree with the nominator. It clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. If we want to fill out the stub to its full potential, someone will have to go to the library and get all the 1971 sources. From what I can see, it has an interesting background: Olivier commissioned the play for the Old Vic, but funding was not sufficient, so it played at the Young Vic. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I've got 1971 reviews from The Daily Telegraph and the Birmingham Post. Combined with the existing reviews, this demonstrates notability for the play. Toughpigs (talk) 03:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If kept then it should be moved to Cato Street (play) and Cato Street redirected to Cato Street Conspiracy, the clear primary redirect. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be fine. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - cites demonstrate notability; agree a disambiguate move would be helpful. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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