Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 December 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 13	December 15 >

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 delete. Star Mississippi 18:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Spark[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NBIO standards. A quick Google search reveals only a "Ford Crown Victoria". In addition, no reliable sources found. Sarrail (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women. Shellwood (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Other than the flight 93 movie she was involved with, I don't find anything. Rotten Tomatoes page is [1], pretty much blank.Oaktree b (talk) 00:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a search brought up only Wikipedia mirrors and database listings. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only coverage is a non-bylined obituary. Suriname0 (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As does not appear close to meeting significant coverage threshold. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 01:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:00, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the person is not notable WP:GNG Bruxton (talk) 15:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pendieno Brooks[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS, WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - 1 is the biggest hit I could find, talking about kiteboarding. Whether it's a GNG-worthy source, that's up for discussion. Not sure that he has anything more than trivial mentions both for beach soccer or association football though. SmackJam (talk) 20:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:25, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 18:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evens Alcide[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS, WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:24, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no evidence of notability by any standard. Found exactly 1 news item about a goal he scored for Faulkner University in 2016 (routine match coverage). Otherwise he has a total of 1 international appearance for Turks and Caicos Islands, and BTW, one of the stats databases suggests he plays in the Ghana Premier League now. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:54, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SPORTCRIT Bruxton (talk) 15:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:20, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Beljour[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS, WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Two decent sources on the surface in 1 and 2 but neither are independent as they were published by the Turks & Caicos FA. Nothing else that isn't trivial or routine, at least that I could find. SmackJam (talk) 20:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:24, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If someone wishes to develop this content for a merger to an existing article, I would be willing to provide a userspace copy, but there is clear consensus against a standalone article. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Web extra[edit]

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

This term (or jargon) seems to me to be a definition. "Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing, etc., whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meanings, usage and history. " Flibbertigibbets (talk) 21:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:07, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it seems like this had very little attention since its 2011 creation, so the question is "what are those called now, and where can/should we merge it?" as I don't recall ever hearing this term. Jclemens (talk) 23:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NEOLOGISM I found a total of 7 pages on IMDB that contain the term "web extra". — Sean Brunnock (talk) 12:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but expand scope and consider renaming: The article as currently written seems to have a narrow focus on talk shows, but this is a vastly broader and more important concept, which is only growing in importance as physical media recedes and streaming really takes over. The list of series that have already used this, even in the relatively short era of streaming so far, seems almost endless. However, I'm not providing sources this time for two reasons:
1. It is blatantly obvious that this is a fundamental concept in the TV industry, and has been such ever since Internet connections were fast and reliable enough for such production to become technically and financially viable. Because of its very ubiquity, it is unlikely that many sources specifically about this exist – but that does not exclude significant coverage in sources on other topics (which would likely be more difficult to find searching for this topic).
2. It is not clear whether "web extra" is the correct term to use as the article title. Similar terms floating around include "web exclusive" and "webisode", for just a couple of examples. However, lack of standardization on a term does not mean the subject of the article is not notable – if no standard term exists we should pick the most common one per WP:COMMONNAME. Modernponderer (talk) 16:06, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's a webisode article already- A webisode is an episode of a series that is distributed as part of a web series or on streaming television. — Sean Brunnock (talk) 16:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Brunnock, thanks for pointing that out! It somehow didn't occur to me to check whether those titles already had articles (interestingly it seems even "web exclusive" once had a primitive page)... I could certainly support a merger, but only if it's actually a merger with an expanded scope and not "let's just redirect the smaller page to the larger one, since nobody will miss it anyways" as seems to happen too often. Modernponderer (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging User:Jclemens, who suggested a merger – would this be an acceptable target in your view? Modernponderer (talk) 13:38, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, merger to Webisode sounds like a great idea to my non-expert review. Jclemens (talk) 19:35, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Web-related deletion discussions. brunnock
Merge to Webisode per above arguments. Looks like WP:DICDEF to me. SBKSPP (talk) 04:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a definition without sources and not an encyclopedic topic. I recognize that it is a distinct concept. If this is merged it could go to Editor's cut. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bluerasberry, your rationale makes sense to me (although I still think the article could be expanded to address it), but I don't understand why the bolded !vote is "delete" when the rationale seems to justify a merger instead. I'm also confused how editor's cut could be a better merge target than webisode, considering both article scope and the fact that the former page seems to have virtually the same issues as this one (so merged content may well end up deleted there later). Could you please elaborate? Modernponderer (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Modernponderer: Sure both good questions. "Delete" is my preference because this fails WP:GNG. However, this is a familiar and fundamental concept; dictionary concepts like this are often so obvious that despite appearing everywhere, there are no sources describing them because there is not much to say about the concept and defining it gives all the information typical people want to know. I often find core concepts like this missing from Wikipedia, especially around new technology. If this is to be merged, I think it should go into "editor's cut", which is a higher level concept which includes web extras, archive extras, and other extras, as well as any other kind of working notes for video, writing, or whatever. As you note, "editor's cut" also has no citations because it is one of those dictionary concepts. If someone nominated that for deletion I would defend it but it fails GNG, but maybe somehow in all its subparts together someone could find sources. Bluerasberry (talk) 01:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it still seems to be used on CNN.com as recently as 2022; this appears to be an extended DICDEF if that makes sense. I remember it from the early days of the internet, akin to DVD extras now. Leaning weak delete as I don't find any sources beyond websites using the term. Oaktree b (talk) 02:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT. LizardJr8 (talk) 02:46, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no sources and WP:NOTDICT Idevjoe (talk) 15:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:07, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rein Slagmolen[edit]

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

Subject is a window maker (who apparently for most of his career worked in partnership) and the only source in the article is a student thesis about church windows. I can't find even a hint online of Slagmolen being written about in any detail in reliable sources. Existence in itself doesn't make someone notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. Sionk (talk) 19:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some scattered coverage in GNewspapers, such as [2] and this [3], which both appear local in nature. Nothing in Google or GScholar. Unsure about this one. Oaktree b (talk) 20:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Visual arts, Netherlands, and Australia. Skynxnex (talk) 20:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Also nothing in Delpher. Of course, with the sculptor dead, there is no WP:BLP concern. But we do need sources. Maybe an extensive newspaper archive search will provide more sources. gidonb (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think, he has multiple documented pieces of public art and architecture documented by various Australian government bodies: [4] Dallas Brooks Hall ... Rein Slagmolen (sculptured entrance pillars); [5] an office building at 99 Queen Street (mural by Rein Slagmolen, 1967); [6] The sculpture illustrates the brewery processes (in an abstracted manner) and was made by the artist and sculptor Rein Slagmolen. Slagmolen was born in Holland in 1911 and established himself as an artist in Melbourne. In addition to his oil paintings and sculptures, Slagmolen also sculpted the entrance pillars to Dallas Brooks Hall in East Melbourne (1963-69). Within the glazed tower adjacent to the mural, the 1971 photographs clearly show a shiny steel kettle, extending almost to the full height of the tower.. And searching newspaper archive ([7]) finds some results in Dutch-language Australian newspapers, such as [8] with a bad OCR/google translate snippet of Built in Sydney Melbourne Vic a Melbourne artist just blow mill raises a color rich wall relief in ...which now refers to the Sydney's Pitt Street. Rein Slagmolen has, among other things, a glass mosaic wall Gemma it. A quasi-government agency that documents art in Victoria has documented his stained glass installation at a church: [9]. Skynxnex (talk) 21:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)As I said in my nomination, existence does not equate to notability. There's no doubt he existed and produced work. Sionk (talk) 22:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I looked behind the paywall and item #2 and #3 in the archival list of articles above are sufficient for the WP:GNG. There is more data and no WP:BLP concern. I also improved the article. gidonb (talk) 22:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the work done by the commentators above. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep per above. AllwellMan (talk) 08:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see any reliable citations for the biographical information in the article. I cannot find sources for the claimed "Major examples of Slagmolen's work" at the bottom of the article. The article is almost identical to the article at Alchetron, but I assume the Wikipedia article came first. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have done some work on the article. It hopefully looks better now. gidonb (talk) 22:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have added material, but unfortunately none of it is sourced.WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:28, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. Only moved stuff around. Edited. Added nothing. gidonb (talk) 03:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. I've added several RSs and slightly expanded the article. Slagmolen undertook significant works throughout Australia and was/is a nationally recognised sculpture and artist. I feel there is enough now to justify the page and meet WP:GNG. Cabrils (talk) 00:47, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to GEICO#Advertising campaigns with the option of merging content that has clear encyclopedic value, and the option of subsequently writing a spinnoff article based on reliable secondary sources. The argument that this topic has SIGCOV hasn't really been challenged; but conversely, the argument that the current content is cruft and non-encyclopedic hasn't been refuted either. As such this AfD isn't a judgement on the topic's notability, but redirecting and starting over seems to have enough support. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GEICO advertising campaigns[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

More than a decade after the previous nomination, this article has grown to catalog wmore advertising campaigns but hasn't expanded on any references that might demonstrate the notability of the advertisements themselves. The first couple of paragraphs discuss the company's advertising approaches and its effects and probably could be kept after merging into the company's main article. The balance of the article contains only primary sources; where we'd expect a notable list to contain references crituiing the ad, analysing their content and production, or researching their quantitiative results. WP:NOTCATALOG (and WP:LINKFARM too) and fails WP:GNG. Not enough significant coverage. Mikeblas (talk) 17:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Any large, successful company will go through a series of ad campaigns. I'm not seeing any sources for Geico's as a group, so it fails WP:NLIST. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The advertisements were/are notable and the content (as entertainment) has become part of the cultural landscape - this article is as notable when compared to video games, maga, tv shows, and movies. The issues outlined in the AFD nominations are valid and the action taken (rather than an AFD) could be to address those issues or tags. Perhaps the article can be addressed via the talk page. The older AFD discussion provides support for keep; and talks to notability, reach, and impact. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, a similar argument was made in the previous AfD. It assumed, like you od, that "part of the cultural landscape" conveyed notability and met WP:GNG. It doesn't. WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't support a Keep vote. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but essentially rewrite per WP:TNT. Plenty of secondary sources and analysis of GEICO advertising found in a preliminary search in Wikipedia Library, including academic sources. Focus on the major issues, impact, and controversies first; lose all the meticulous detail about every single specific ad campaign ever conducted. For the TNT, maybe we just delete all the passages that lack citations completely and go from there. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:57, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the caveats noted above. this article is a train wreck driven by Neanderthals with with due respect for my ancestors. I'll try to work on trimming it down. Bearian (talk) 15:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done for now. Bearian (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, please review the article after it was severely pruned by Bearian.

Also, previous AFD can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GEICO ad campaigns.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. You hate to see it: someone (probably many someones) put a great deal into this article, a true labor of love. A full description of every bit done in every commercial for a car insurance company in the last, what, twenty years? My favorite is this: An orchestra is performing Bach's Brandenburg Concerto No. 3 in G major, when the trianglist begins stealing the spotlight. (Side note: None of the Brandenburg Concertos call for a triangle.) It is beautiful, as a post. Unfortunately, as a Wikipedia article, it is terrible. What are these referenced to, besides the commercials? That is to say, how have we established it as a fact that anyone cared about this particular car insurance commercial? Not to mention the larger issue here, which is that this article is literally just a commercial for a gigantic corporation, which in a sane world would be WP:CSD material. Consider this: if Honest Bob's Car Insurance got turned blue by some gigantic hagiography about the greatest car insurance company in Kalamazoo, we would delete it in a heartbeat. For some reason, though, if the company has billions of dollars to blow, we will write a fawning catalog of every stupid radio commercial they ever ran, with commentary about how smart it was, and then argue to keep it at AfD??? jp×g 01:32, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is something to write about here, but the article is a mess that asks for WP:TNT. It probably can be salvaged, but someone needs to trim this down to a stub or few paragraphs. WP:OR is an issue, as is MOS:TRIVIA. WP:GNG is borderline. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:58, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:59, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update. Thanks largely to Bearian, the article has been reduced from ~83k in size to ~48k. I've removed large swathes of unsourced copy as well, but to be quite honest, someone more ruthless could probably cut it down even more. (Yes, it's shocking that the article was that huge of a mess when it was nominated.) Will have a look again later. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, even with these removals, the article's major content is still a list of descriptiosn of the advertisemsents. The links given are almost all dead, so the videos aren't viewable. This doesn't go to notability, and just reinforces the nomination. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair. Got it down to 35k. I'm sure it could be reduced some more. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep as above comments. AllwellMan (talk) 08:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to GEICO#Advertising campaigns - The vast bulk of this article is still just descriptions of a bunch of the ads, sourced mostly to youtube videos of them, with no actual sources to specify why they are particularly notable or noteworthy examples. The actual sourced paragraphs describing their development and popularity, as well as descriptions of the more notable examples like the Geico cavemen could easily fit into the proper section of the main article without needing to be split out into a separate article. Rorshacma (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely DO NOT Delete possible merge to GEICO#Advertising campaigns GRALISTAIR (talk) 16:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable element of this company; distinguishable from other large companies most of which would not merit a separate article.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:37, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Merge the relevant notable commercials and content to GEICO#Advertising campaigns. There are notable elements, but I think it is better suited and more appropriate for the main GEICO article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KeepItGoingForward (talk • contribs) 01:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to company article per above. It's possible that we could support a summary style split-out list of noteworthy GEICO campaigns but we would need WP:TNT, an independent effort, and a slew of reliable, secondary sources to do so. As scoped right now, this is and will continue to be a cruft magnet for primary sources. It would need to be scoped to generalities about the general campaigns rather than a catalog of commercials with YouTube links for each. czar 18:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Detroit Gems. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:29, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Czarnecki[edit]

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

With respect to the possibility of offline sources, I cannot find anything online about this subject, other than the occasional database source (WP:NOTDATABASE) and the non-RS blogspot link already on the article. Other sources for a person named "Walt Czarnecki" are for Walter P. Czarnecki, a business executive in the automotive/motorsport industry. Fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 20:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, and Michigan. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 20:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For these older players, if there is anything significant on them online, it is much more likely found on Newspapers.com rather than Google. It isn't uncommon for these professional players to have been stars in college and gained significant coverage there. If nothing is found I would suggest a redirect to Detroit Gems. Alvaldi (talk) 21:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 22:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Plenty of hits for this name involved with motorsports and Penske racing; I suspected it might be the same person but this basketball player died in 1995 or so an the motorsports person still has hits in 2002. Oaktree b (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Walter P. Czarnecki is still alive and providing quotes to journalists on behalf of his employer as of this month. For this reason I'm not opposed to disambiguating the page, with a link to Detroit Gems and to Team Penske. [10] - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 15:39, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked in the Library of Congress newspaper archive for "Walt Czarnecki" and "basketball", from the 1770's to the 1960s and got zero hits. I don't think he was a high level player. Oaktree b (talk) 02:32, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also tried in the New York State newspaper archive, and they only have record of a baseball player with this name [11]. Here's the Library of Congress search if anyone's interested [12]. I've used these databases over the years, they're the best freely available ones online, not a fan of newspapers.com. Oaktree b (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Detroit Gems. I did a search on Newspapers.com and while there are some hits, alternately under the names Walt, Walter and Charley, I didn't find anything significant. His inclusion on the Gems team indicates that he was known in Michican, or at least in Detroit, during his basketball years (he is mentioned as a high school star in one of the sources and I thought I had spotted another one that mentioned him as a star in college but I can't find it again). Redirects are WP:CHEAP. Alvaldi (talk) 10:27, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 18:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Teju Masala[edit]

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

Lack of independent and reliable sources - Fails NCORP. All the references used on the page are paid SEO spam articles with tags like "Brand Post", "Brand Voice" and "PR Spot". Maduant (talk) 22:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, India, and Karnataka. Maduant (talk) 22:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This looked promising, but it's "featured content" [13], promotional. Rest is about the same. Oaktree b (talk) 00:31, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The bylined IIB item may be the best of the references and provides basic verification on the company history, however neither that nor the assortment of announcements and PR copy are sufficient to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 12:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. It isn't obvious that the the suggested redirect target is the best one; the name, or a variant thereof, occurs in multiple places. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bharati Vidyapeeth's College of Engineering[edit]

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

NN private college that fails WP:NORG. Previously prod-denied in 2007, though it had received the prod-support, before it could be deleted. Prod-denied today based on that previous prod-denial. UtherSRG (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have been away from the project for long. Please pardon my ignorance here. But I remember we used to have this thing called 'stub' in Wikipedia for articles which are not comprehensive enough but we still want to provide whatever information is available. Can this not be categorized as a stub? Looking at notice, looks like issue is there being no secondary or tertiary sources. But since everything is factual - won't primary source be enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunnyhiteshseth (talk • contribs) 18:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Stub only indicates the size of the article. A stub still needs to show notability. This does not do that. Also, our notability guidelines for schools probably changed from when you last worked this article. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I read the new WP:NORG. It is a big enough engineering college in India. I will add some links to other independent & reliable websites referencing the college which can show significant coverage Hunnyhiteshseth (talk) 03:09, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. Just realized you guys already deleted it. Pasting links here in case someone else wants to take the page forward - I won't have the bandwidth to recreate the entire article now:

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/education/news/indian-students-win-us-award-for-developing-innovative-app-to-check-air-quality-index-levels/articleshow/66521084.cms

https://www.collegepravesh.com/engineering-colleges/bvcoe-delhi/

https://collegedunia.com/college/13059-bharati-vidyapeeths-college-of-engineering-bvcoe-new-delhi Hunnyhiteshseth (talk) 03:15, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and India. Shellwood (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 22:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University. WP:BEFORE search yields nothing of note on news, "Bharati Vidyapeeth's College of Engineering" nothing of note on scholar, and existing article is a single-sentence stub referenced to basically nothing (as far as I can tell it's the college's own website). No indication of independent notability from the parent university. jp×g 22:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Page has to pass WP:NCORP, and it doesn't seem it have coverages to pass the guidelines. Lordofhunter (talk) 07:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Omar Rodríguez-López#Startled Calf (1991–1992). Viable ATD now that the material has been added. Star Mississippi 18:13, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Startled Calf[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Started a PROD because the coverage on this page is worthless and I found nothing else online. Seems to be essentially fancruft which is only worth remarking upon because Omar Rodriguez-Lopez is involved. Undid PROD because of the previous deletion discussion from 2006; I hope that's how that works or else this is a big waste of time. That discussion ended in deletion before the article was recreated back in 2011. It's been edited sporadically since but there's not much in the way of big changes, and especially not in terms of sourcing. Can't imagine the current article is even that much different from the 2006 version. See also the PROD on I Love Being Trendy which I looked into and certainly won't be contesting. QuietHere (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Texas. QuietHere (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've added some sources and some history. Do you still think it should be deleted? CT55555(talk) 22:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CT55555 Of the sources you added, two are only passing mentions and the third ("Interpolating Relations of Complexity") is just barely more than that. Those are all sources I saw and ignored in my search because they wouldn't save this article any more than anything else I saw about. You'd be better off taking those to Omar Rodríguez-López and expanding that page. Maybe we could justify a redirect then. QuietHere (talk) 10:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete they were only together for about a year, I can't find anything about them. No charted singles that I see. Oaktree b (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - They are only ever mentioned in the media as an early endeavor by Omar Rodríguez-López who became notable later. This band achieved little in their own right and were purely local. Any sources that mention this band are actually about Omar and/or his later notable bands, and can be used to enhance their biographies. Also note the album article at I Love Being Trendy, which has already been PROD-ded. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:25, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all the sourcing appears to be passing mentions, and it shows - the article is borderline incoherent. There's hardly enough here to connect any of the disparate sentences. Sergecross73 msg me 15:35, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per below, I'm also okay with a delete + redirect conclusion. Sergecross73 msg me 03:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I have added content from this article to Omar Rodríguez-López, as recommended by QuietHere. I think therefore the most drastic action that ought to follow this AFD is a redirect there. CT55555(talk) 01:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will support a redirect to Omar_Rodríguez-López#Startled_Calf_(1991–1992) now. QuietHere (talk) 02:03, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 00:28, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Swashbuckle (TV series)[edit]

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

This entire article is a mess. There are no references, and while the show has only had up to Series 8, some IPs seem to have made up another 5 seasons. There are random facts everywhere with no order to them. Even if this show is notable I think the entire article needs to be rewritten because honestly it's a chaotic mess right now. RPI2026F1 (talk) 18:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. RPI2026F1 (talk) 18:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Googling finds enough sources to meet WP:NTV, I believe: [14], [15], [16], and a seemingly non-trivial mention in a book Children, Youth, and International Television (2022). There are some decent-stub/start class versions from a year or two ago I will try to work with a bit later to bring this article closer to fine. It maybe should be deleted per WP:TNT to clear out the 4,500 or so edits, but I'm not sure that's needed. Skynxnex (talk) 22:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the edit log and there are months of edits from various IP editors. I think at this point it might honestly be best to make a stub version with the few sources, completely replace the article, and apply pending changes protection. RPI2026F1 (talk) 00:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Skynxnex you think this is an acceptable stub? User:RPI2026F1/sandbox/Swashbuckle (TV series). RPI2026F1 (talk) 01:10, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RPI2026F1 Yeah! That's looking pretty good. Would you mind if I edit that some? I had done some more searching and there are good sources showing it won BAFTA and nominated for others, so including that is useful to making notability clear. Skynxnex (talk) 01:15, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, go ahead! Actually, I think we can replace the article now and you can edit it from there. RPI2026F1 (talk) 02:24, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done, you can edit the article directly. RPI2026F1 (talk) 02:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing nomination. Following WP:TNT as an alternative. RPI2026F1 (talk) 02:24, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since I voted keep I think I am not allowed to close this but given it's withdrawn, I think an uninvolved can feel free to close this as keep/withdrawn? Thanks! Skynxnex (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Tom and Jerry feature films#Tom and Jerry and The Wizard of Oz. czar 18:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tom and Jerry and the Wizard of Oz[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a strange case. Has been AfD'd before and the consensus was in favor of deletion, but for some reason it's still here. One primary source and a passing reference to a review are not enough to pass NFILM, thus the previous deletion ruling should stand and be carried out. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I cannot find any WP:RS coverage or reviews so this seems to fail WP:GNG. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 19:29, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It looks like that initial AFD that resulted in deletion was due to the fact that version of the article was created well before the film was released, and it was deleted per WP:TOOSOON concerns. Then, once the movie was actually released, the article was recreated. A very cursory search for reviews on my part did not turn up any full length reviews in reliable sources, but I honestly did not look into it enough to advocate a solid vote. However, I would suggest that even if no other reviews are found to establish notability, that a very light merge to List of Tom and Jerry feature films#Tom and Jerry and The Wizard of Oz would be preferable to deletion, the same way that a number of their other non-notable films are briefly described on that article. Rorshacma (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Tom and Jerry feature films#Tom and Jerry and The Wizard of Oz as per above.

Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Tom and Jerry feature films#Tom and Jerry and The Wizard of Oz with light merge per User:Rorshacma. The Common Sense Media review is WP:SIGCOV, independent, and WP:RS per RSP, but other than trivial mentions, e.g., 1, I couldn't find other references counting towards WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. VickKiang (talk) 23:08, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. czar 18:18, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bhaangar Bhuin[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Can't find any reliable and independent source in internet about this local daily newspaper and the article is unsourced from September 2016. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 17:09, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, India, and Goa. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 17:09, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. czar 18:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aksharanadam[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. There is no reliable source about this daily newspaper in internet. And there are many issues in the article like it's major contributor has close connection to the subject because the creator name match with the article name, it's sources are closely associated to the subject and in plus there is notability tag in the article from July 2014. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 16:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, India, and Kerala. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 16:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You can see the creator's talk page User talk:Aksharanadam Kottayam, he says that he is "official representative of aksharanadam news paper" and his account is "official account of aksharanadam news paper". 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 17:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. czar 18:14, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zothlifim Daily Newspaper[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Can't find any source about this local newspaper. There is no reliable source in internet about this. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 16:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, India, and Mizoram. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 16:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Could you tell me How to recover The Sen Times Wikipedia Page so I can give update on this page Tkbsen-tst (talk) 12:12, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Sen Times[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. This newspaper has trivial mentions in the listed sources. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 16:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and India. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 16:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Just having a website, and having news in it will not establish notability. Lordofhunter (talk) 04:35, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pehchan Faridabad[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Can't find any reliable source about this local news website and can't find any mention about the website in the listed two references which are from BBC News. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 16:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and India. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 16:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not satisfying WP:NMEDIA even not passing WP:GNG. There are two news from BBC which are not sufficient for making notability of the subject.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 13:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Unix commands. ^Complex/_Rational 19:35, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Readlink[edit]

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

WP:NOTMANUAL and fails WP:N, no indepth sources covering this command. If there is a good list where this can be redirected to, that's a possibility as well; it currently isn't included in List of Unix commands, but including it there and redirecting is fine by me. Fram (talk) 16:04, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:04, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Unix commands: Per nom, no need for a stand-alone article. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 19:31, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per above. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 00:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ln (Unix)#Links, where it is mentioned in a better context. In the interest of consensus, merge/redirect to List of Unix commands would also be fine. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 01:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Article has been improved since nomination. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 21:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second lady[edit]

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

Largely a US term. Not really a role elsewhere but a substitute term for vice president / deputy PM spouse if used at all. WP:NOTDICTIONARY Hariboneagle927 (talk) 14:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Politics. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 14:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Found use of the term outside the U.S. in Ghana and Kenya. Will look for other examples later but also not opposed to a redirect to the U.S.-centric article. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For me it is a keep given there are many media examples of the term being used around the world. That said, it is going to be a tough page to write as the sources are referring to different things. JMWt (talk) 14:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in some sort of capacity. Whether it's redirected to First lady and discussed there in a sentence, or it's kept and expanded upon with what their duties may entail. There is obviously enough routine coverage of the term "second lady" that an article or redirect is due on Wikipedia. Why? I Ask (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to First_lady#Variations. It's not clear how many of the examples in the list are actually called second lady or have any sort of official duties. Only a few of them even have links, and some of those are notable because they've also been first lady. The use of "Third lady" is obviously original research. Regardless, the concept is so closely related to first lady that a separate article isn't needed to explain it. Reywas92^Talk 15:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is an international term. This term is used in outside of the US. You can see example Second Lady of Brazil, Second Lady of Ghana, Second Lady of Guatemala, Second Lady of South Korea and Second Lady of India. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 15:56, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This term is also used in Indonesia. Second Spouses of Indonesia. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 09:45, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, the article in Indonesian is called "List of wives and husbands of Vice Presidents of Indonesia". Someone may have just applied an American term to a foreign topic. Reywas92^Talk 14:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Presidentman and LordVoldemort728. Sal2100 (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Sal2100 (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to First lady § Variations. Thanks to LordVoldemort728 for noticing more examples documented on Wikipedia. However, even with additional cited uses, I find myself wondering what is the ideal article for Second lady. Frankly, I believe it is virtually identical to First lady, and therefore I think that these topics are better discussed in the same article. I would not be opposed to a List of second ladies, but don't think a full article on Second lady is appropriate. Daask (talk) 03:21, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rework extensively including deleting all the OR. The article in its current state is problematic but fixable. What is totally missing is secondary sources specifically focusing on "role of the second lady" (or "second gentleman") rather than just pointing to instances where the term is used, but having had a quick scan of Wikipedia Library, those sources do exist. I just spent time on Spouse of the president of Singapore and dealt with all the category issues related to that, so am inclined to help fix. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge, as per Daask and Reywas92. I concede there is some usage of second lady but there is not much material to work with at the moment especially on second lady as a role.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 13:43, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am still updating the article right now. (I was deleting content from the page when you reviewed it, but have started adding back more with citations.) I was on the fence for a while about whether or not there really was enough to justify keeping a standalone article, but I still think the answer is yes. (However, it may well be the case that at least one of those country-specific Second Lady articles should be deleted.) Cielquiparle (talk) 14:55, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is notable and Cielquiparle has reworked the article. bravo. Lightburst (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cielquiparle has done an admirable job improving the status of the article. However, I am still not persuaded that this article should exist. The best content currently present is regarding Second Ladies and Gentlemen of the United States, which already exists elsewhere. Is any content of this article relevant to more than one country? Can the role in different countries be said to be the same role? Most importantly, are there any sources which discuss the role of second lady in a generic way, not specific to any jurisdiction? If not, this article seems like WP:SYNTH where we're trying to gather disparate sources to create a new shared construct linking them. Daask (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would also maintain my merge vote. The article now has undue weight for the US, none of which section is about the broader topic of second ladies and is relevant to that main article only. If kept, this should be cut down to basically a disambiguation page if little can be said about second ladies more generally. Reywas92^Talk 04:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a notable subject deserving a separate page. My very best wishes (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, very worthy subject of being kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 00:57, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Still !keep from me. The comments were all super helpful in expanding and revising. The thing that surprised me most was how much focused coverage there was on both the term and the role of the American "second lady" if you looked hard enough, such as "'Second lady' has been in use for at least 127 years" and "The Second Ladies in the Shadow's Shadow", both from The Washington Post; "Merriam-Webster adds 'second gentleman' to describe Doug Emhoff's role" in CNN; and "So what does the Veep's wife do, anyway?" in Marie Claire, in addition to the White House Historical Association's take (strictly speaking, not independent), called "Second Spouses: Historical Development of an Official Role". I tried to keep the history part to a minimum, as it's better covered in Second Ladies and Gentlemen of the United States as the main article, but only tried to hit on key examples that showed individual second ladies who defined their roles in slightly different ways in practice. Similarly, for spouse of the lieutenant governor, I mentioned the current Second Lady of Pennsylvania, who styles herself using the acronym "SLOP" per CNN, as she has taken a stand in use of the term and defining what it means for her. For usage of the term in other countries, there is definitely room to expand by using non-English sources, but from initial reading of easily accessible sources in English, there was a lot of discussion about the actual role of second lady in countries such as Ghana (e.g. the topic of salaries for spouses) and Nigeria (e.g. second lady as drafter of legislation) – and incidentally I wouldn't necessarily assume that those countries are looking to the US in using that title (even if the US is influential). Further lines of secondary research could also pursue the expression "second lady in/of the land" and how it has evolved over centuries, originating from monarchical roots. In any case I think there is enough content and sourcing in this Second lady article now for it to merit its own standalone page, and think it would be an awkward and distracting fit to force it into the page for First lady which is already complicated enough as it is, given all the different ways the topic is matrixed (by country, etc.), and no, I would argue (especially in the case of the US) that "second lady" isn't necessarily just a variation of "first lady", even if there are connections and similarities. Yes, further improvement and discussion is welcome, but that can easily take place outside of AfD. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is great content and I appreciate your writing and research, but I've moved the Role in practice section over to Second ladies and gentlemen of the United States. That sort of detailed history with what individual second ladies did is specific to the US and is very needed on that article but is not relevant to one that is a broader overview of the term internationally. Reywas92^Talk 14:40, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! Thanks for rearranging the jigsaw puzzle across articles. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:58, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:17, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second Ladies and Gentlemen of the Philippines[edit]

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

Second ladies and second gentlemen aren't a thing in the Philippines. The Philippine media rarely if not at all refer to the spouse of the vice president of the Philippines as the "second lady/gentleman"

It does not serve a role like the First Lady or Gentleman of the Philippines (which I emphasize is not necessarily the same as the Spouse of the President of the Philippines).

Second Ladies and Gentlemen of the United States being a thing is irrelevant. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST applies. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 13:58, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 13:58, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - waiting to eat my words, but I can't find anything suggesting this is a thing. JMWt (talk) 14:52, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to "Spouses of the Vice Presidents of the Philippines" as per EBPCarpio on the talk page of this article. Please confirm this position EBPCarpio and elaborate why a rename/change of scope could be made instead?Hariboneagle927 (talk) 13:46, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Author now fine with this page's deletion as per talk pageHariboneagle927 (talk) 13:31, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 03:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT. SBKSPP (talk) 08:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The conduct in this discussion is quite inappropriate; both major participants are reminded that WP:CIVIL is a policy. The unpleasantness and bludgeoning has likely driven away any uninvolved editors who may have otherwise contributed, and the one other editor who did opine appears to have contradicted the substance of their own vote in a comment. I recommend taking the strongest sources here to WP:RSN to determine whether they do discuss the subject in question on whether it's altogether a hoax, and revisiting this at AfD if needed after that. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kyrgyz Khanate[edit]

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

Similarly to this page, there is not a single mention of this "state" in the sources cited in the article, the term was coined by the second @Foggy kub: account. The references page redirects to an article by Tabyldy Akerov (this article is on a forum where anyone can post their works), in which he mentions an independent Kyrgyz khanate several times. From which we conclude:

This is a self-publishing
Tabyldy Akerov does not have third-party positive (or negative) assessments of his activities by authoritative historians. Therefore, he is an unauthoritative source. Kazman322 (talk) 13:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. Kazman322 (talk) 13:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not the author of this article and do not intend to answer your questions. I also suspect you of spying on my edits. Foggy kub (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks like the Kyrgyz Khanate was real thing, but it seems like there are two of them. [17][18][19][20] mention a Kyrgyz khanate which existed from the 6th century to the 13th century, while [21] mentions a Kyrgyz khanate established in the 15th century, which matches the one described in the article. Mucube (talk · contribs) 17:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- In most sources, it is rather about Yenisei Kyrgyz Khaganate. Kazman322 (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - However, the Kyrgyz khanate described in the article was a real thing, so I think the page "Kyrgyz Khanate" should be turned into a disambiguation page for the two different khanates. Mucube (talk · contribs) 19:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- No, even all sources (except 5, it probably means Khonghoray) talk about the Yenisei Kyrgyz Khaganate. Kazman322 (talk) 19:50, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- You are talking about completely different things: the nominated article talks about a certain khanate that existed in the 15th-16th centuries, and articles on Google Books absolutely definitely talk about the Yenisei (7th-10th centuries). Moreover, all sources from Google Books talk about the destruction of the Khanate (actually the Khaganate) by Genghis Khan, while the subject of the nominated article makes it clear that Genghis Khan has long been dead. Kazman322 (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How about we have the Kyrgyz Khanate page redirected to Yenisei Kyrgyz Khaganate, since all of the Google Books refer to it? Mucube (talk · contribs) 23:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- - I completely agree with you. Kazman322 (talk) 05:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Yenisei Kyrgyz Khaganate. Looks like this is a hoax. The editor who created this, Lauriswift911, has created several hoax pages, including Kyrgyz invasion of China and Battle of Son Valley. All of the Google Books I got when I search up "Kyrgyz Khanate" refer the Yenisei Kyrgyz Khaganate, so we should redirect it to that. Mucube (talk · contribs) 18:57, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Khanate isn’t Khaganate Mucube, and Khaganate was in 693—923, Khanate in 1484-1524, pls read our history)
- Enough naive lies =), your childish demagoguery does not solve anything. Kazman322 (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lauriswift911: Can you give me a single book or scholarly article that supports the existence of the "Kyrgyz Khanate" described in the article? That is all I ask for. Mucube (talk · contribs) 21:20, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Google Books: https://books.google.kg/books/about/Тагай_бий.html?id=sx4EtwAACAAJ&redir_esc=y
- The book that you are linking to has the title of "Тагай бий: Мухаммед Кыргыз : тарыхый повесть", which Google Translate translates to "Tagayi dance: Muhammed Kyrgyz: historical story", so this is a novel. Novels are not allowable sources on Wikipedia. Mucube (talk · contribs) 05:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC) Mucube[reply]
- [22], [23], please read. Foggy kub (talk) 19:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I am writing again: Tabyldy Akerov is a non-authoritative source, his works are unknown anywhere, except for Kyrgyzstan, this is only his hypothesis about the existence of a certain khanate, no one else's. There is no such term in any of the historiographies. Kazman322 (talk) 19:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - [24] Tabyldy Akerov is a candidate of historical sciences and has the academic title of associate professor, this already shows his authority, but the fact that this is only his hypothesis is not mentioned anywhere. Foggy kub (talk) 19:21, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - If Tabyldy Akerov's theory has not been mentioned anywhere else, we should not include it on Wikipedia. Mucube (talk · contribs) 22:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  The fact that he isn't published outside of Kyrgyzstan is meaningless for the purposes of this AfD and intentionally biased. Curbon7 (talk) 02:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- However, there is no historiographical consensus, Akerov just mentions the term he invented, which he mentions in his own published works. Kazman322 (talk) 03:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Concur. Curbon7 (talk) 03:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[25], another mention of the "Kyrgyz Khanate". Foggy kub (talk) 04:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Kanybek Imanaliev has no history education and most likely got the information from his colleague Akerov. Kazman322 (talk) 07:43, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- [26], his work can be called authoritative. Foggy kub (talk) 07:54, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- LITERATURE, NOT HISTORY, lmao, why your arguments are so funny. Kazman322 (talk) 08:24, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing funny, you ignore my arguments and blindly write something of your own, let one of the other participants check the information, then we will argue. Foggy kub (talk) 08:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)>[reply]
- Before you post something, read carefully and strain your brains, ok? Kazman322 (talk) 08:36, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I won’t even answer this, this discussion is about the article, not about me, ok? Foggy kub (talk) 08:39, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[27] p.125, [28] "In the 80s of the 15th century, the Kyrgyz formed their state in Ala-Too. The Kyrgyz Khanate in 1484-1504 was under the control of Ahmet Khan ("Alacha Khan"). Encyclopedia "Kyrgyzstan", fully authoritative source. Questions? =) Foggy kub (talk) 12:47, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, these are the next impulses of the Kyrgyz nation-builders who do not have an international consensus! (not enough to be significant). Kazman322 (talk) 06:21, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- You have high nationalistic inclinations, but this does not prove anything, an encyclopedia is an encyclopedia, you have to admit it, colleague. Foggy kub (talk) 06:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Not every book that is called an encyclopedia is authoritative. If you follow your logic, Osmonakun Ibraimov is not a doctor of historical sciences, he is engaged in philology, so some of his statements are not authoritative. Kazman322 (talk) 08:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's get the opinion of an experienced participant better, and you should admit it. Foggy kub (talk) 09:00, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 08:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mavokali[edit]

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

Declined at AFC and moved to main space by creator anyway. Fails WP:NMUSICIAN. Theroadislong (talk) 13:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 13:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nommed, fails every kind of notability with flying colours. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NMUSICIAN. Shazam isn't a recognised chart. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article has been expanded since the last "delete" !vote, could use another look.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:24, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: not an unreasonable suggestion, however the new content is largely unreferenced (eg. the entire 'Early Life' section hasn't a single citation), and the new sources still do not establish notability per WP:GNG; therefore, I for one will stand by my earlier !vote. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:39, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing found for this person, long way from GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 14:29, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cleanup can be further discussed outside afd, but there is a clear consensus against deletion. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA World Cup records and statistics[edit]

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

I don't think there is a valid list criteria, most is either unsourced, or the sources don't cover what is being stated. We aren't an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of information about a subject, and certainly fails WP:NOTSTATS. Also fails WP:LISTN as not being a collection of items discussed in sources as a whole. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - All sources can be found on the Cup pages themselves. Why are these and many others like Tour de France records and statistics for example no problem, but this one is? Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 14:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE is a very poor argument. I'm not sure which sources are pointing towards everything here being notable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this is true. Picking an overly specific record at random, which article can I find the source for Most meetings between two teams, final-four or final (not counting 3rd place match). So much of the article is obviously OR. Spike 'em (talk) 15:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need a source for something that can be determined by basic counting. We have a source for semifinal and final matchups. That, as Aquatic Ambivalence said, can be found on the articles about the Cups themselves and they are all sourced very reliably. From there all you have to do is count, which doesn't require a source and is not OR. Smartyllama (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So I can add any old rubbish that I can count from other articles? Right, most games played between two teams on a Friday it is then. Spike 'em (talk) 07:23, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And the act of me choosing a random statistic, going through multiple articles (on a site deemed not to be reliable) to tabulate possible options before getting a final answer sounds like research to me. Spike 'em (talk) 08:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, WP:CALC still requires sourcing on the article it's on, it's not a case of just checking other articles. Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:39, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy enough to add the sources from the other articles to this one if they aren't already there, but in this case the first table has citations to all the results of all the tournaments, from which one only needs to do basic arithmetic to derive most of the other statistics. And this still isn't a deletion issue, we can continue this discussion on the article talk page after this AfD has run its course if you like but this isn't the appropriate place for it. Obviously we need to draw the line somewhere, I don't think any of the keep !voters seriously think "Most games played between two teams on a Friday" is an appropriate statistic here whether it's OR or not, but the question of where we draw that line is a content issue, not something that should be handled at AfD. Smartyllama (talk) 13:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment inside this mess of WP:NOTSTATS, there probably is some encyclopedic content that is worth keeping. I think right now, about 80% of the article is junk, but that could be removed, leaving an encyclopedic list of key stats (e.g. which teams have won the most time, which players have appeared/scored/assisted the most times). Joseph2302 (talk) 14:14, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Aren't all of those already present at FIFA World Cup? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think there's maybe enough content not covered there that a separate article may be warranted. Gone through the sections currently in this article, and my views are:

Extended content

Debut of national teams - not a statistic or record, so irrelevant to this article. Should be covered in History of the FIFA World Cup if anywhere
Overall team records - needs sourcing, but valid table of stats
Medal table - made-up junk, as the FIFA World Cup doesn't award gold, silver and bronze medals (it isn't the Olympics)
Comprehensive team results by tournament - unreadable table, unsourced, clear WP:NOTSTATS violation IMO
Hosts - acceptable section
Results of defending champions - intersection of 2 tournaments, so doesn't seem that relevant. Not seen it covered that much in sources (apart from the mentions of group stage exits for previous champions in 2010, 2014, 2018)
Results by confederation - looks like WP:OR, and table is way too long. WP:NOTSTATS applies here
Active consecutive participations - unsourced junk
Droughts - not covered as a topic in lots of sources, so not needed
General statistics by tournament - useful content that could be sourced comparitively easily. Section could be moved to nearer the top and renamed to e.g. Tournament summary, as it's probably the most key stats breakdown
Teams: Tournament position - useful content would be most wins, most appearances (and their consecutive counterparts), everything else could probably be culled
Teams: Tournament progress - WP:OR junk
Players - some useful stats, but needs some culling of irrelevant stats. And again, needs sourcing
Goalscoring - useful content is most goals, youngest/oldest, fastest/latest goals, most total goals in a match, everything else could be culled
Own goals - content in separate article, heading not needed
Top scoring teams by tournament - WP:OR
Goal scoring by tournament - WP:OR
Assisting - the current stats are sufficient and well sourced
Penalties - irrelevant, WP:NOTSTATS
Penalty shoot-outs - irrelevant, WP:NOTSTATS, all matches covered in separate article anyway
Extra time - irrelevant, WP:NOTSTATS
Tiebreakers - irrelevant, WP:NOTSTATS
Goalkeeping - needs culling to basic achievements e.g. most clean sheets, most goals conceded
Coaching - needs culling and sourcing for important acheivements e.g. most WC wins, matches won
Refereeing - needs sourcing, but not convinced it's needed anyway
Discipline - quickest yellow and red cards are mentioned in sources, so could be kept
Suspension , Fine & Other sanctions sub-sections - irrelevant, WP:NOTSTATS
Teams: Matches played/goals scored - lots of WP:OR and WP:NOTSTATS that needs culling but e.g. most wins is relevant
Teams: Overall performance (winning percentage) - WP:OR, WP:NOTSTATS
Upsets - overall section okay if sourced
Hat-tricks- covered elsewhere
Streaks - mostly irrelevant WP:OR
Host records - is covered in Hosts section anyway
Attendance - relevant, but covered in main article anyway
Others - all junk

So there's an absolute tonne of junk that could be removed, but underneath that, I believe there is just about enough passable, sensible, encyclopedic content to justify an article. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue quite a bit of what is sourced and listed above as being ok is WP:TRIVIA, such as quickest yellow cards, most wins by a team, etc. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:LISTN. I have no issue if User:Joseph2302 or any other user would like to move this page to userspace and take the time to move the encyclopedic content to the appropriate articles. Frank Anchor 15:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There must be sources for World Cup stats, and deletion is not the solution when the only real problem is that far too many niche stats are included on the page. – Pee Jay 15:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - most of the info are sourced and worth keeping--Baronedimare (talk) 16:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This page was split from FIFA World Cup long, long ago per WP:NOTSTATS: "Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article". There is a role for an extended stats page under NOTSTATS, and it seems like a misuse of the policy to delete a page that was created to help comply with NOTSTATS. I agree it's gotten bloated over the years and needs to be cut back, but deletion is a step too far. —Wburrow (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article as it was when nominated was completely indiscriminate and an obvious WP:NOTSTATS failure. I believe there is a place for it but all of the pointless stuff needs culled. I've started to try and improve the article as an alternative to deletion. Thanks to Joseph2302 for adding thoughts here and to Lee Vilenski for taking this to AfD, it probably wouldn't have been improved otherwise. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Can someone please answer my question above? Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, as set out on the talk page, some users revert many times. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs a massive prune and sourcing of what is left, which I tried to instigate a day or two ago on its talk page, but I think it is a valid content fork from FIFA World Cup. Spike 'em (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I understand the frustration of the OP, I think that there are enough legitimate World Cup records and statistics which make this article worth keeping; however, I do think a major discussion needs to be had about what should and shouldn't remain, even with a lot removed it still feels like much of it is interesting to football nerds but not actually notable. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no reason to delete it IMO. Lots of sources and the biggest sporting event in the world is certainly notable to have a stats page Felix Croc (talk) 20:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it isn't WP:NOTSTATS, it is not just random numbers, names and statistics in their raw form, it's a very important information for many people who are interested in the World Cup and football in general, the unsourced phrase should be tagged or removed, we can delete all junks but we shouldn't delete the whole article. --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 00:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most of the stuff is, in fact, sourced, or does not need to be sourced per WP:CALC as it's just counting or other basic math based on stuff that is sourced. Basic math is not OR, so things like appearance droughts can be obtained by citing which teams appeared in which World Cups (easy enough and it's already done) and then simply counting. That's not OR, we don't need sources that count for us. for the rest, that's not a deletion issue, that's a content isue. AFD is not cleanup. Smartyllama (talk) 00:28, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The article is low quality, but the deletion process is not the place to deal with flaws in an article. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:41, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but yes, cleanup is definitely needed. The records themselves need to be sourced properly—not just for WP:V/WP:NOR reasons (WP:CALC notwithstanding), but for WP:NPOV (in particular WP:BALASP) reasons: we can extract basically limitless statistical information from the raw data, but not all such information is worth including on this article, and that determination of relevance is supposed to come from the sources, not editors. That being said, I do think this is a valid topic for an article (or sub-article/article split, as the case may be). I'll note that FIFA World Cup top goalscorers is a WP:Featured list (and I should probably state for the record that I was one of the reviewers), so it's not like we can't have high-quality articles on FIFA World Cup statistics. I'm willing to reconsider my position on this if, after cleanup, it turns out that a viable article does not remain. TompaDompa (talk) 09:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reach a consensus about what stats are worth keeping. --Tanonero (msg) 12:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clean-up is OK, but deletion is overkill. As written above, the main longstanding purpose of this page is to split content from main article FIFA World Cup. Guideline WP:SPLITLIST applies, and is compatible with WP:NOTSTATS: If there is no "natural" way to split or reduce a long list or table, it may be best to leave it intact, and a decision made to [...] split it off into a stand-alone page. Regardless, a list or table should be kept as short as is feasible for its purpose and scope. Too much statistical data is against policy. So keep it short, but keep it. Place Clichy (talk) 12:03, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: deletion is unnecessary as the page still has many valuable info to be taken. But agree that there is a need to create a separate list for separate sections regarding FIFA World Cup records. HiddenFace101 (talk) 15:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep valid list meets WP:LISTN. As others have stated it can be paired or split to WP:PRESERVE. Lightburst (talk) 18:22, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Would advise WP:SNOW close at this point. Nothing else can be said, consensus has been clearly reached. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 02:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article obviously needs a clean-up, but the subject is too valuable for deletion, especially for those who enjoy football and the World Cup. Sepguilherme (talk) 14:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs cleaning up, not deleting. Giant Snowman 13:24, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Cleaning is all it needs, and there are many records that are less notable that are worth keeping too, IMO. Not all points need to be a massive statement. Radlrb (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How many "keeps" are needed before this AFD is closed? If consensus hasn't been reached here yet, there's no such thing as consensus anywhere. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- No idea. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 10:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Smartyllama, Place Clichy, Radlrb, GiantSnowman etc 172.254.96.122 (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep why not reform this article? Biel1000 15:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC -3)
Keep Not every line on every Wikipedia page has to be of interest to every Wikipedia user. There is nothing here that would be anywhere near the level of "most goals by an Eastern European team on a rainy Thursday evening". All the current content is justifiable. I would be more concerned about the lack of sources if people seemed to be making inaccurate edits, but they don't seem to be. Pete Ridges (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article was merged with another large one about "National Team Appearances" fairly recently, which no doubt contributed to the messiness. Most of the removals since then make sense and there's only a handful of tables that could stand to be put back, without being essential. 123.136.50.134 (talk) 22:55, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- This original article had duplicate info. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 10:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable information properly sourced, maybe only cut a few more straneous stats - and splitting National team appearances in the FIFA World Cup again to get better room for those massive tables between "Tournament summary" and "Team statistics"? igordebraga ≠ 01:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article just needs cleaning up, deleting it is not the right solution.Garfieldt (talk) 12:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article needs cleanup not deleting.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eureka Brass Band (1890s)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. A "local brass band" with a single "source", consisting of a photo and a caption. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Louisiana. Shellwood (talk) 13:20, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep. It is sourced to a secondary reference establishing notability. This article may well be expanded from other secondary information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ke4roh (talk • contribs) 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Delete There seem to be newer bands using this name, I don't see anything for this particular ensemble. Oaktree b (talk) 14:31, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is evidence that this ensemble existed, and they are indeed listed at various Louisiana historical sites. But regardless of anything they may have accomplished in their time, there is no evidence today that they meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. If people interested in the musical history of Lake Charles, LA read about them at the local historical society, that's cool but there is little to be said for WP's purposes here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only claim of importance in the article is that the band was composed of "leading citizens". However, it does not say what these citizens did to earn their notability and none of them have Wikipedia articles. This would probably not even get through an A7 speedy deletion as a "credible claim of importance". The only possible merge target is Lake Charles, Louisiana, but even a passing mention there looks WP:UNDUE to me. SpinningSpark 23:53, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This page was originally split from Eureka Brass Band, but it does not belong back there. That article is about an entirely unrelated New Orleans band. SpinningSpark 00:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This band is unrelated to the Louisiana/New Orleans jazz tradition. In fact, the photo here shows that they were white and members of what I assume was a volunteer fire department in Lake Charles. Something of this age is not likely to have a lot of press, and you could dismiss it as not having demonstrated notability, but I'd hate to lose it. I added the book reference I found to the article. My question is whether there are local newspapers we could search in. Anyone? Lamona (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are some mentions in local newspapers in newspapers.com, but they're almost all announcements, e.g. a benefit to raise funds for new uniforms. There was one paragraph (which I can't find again for some reason) about all members being Confederate veterans or sons of veterans, but that's about it. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. More sources have been provided since nomination. (non-admin closure) Jamiebuba (talk) 15:04, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Landry[edit]

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

A 2005 article about a comedian that does not meet WP:GNG. The only sources available is from IMBd and its not an WP:RS. Jamiebuba (talk) 12:24, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Canada. Jamiebuba (talk) 12:24, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's well-known in Quebec as part of Rock et Belles Oreilles. Sustained coverage, [29], [30] and [31]. Although the last one talks about foods he enjoys, but there are dozens of other articles about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b I've updated the sources myself and will be withdrawing nomination. Jamiebuba (talk) 15:02, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eastland-Fairfield Career & Technical School[edit]

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

Has been draftified hoping for improvement. Was returned to mainspace with same issues, was prodded, then deprodded without improvement. Gets mentions, but is difficult to tell what this is even about: is it a single school? Is it a school district? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:26, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Ohio. Shellwood (talk) 11:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nomination provides no reason for deletion. Confusion regarding what the article is about should be reduced by reading the article lead. Perhaps changing the article title to Eastland-Fairfield Career & Technical Schools would be helpful. Gab4gab (talk) 12:09, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - thought it was clear. Fails WP:GNG, as there is not a single in-depth reference from a reliable, independent, secondary source. And a WP:BEFORE did not find any.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject satisfies the General Notability guideline - which looks for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I'll point out that 'significant' is not a synonym of 'in depth'.

There is coverage to be found via Newspapers.com. I listed some on the talk page on November 18. Some examples below have quotes from connected individuals but still in sum there is significant coverage from multiple articles.

Additional articles located today:

It is likely there is more significant coverage that hasn't been identified. Gab4gab (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment More coverage found:

Eastland's Board Hears Progress Report On Center
Equipment Arriving At Area Career Center
New Career Center Near Completion
Career centers' students excel
Eastland is a proven winner in communities Gab4gab (talk) 13:29, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources found so far on newspapers.com easily meet GNG, even before being used in the article, since sources exist demonstrating the notability of the subject, per WP:CONTN. Gab4gab has added three sources already, with plenty more to used to improve the article. Good WP:HEY effort. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep quite a few sources have been found to show that the subject belongs in the encyclopedia. Bruxton (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW applies. Stifle (talk) 14:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Bayard[edit]

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

The bulk of the references are announcements of his becoming the Grand Master of the Teutonic Order. The rest are either not independent or also announcements. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 11:06, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the head of a major religious order should be seen as notable. WP:CLERGY indicates that bishops are invariably considered to be notable; these people have very similar status. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He is head of a major religious order which is notable position and as of WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES often kept in Article for deletion. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 14:24, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per above. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I expanded the article so not all sources are solely about him becoming the Grand Master. Also, one of the sources is TVP, the largest Polish television network Osarjusz (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Frank Bayard passes WP:NBASIC by attaining significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. This includes Domradio, Die Tagespost, TVP, and УНІАН. Other sources that can be used to expand the article include this interview with Saarbruecker Zeitung. He also very easily passes WP:ANYBIO#1, having been awarded the Order pro Merito Melitensi by the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, a sovereign international entity with observer status at the United Nations. While the nom complains about the references in the article at the time of nomination, WP:NEXIST notes that [n]otability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article and WP:DEL-CONTENT notes that when editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:58, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is also abbot. Grimes2 (talk) 17:27, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:CLERGY Lightburst (talk) 17:34, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be consensus on this point. The leader of a notable religious organization qualifies and the article should be kept. Go4thProsper (talk) 13:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 17:19, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Her Football Hub[edit]

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

Blog/podcast with little if any independent coverage. Also appears to have substantial WP:NOTADVERT and potential WP:COI issues Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 10:06, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Websites. Shellwood (talk) 10:56, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:01, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:25, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The page reads to me like an advertisement so I'm leaning towards WP:NOTADVERT. I've also found no evidence of notability. Idevjoe (talk) 15:59, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Waggers TALK 12:46, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Neaman[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. There's some snippet routine coverage like "said Neaman" and appearing as a name in a long list of "most influential tech woman in UK". The coverage present on the subject does not rise to the level of Wiki notability.

The article was also substantially curated by a farm of several single purpose accounts over a long term. Graywalls (talk) 08:56, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. Graywalls (talk) 08:56, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Women. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with what's said in the nom, she appears to be a talking head whenever they need an "expert" on computer stuff. There's stuff in HuffPo, but it's her talking about other subjects, the story isn't about her as a person. The unpaid editing is also a concern/possible red flag. Oaktree b (talk) 03:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a few hits in GBooks, but she's proof-reading various items before publication. Zero in the NYT. Oaktree b (talk) 03:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has lots of fluff but she's listed by ComputerWeekly as one of the most influence women in tech in at least 5 years. The remaining sources are pretty typical for an executive, announcing positions of importance. I note that she works in the non-profit sector, which is less likely to get noticed by the business press. I do not know how to access UK info on non-profits; for a US non-profit I would check the IRS 990 to see how large the organization is and how much and what type of funding they receive. If anyone knows how to do that for UK organizations I would greatly appreciate that info. Lamona (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I got bold and removed a lot of the unreferenced bio and promotional wording. Take another look at the article, please. Lamona (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment umm, the IRS Form 990 is a public record of a mandatory filing for organizations that have a financial activity above a certain threshold. Even if the UK equivalent of it was to be furnished, such primary source has ABSOLUTELY NO bearing on the organization's notability. Overtly promotional writing is a reason for cleanup, but if general notability is not adequately established, the article can not stay here. Being listed as "one of the most influential" as a line item in a list of hundreds of names fails to establish WP:SIGCOV Graywalls (talk) 02:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aside from the blatant promotional and advertorial content of the article, like other such articles it lacks any reliable sources and relies on primary sources. There look to be few, if any, secondary or tertiary sources that can support the article, which brings into question notability. Based on what is available, she does not pass muster and doesn't qualify for Wikipedia's notability requirements. If paid editing is involved, which based on the editing pattern is quite possible, then that is even a stronger case for deletion. Mansheimer (talk) 10:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not seeing any sources that pass WP:BASIC. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of quadrant routes in Adams County, Pennsylvania[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of quadrant routes in Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania: there doesn't seem to be a reason to treat the other articles any differently. Nominated are all lists of quadrant routes per county in Pennsylvania:

List of quadrant routes in Adams County, Pennsylvania
List of quadrant routes in Bucks County, Pennsylvania
List of quadrant routes in Cameron County, Pennsylvania
List of quadrant routes in Chester County, Pennsylvania
List of quadrant routes in Columbia County, Pennsylvania
List of quadrant routes in Delaware County, Pennsylvania
List of quadrant routes in Fulton County, Pennsylvania
List of quadrant routes in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
List of quadrant routes in Lebanon County, Pennsylvania
List of quadrant routes in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania
List of quadrant routes in McKean County, Pennsylvania
List of quadrant routes in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania
List of quadrant routes in Montour County, Pennsylvania
List of quadrant routes in Northumberland County, Pennsylvania
List of quadrant routes in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
List of quadrant routes in Potter County, Pennsylvania
List of quadrant routes in Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania
List of quadrant routes in Snyder County, Pennsylvania
List of quadrant routes in Sullivan County, Pennsylvania
List of quadrant routes in Tioga County, Pennsylvania
List of quadrant routes in Union County, Pennsylvania
List of quadrant routes in York County, Pennsylvania Fram (talk) 08:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Lists, and Pennsylvania. Fram (talk) 08:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Per the precedent set at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of quadrant routes in Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania. We don’t need list articles for quadrant routes by county. Dough4872 12:20, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lackawanna precedent. V C 19:09, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:LC Stifle (talk) 14:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bethel Teaching General Hospital[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG, no significant coverage. Hospitals are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 05:50, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Ethiopia. AllyD (talk) 06:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I'm closing this discussion as Keep but if an editor wants to get working on this article and related ones, a case could be made for Merging this articles with others. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To Escape the Stars[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NBOOK. Sarrail (talk) 04:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find enough sources that prove the article's reliability. Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very weird one. The first book in the trilogy does not have an article and never had one. The second book has an article with some of the same problems, and the author's article was deleted by PROD in 2007. It clearly exists per Amazon, Goodreads, etc. pages documenting it, but the article looks profoundly abandoned. I don't see any obvious coverage so far. Jclemens (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, there is a paragraph in Science Fiction and Fantasy Book Review, p. 78, and something in the St. James Guide to Science Fiction Writers, p. 451-452, which may be more about the trilogy overall. Daranios (talk) 12:00, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The first ref Daranios provided seems to be a debatably WP:SIGCOV somewhat short review. The second ref covers it in two pages but the first page appears to be a listing and the second one seems to discuss the triology in general. IMHO it's probably not SIGCOV but I am not sure, and somehow if I search with this string: To Escape the Stars it has seventeen mentions, though some appear to be false positives, so I am not really sure. Based on my Google Books BEFORE, there seems to be (based on the snippets, I am not really sure) a couple of mentions at 1, 2 that are likely not SIGCOV. Though, Jclemens, Sarrail, and Onegreatjoke, could anyone here access a full version, as I unfortunately can only access the snippets? Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 09:21, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One of the refs state HOSKINS , Robert To Escape the Stars ( Second in a series ) Ballantine - delRey / November / $ 1.75 The worlds of a far distant future are linked by stargates set up by a long - vanished race . Freesailer Jamas Oregas , a swashbuckling ..., it might be a short review or just a routine price listing, but overall it seems unlikely that these are SIGCOV. VickKiang (talk) 09:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with To Control the Stars or keep(updated Daranios (talk) 10:58, 14 December 2022 (UTC)). Taking the sources together, it seems that the triology is just notable, and the related topics of the individual books should be treated together according to WP:ATD-M rather than deleted. Alternatively, as there are several sources on Robert Hoskins, that article could be restored and the novels merged there. Daranios (talk) 11:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found a second book review and added it, I think this now passes WP:NBOOK and I think deletes that were written before my edits should be disregarded as now out of date. CT55555(talk) 06:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep would also be fine with me, as now a second review has been found. The material we have here is still not very long, so I remain wondering if it would not be better to present the trilogy in one article, drawing in all relevant secondary sources. Daranios (talk) 10:58, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I find that suggestion (the trilogy) to be compelling. I would support that also. CT55555(talk) 17:56, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge per WP:PRESERVE. It is more important to preserve material that belongs on Wikipedia in some form than to remove pages that don't meet notability. That is why WP:Notability is not a core content policy. I would also point out that we don't have an article on the author Robert Hoskins who might be more notable than any of his publications [32][33], so that's another possible merge target. He is clearly important in the history of science fiction publication. SpinningSpark 17:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If this article is kept, then he is the author of multiple notable books and probably a suitable subject for an article, in my opinion. CT55555(talk) 17:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 20:52, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per significant improvement by User:CT55555 and User:VickKiang; comparing the version that was nominated with the current version, it seems like notability concerns have been addressed. I think it would also be acceptable for the trilogy to be covered in a single article, if someone is willing to perform merges, but that feels like a different conversation from this AfD. jp×g 22:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. I was a bit biased since I have a first edition of the Del Rey paperback printing in my library, but I feel the sourcing now passes WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Merge with other entries of the trilogy. The new review found by CT55555 and the borderline WP:SIGCOV references Daranios linked probably makes this borderline meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. IMO, given the borderline notability, both keeping or merging are fine. VickKiang (talk) 22:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per significant improvements Lightburst (talk) 02:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:49, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Spirit Integrated School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. A quick WP:BEFORE search led to no avail. Mere mentions from directories won't satisfy WP:SIGCOV. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 03:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Philippines. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 03:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 05:56, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 23:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 05:54, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Pandi, Bulacan#Education. ✗plicit 03:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Angels' Academy[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. A quick WP:BEFORE search led to no avail. Mere mentions from directories won't satisfy WP:SIGCOV. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 03:34, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Philippines. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 03:34, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pandi,_Bulacan#Education per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 23:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pandi, Bulacan#Education SeanJ 2007 (talk) 05:55, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pandi, Bulacan#Education.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:35, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:49, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dominican College of Tarlac[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. A quick WP:BEFORE search led to no avail. Mere mentions from directories won't satisfy WP:SIGCOV. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 03:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Philippines. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 03:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 05:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:50, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 06:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dominican College of Santa Rosa[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. A quick WP:BEFORE search led to no avail. Mere mentions from directories won't satisfy WP:SIGCOV. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 03:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Philippines. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 03:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:01, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 05:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:51, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is a clear consensus against deletion but mixed views on what should happen instead; keep and rewrite, merge into List of dystopian literature, or redirect to a yet-to-be-written dystopian comics prose article. Either way there's enough here to know we're not deleting the article and the rest can be thrashed out on the talk page. Waggers TALK 12:38, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of dystopian comics[edit]

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

This lists is almost entirely unreferenced and seems to fail WP:LISTN. I suggest copying (merging) the only referenced entry to List of dystopian literature, where there can be a subsection on comics (comics are part of literature after all) and redirecting this unreferenced list there. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, Comics and animation, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems like a notable topic for a list
The above links indicate that dystopian comics have been discussed as a group in reliable sources, which is justification to keep WP:LISTN CT55555(talk) 03:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per CT55555. Jclemens (talk) 04:39, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the future is almost always portrayed as dystopian; unless it is The Jetsons. I will have to give this one some thought. Lightburst (talk) 17:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ I think CT55555 showed that other publications have shown the notability of dystopian comics lists. Lightburst (talk) 02:42, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lightburst At minimum, we need a major cleanup here (removal of all unreferenced parts, per V and OR). At which point, really, why not merge what remains to the literature list? If the comic section(s) there grow to the point of being lenghty, this can be recreated, with refs. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:01, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will yield to your opinion on the matter. Lightburst (talk) 12:51, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a TV Tropes list, and there has been no attempt to hide that. At minimum, the descriptions need to go and sources need to be added. The ideal solution would be to find sources on the topic of dystopian comics and write a proper prose article instead, but that would probably take quite a bit of time and effort. For now, the above suggestion to merge any sourced entries to List of dystopian literature seems an acceptable compromise. TompaDompa (talk) 09:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite: I am sympathetic to keeping this article but there is also very little to keep. The current article does not reflect the reporting from reliable sources and I think both the article's supporters and critics need to work together to address that. We should start with the sources identified by CT55555. Archrogue (talk) 18:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Colegio de San Gabriel Arcangel[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. A quick WP:BEFORE search led to no avail. Mere mentions from directories won't satisfy WP:SIGCOV. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:27, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Philippines. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:27, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 05:57, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 10:54, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Rename. Good work everybody; per the arguments made here I am withdrawing my nomination and moving the page to Landmark detection. Hopefully some of these sources make it in! (non-admin closure) jp×g 11:37, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionary Algorithm for Landmark Detection[edit]

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

Evolutionary algorithms are real, but there's no indication here that this is a notable application, and the article is of very low quality. A WP:BEFORE search yields squat. Basically no results on Google Scholar -- only one, and it's a list likely scraped from Wikipedia. jp×g 02:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. jp×g 02:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draft. The subject is notable, but the article is a mess which is why the article should be drafted so other editors can fix the issues wrong with it.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 23:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ per WP:NEXIST such as "A Novel Genetic Algorithm for 3D Facial Landmark Localization", "Landmark-based music recognition system optimisation using genetic algorithms" and "Research on genetic algorithm based on tabu search for landmark image recognition". I agree the article is in a poor state but I don't see any purpose in draftifying unless someone is volunteering to work on it. The creator has not been here for twelve years. Sending it to draft would just be slow-motion deletion. SpinningSpark 14:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SpinningSpark: I respect the effort here; I hadn't been able to dredge these up. Still, I am not convinced that a standalone article is warranted -- three papers with seventeen citations between them seems like it would make for one or two paragraphs at best. If I am wrong, and these end up being the bulwark of a beautiful article on evolutionary algorithms for landmark detection, I will gladly withdraw my nomination. jp×g 08:33, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't pick the example papers for the number of cites. I picked them because they explicitly had both "landmark detection" and "evolutionary|genetic algorithm" in the titles which made them unarguably on topic. But if number of cites is your concern then Automatic Tuning of a Fuzzy Visual System Using Evolutionary Algorithms has 41 cites and included in the text "Landmark detection is a fundamental task in autonomous...". The first paper I linked has 28 cites alone according to gscholar so I don't know how you got to 17 total. SpinningSpark 14:16, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinningspark: The sources linked are primary research papers and under Wikipedia:Notability general notability guidelines notability is established through coverage of secondary sources. Even if a secondary source existed, I would argue that this topic is best handled within a section of Evolutionary algorithm and as I'd argue there is nothing of value currently in that article it is best just deleted. EvilxFish (talk) 15:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are shifting the goalposts again. First you want sources, then sources with lots of cites. Now, so you say, primary research is ruled out. Nowhere in WP:N does it say that primary research papers don't add to notability. Of course they do. Lot's of people researching a topic is almost the definition of notability in a science subject. We must be cautious how we use primary sources, but they are not proscribed from being used at all, and even if they were, that does not stop them adding to notability. Notability does not fail because the tabloid press has not run sensationalist stories about it. Overview papers are not primary sources and are pretty much de riguer in medical articles. The first sentence of "Evolutionary algorithms for fuzzy control system design" is "This paper provides an overview on evolutionary learning methods for the automated design and optimization of fuzzy logic controllers." It discusses landmark recognition. And it has 188 cites. So what additional requirement are you going to add to rule that one out as well? SpinningSpark 16:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how I can be shifting goalposts after my first comment. As for the part in WP:N it states as follows: "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability."

Also again, even if we do establish evidence of lots of research covered by secondary sources such as review articles or certain textbooks, I still contest that this is best included within the Evolutionary algorithm page or maybe a more general page on landmark detection, as it is just the application of standard algorithms such as partical swarm and genetic algorithms with maybe a few nuanced points. These algorithms have been applied to a wide range of fields and generally a mention in a more general article, in this case one called "landmark detection", noting any unique features these algorithms have for this specific application, alongside other approaches and link to the general evolutionary algorithms page, is more appropriate - I just don't think the topic is wide enough to justify an article when the information is best presented as part of a more general one. I would argue for a rename or merge if there were anything of value in the article. Now I could be wrong about this, some topics such as Neuroevolution deserve their own article because there are a lot of unique features when applying genetic algorithms to training neural nets, aside from the more general article on neural networks or evolutionary algorithm, even if they use standard algorithms like genetic algorithms as their base. Is the same true here, or is it as I suspect, better covered by a more general article? EvilxFish (talk) 00:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the comment about moving goal posts, I thought it was the same user replying both times. You may be right that this is better covered in a general landmark detection article. There are certainly numerous review papers on the topic [34][35][36][37][38][39][40]. But that is surely an argument for merge and expand rather than delete. Or at worst, rename and cut out the crap if no one can be bothered to work on it. As I've said at AFD before, it is totally perverse to our mission to delete the only information we have on a notable subject because it only covers part of it. We're here to build the encyclopaedia, not stamp on the bits that aren't yet perfect. SpinningSpark 13:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ok given an article for landmark detection doesn't yet exist, why don't we vote for this one to be renamed to "landmark detection", that way it still exists as a placeholder but is a more general article which will include the evolutionary algorithm approaches as part of it. If you agree with this I will also change my vote to "rename" EvilxFish (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete The topic is best covered by a section in the evolutionary algorithms page, also there is a lack of secondary sources covering this topic, suggesting it fails WP:NOTE (but even if there was I would argue it is best covered in the aforementioned article). There is nothing of value in the article in its current state so a merge is not necessary hence I vote delete. EvilxFish (talk) 15:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
rename After discussion with @Spinningspark: I argue this article should be renamed to a more general "landmark detection" which will include the evolutionary approaches as well as other approaches as part of it. EvilxFish (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Landmark detection and repurpose. SpinningSpark 00:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: Per above, I think that this would address my notability concerns (obviously landmark detection is a thing which people do), so when I am back at the computer I will withdraw. jp×g 11:35, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 01:19, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle Tony's Kebabs[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD was 15 years ago. Still fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 02:06, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Australia. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They've not been in business since 2007 and I can't find any further sourcing. Even what's given here isn't enough for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 03:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It hung to indicate notability. Mccapra (talk) 12:39, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Oaktree. I also couldn't find any RS via Google. Fails WP:NCORP. Cabrils (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 01:18, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sigrid Jacobsen[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS, WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Football. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:20, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She scored a brace playing for KÍ when they crushed B68 1–9 in 2016, as mentioned in this routine match report posted to a blog, which doesn't count toward notability. Don't think it makes sense to redirect to Faroe Islands women's national football team, as she isn't mentioned there and there doesn't seem to be much about her time playing for the national team. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:40, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of qualifying notability. There can’t be an article for every athlete. I would also oppose a redirect, as noted above. Go4thProsper (talk) 14:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 02:20, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Callum Park[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS, WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:02, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:02, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:20, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:20, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maxime Fleuriot[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS, WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:20, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to IShowSpeed#Discography. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 01:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shake (IShowSpeed song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, while the song may have a lot of views on YouTube, a quick search of it returns little to no sources, other than lyrics. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 01:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 01:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lyrics to the song are about all I find. Oaktree b (talk) 03:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to IShowSpeed#Discography: The only coverage I can find is these two articles about the amount of listens the song's gotten on YouTube and Spotify, and those are both from sports websites rather than music publications so I doubt the music press is picking up on this just yet. Could be a case of WP:TOOSOON but either way there's not enough notability at the moment. QuietHere (talk) 05:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. to IShowSpeed#Discography, On google its mostly just the album lyrics popping up and not reliable sources.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 00:12, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to IShowSpeed#Discography — As @HelpingWorld says, most of the Google results show the song lyrics, and no reliable sources. VJtheDJ (talk) 04:16, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothin' on Google. Only song lyrics. Sarrail (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:47, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sol Invictus Motorcycle[edit]

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

Lacking significant independent coverage to meet WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 00:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pretty much all of the cited sources read like promotion. No other significant coverage of the subject can be found. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 01:50, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Australia. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:45, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redspot Car Rentals[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. only 2 gnews hits. A number of sources provided are not independent. LibStar (talk) 00:04, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Australia. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, there does not appear to be any sources about the topic that pass WP:NCORP. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to lack notability, based on my searches. But do ping me if you find significant coverage in reliable sources and I will reconsider. CT55555(talk) 04:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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