Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 November 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 12 November 14 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to The Day of the Jackal (film). Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Ross (screenwriter)[edit]

Kenneth Ross (screenwriter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Both sources are trivial mentions cagliost (talk) 23:53, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Given the status of The Day of the Jackal (film) in particular (on which there is a paragraph complimenting Ross's work here), there seems to be surprisingly little about Ross. Where detail is given, for example Allmovie asserting a 1941 date of birth, it may be an amalgam with Kenneth G. Ross. AllyD (talk) 08:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can't find much about him but he was nominated for a Golden Globe and a BAFTA for his screenplay to The Day of the Jackal Piecesofuk (talk) 16:08, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. In addition to the awards mentioned by Piecesofuk, Ross was also nominated for an Edgar Award for Black Sunday. I can't find much information about Ross personally beyond his list of credits, but based on his major nominations, I'd like to avoid deleting this article if possible. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've added that info to the article. Unfortunately I can't find anything in the way of WP:SIGCOV to back it up with. Nominations not equivalent to the awards themselves. cagliost (talk) 09:50, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with regret: As it stands, this is a biographical article, which may or may not be a WP:BLP, lacking in any details about its subject: where they were born, lived, etc. At best, it is like a pure database entry at the intersection of links from several film articles. Without some kind of verifiable information about Ross I can't see that it can be sustained. One option might be a redirect to The Day of the Jackal (film), so that if and when more information appears (e.g. in a published obituary), the redirect can be reverted and the article filled out with content? AllyD (talk) 13:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with a Redirect to The Day of the Jackal (film). That way, the edit history is preserved. cagliost (talk) 14:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have redirected the article. cagliost (talk) 14:25, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not do this. The AFD is still open for comments from other editors. It's not closed yet. Liz Read! Talk! 04:29, 19 November 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 03:40, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Idea (website)[edit]

The Big Idea (website) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:WEBCRIT and WP:GNG. Only a primary source supplied. LibStar (talk) 22:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Honestly its a useful website but it certainty isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia page.`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 01:37, 16 November 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. Nominated by a sockpuppet. If you would like to change this article into a redirect, go ahead and Be Bold. Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 17 November 2022 (UTC) Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rational Automation Framework[edit]

Rational Automation Framework (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of independent notability. BarleyButt (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2022 (UTC) (sock strike Liz Read! Talk! 23:00, 17 November 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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Bruxton (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of prehistoric insects[edit]

List of prehistoric insects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an overly broad list per WP:SALAT. According to Labandeira, 2005 as of 2005, approximately 25,000 fossil insect species had been described. Doubtless thousands more species have been described since then, as documented at 2022_in_paleoentomology and prior 20XX in paleoentomology pages, which shows in this year alone around 500 new fossil insect species have been described. This is simply too large to be maintainable. My nomination follows the nomination of the similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of extinct plants, which also closed as delete. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:45, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most life is extinct, theoretically living insects are more novel. Either way an impossibly huge topic for a list. Dronebogus (talk) 19:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If we can say something substantive about the insects in the list article, it can be done there. There is no justification for this list article. Heraldrybranding (talk) 04:18, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:37, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RPC54[edit]

RPC54 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:GNG. AtlasDuane (talk) 21:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:31, 13 November 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 Death of Richard Oland. Stifle (talk) 09:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Oland[edit]

Richard Oland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable as a businessman, as all sources cited are about his murder rather than his career. The article only cites seven sources; one is an obituary (which can't be used to establish notability) and three are from the same publisher (CBC News). Also, three of the cited sources are more focused on his son (accused of the murderer) and one is mostly focused on his wife. Doesn't meet the criteria for WP:VICTIM. Furthermore, the article uses an overly complimentary tone and comes across as a puff piece.JMB1980 (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Coverage in Macleans, CTV and CBC. Hardly a puff piece. Oaktree b (talk) 21:36, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 21:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO1E. Cullen328 (talk) 22:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Articles with puffery tend to be long, but this article is just long enough to not be a stub. It could be folded into Death of Richard Oland.--Auric talk 04:06, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Death of Richard Oland. This article doesn't really establish notability in life at all, and instead focuses entirely on his death, which means there's no need for it to stand alone as a separate article from the one about his death. Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can actually properly source some genuinely substantive content about his career in business that would actually establish notability under WP:NBUSINESSPERSON — but in this form the article is only establishing (or even really trying to establish) notability as a murder victim, which isn't the kind of article we need to keep as a content fork distinct from the murder itself. I might feel differently if we didn't already have a vastly superior article about his murder as an event in which virtually all of the same information is already contained as it is, but given that we do, a separate biographical article about him isn't necessary if it doesn't have a lot more sourced content that would be out of place in the event article than this actually has. Bearcat (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no objection to a redirect. Cullen328 (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Death of Richard Oland. I don't believe that this person demonstrates notability on his own, but rather, in his death and the events surrounding it. There's already a pretty substantial amount of biographical material already located in the article on his death, so I don't see a need to merge. Joyous! | Talk 21:30, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Notability of the individual is not established, outside of his tragic death. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:02, 20 November 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 per consensus from established editors Star Mississippi 20:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Vlaardingerbroek[edit]

Eva Vlaardingerbroek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominating for procedural reasons, minimal sourcing and I am not sure it meets Wikipedia:GNG. --ZemanZorg (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody knows her. So there are no reactions. --ZemanZorg (talk) 16:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Eva Vlaardingerbroek has 250K followers on Twitter. That alone disproves the statement that nobody knows her. 2601:6C1:4101:50D0:4D0C:55EC:7788:87A6 (talk) 14:07, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am very impressed with this highly educated young lady and her willingness to express her views which are often contrary to the EU main media outlets.
She is a bright light of freedom of speech in what is becoming a dark and dismal tyrannical world. 76.128.179.29 (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ZemanZorg, since you raised it. I don't think that nobody knows her or that she doesn't pass the WP:GNG. She has been well covered and documented. But she is fringe and works as a host of something that is published on youtube. This is one of these cases where I think both the GNG and occupational notability guideline need to be met for keep. I agree with you on the bottom line that this should be deleted. gidonb (talk) 02:20, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She is a ray of light in an increasingly crazy woke world if you delete her I will never contribute to Wikipedia again.
You should not be considering deleting people because you do not agree with their views which are becoming more and more articulated. 84.93.245.140 (talk) 09:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fringe draws extra attention from the media. We need to control for that. There was also a "fling" here, an almost teary party leader, and, in general, a lot of youthfulness. Our subject handled that situation well. Credits where credits are due. But WP should not become too yellowish. If the BLP meets a professional standard in the future then an article would become justified. Then all the rest can fade into the background. That's my problem. There is a lot of background but no main story. My opinion is without prejudice on the person and on the type of fringe and aims to protect the topic of discussion. The last thing I care about is who her perceived enemies are. That's just a distraction. BTW, I do want people to contribute to WP yet such contributions should also provide quality for the reader. Otherwise, the contributions have negative utility. gidonb (talk) 14:38, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So why 'delete' this articulate young lady who expresses a viewpoint you don't agree with? If you are not interested in her viewpoints and political positions, just don't read her wikipedia page. It's that simple. What are you afraid? Deletion is an admission that you aren't bright enough or articulate enough to compete in the marketplace of ideas. The only reason one would just 'delete' this woman's viewpoints is they are not smart enough to compete with her expressed ideas. Man up and present your better arguments or positions, or just stop reading her wikipedia. Deletion is cowardice. 198.231.29.80 (talk) 20:14, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How dare you call her “Fringe”. Please define “fringe” for me. When someone is so far with their own beliefs, anyone who challenges their beliefs could be “Fringe”. Sort of like how a hammer sees every problem as a nail. But, by a loose definition, if she is fringe, you could be considered “Fringe”. So, who determines if you are” Fringe” or she is? Obviously, since you and your ilk, want her removed, or censored, that is censorship, which my book makes YOU the “Fringe” and YOU should be removed. You, are the hammer.
We should only remove those calling for physical violence, she is just challenging intellectual thinking. If you can’t handle that, YOU are the problem. 45.26.95.237 (talk) 14:42, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you misunderstood the basics. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Not a marketplace of ideas or some other kind of forum. When I express a keep, delete or other opinion, I make a judgment whether a topic is encyclopedic and otherwise justified AT THAT TIME. Not in the future. Right now. And definitely not whether I agree with ideas, behavior, or whatever. That's irrelevant. The implication of your own projection on me is that all anon or new user opinions here, that look canvassed to this page anyway, should be discounted for WP:ILIKEIT. So be it. gidonb (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another day, another anon. I do not suggest removing biographies of folks that call for physical violence. If the subject is important enough, it can be included in an encyclopedia. Opinions do not prohibit inclusion. These anons write from a reality where objective criteria, applied to all, seem to be a curse. I wish them all the best. gidonb (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. First, this article summarises well what the person is notable for and that she is not very notable. However, multiple guest appearances on a major US TV channel make her notable enough. Second, I heard her name mentioned on a TV show and came to Wikipedia to read about her. My personal testimony is at least as a good an argument as "Nobody knows her" and "she is fringe", if not better. Third, there are plenty of articles about less notable people, e.g. researchers, which were created as part of initiative to increase the visibility of underrepresented groups on Wikipedia (such initiatives are often funded). If such a practice is valid, then the person in question being "fringe" should be recognised as an argument for keeping this article, not against. Fourth, the person appeared on FOX News as a commentator as recently as several months ago, and as far as I can judge from her biography, she might be having a brief hiatus in her political activity due to study- and family-related reasons. There is a good chance she will resume her political activity soon, so we will probably hear more about her. This is why it is reasonable to keep the article if in doubt.
AVM2019 (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This opinion is grounded in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:CRYSTALBALLING. As I pointed out, fringe is not a problem if a person is a well-known politician, author, musician, academic, clergy, etc. Not the case here. It's someone who was offered to be a candidate on a party list, did not run, and received some (often sensational) press coverage. In such cases, the requirement to meet a professional standard is reasonable. gidonb (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is very intelligent and she is becoming more well known all the time. I can almost guarantee if you delete it, you will have to bring it back. So save the trouble, just leave the page. It hurts nothing. 2601:1C2:300:DA20:0:0:0:5803 (talk) 19:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC)— 2601:1C2:300:DA20:0:0:0:5803 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. Please don't poison this valuable source of information with biased ideology. I don't want to see all the entries that I disagree with getting deleted, I hope the moderators will see the importance of maintaining the same privileges for all view points, and will preserve the integrity of this essential source. Ritmo2k1024 (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2022 (UTC)— Ritmo2k1024 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. FWIW, I just came here to look her up, as she keeps appearing in various international outlets. The article covered what I wanted to know, and from my own experience, I can confirm legitimate interest. I must admit, many of the "delete" arguments read like "I do not like her opinions" to me (as many "keep" arguments read like "I want to see her opinions covered"), neither do I, but in the end it just should be about providing background on prominently talking heads, and I want the information here. Re-quest (talk) 20:19, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with previous commentator. I came here to find out who she is following Mark Steyn appearance. I don't understand why 'fringe; or a youtube following means she should not have a Wikipedia presence. Daxkamala (talk) 20:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)— [[User:Daxkamala]|Daxkamala]]] ([[User talk:Daxkamala]|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Daxkamala]|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Re-quest and Daxkamala, where did you read or hear about the existence of this discussion? gidonb (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a big banner across the top of the page on her! Daxkamala (talk) 07:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No professional or political significance. In the Netherlands, she has been in the news a couple of times for having a brief love affair with Thierry Baudet and being no. 5 on a concept list of candidates that never came into being. All the rest is a YouTube channel, a few TV appearances and another love affair. Is that really enough to warrant inclusion? —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 22:24, 20 November 2022 (UTC) EDIT: And in response to all those IP users and brand new accounts: no, this is not about miss Vlaardingerbroek spreading conspiracy theories and hatred. Nobody is suggesting that we delete Paul Cliteur, Thierry Baudet, Gideon van Meijeren, David Icke or Donald Trump, for that matter. Those people have similar opinions, but at least they have achieved something that makes them notable. But spreading those theories itself doesn't make a person notable. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 00:13, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article on the fiancé was already twice created and deleted. With all these IPs and new users appearing out of the blue, it's quite the PR machine! gidonb (talk) 00:45, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is insufficient independent and reliable WP:SECONDARY support for WP:BASIC or WP:NPOL notability, and this article appears to be WP:PROMO. The first two sources are articles she wrote, which are not independent. The third source is a 2020 report about political candidates that only says about her (translated): "Two women are among the first ten candidates: Member of the Senate Nicki Pouw-Verweij in third place and legal philosopher Eva Vlaardingerbroek in fifth place. She became known on television and social media for her right-wing views and her support for FvD." The fourth and fifth sources discuss a scandal related to a politician she was previously in a relationship with who reportedly "reacted emotionally this morning in Good Morning Netherlands when it turned out that Vlaardingerbroek also distanced himself from him" and a one line quote from her about his proposal to split the party. The sixth reference does not support the text it follows, because it is the third source. Source 7 is her in a YouTube video as a host. Source 8 is an interview with her promoting the show she hosts, with no secondary context or commentary. The other sources are FOXNews videos of her appearances and social media, which do not support notability because there is no secondary coverage. Beccaynr (talk) 02:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacking reliable sources and her achievements are hardly noteworthy for an encyclopaedia. Also note the number of keep !voters that are single purpose editors. LibStar (talk) 02:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per source analysis by Beccaynr. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:00, 21 November 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 Eastern Health. ✗plicit 14:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Health and Community Services St. John's Region[edit]

Health and Community Services St. John's Region (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominating for procedural reasons, minimal sourcing and I am not sure it meets WIKI:GNG. --IMR2000 (talk) 20:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:10, 13 November 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. Time has been given for sufficient sources to be provided, and they have not been. Stifle (talk) 09:33, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jungle Ventures[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Jungle Ventures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails NCORP, references are based on company announcements and PR and mentions, nothing with in-depth "Independent Content". The previous AfD was invaded by numerous socks and possible paid-editors, some who have only recently been detected. HighKing++ 19:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well, the Wall Street Journal is about the best one (but not very good), rest are all funding announcements or PR pieces. Long way from GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 19:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are a number of good quality sources cited (WSJ, Reuters, Business Standard India, Mint, Hindu Business Line, CNBC) in the dump-bin of 55 references - but they're all repeating company press releases, funding round announcements and so on. Something like 19 of the references repeat company announcements about funding rounds or closures. Another 22 are announcements related to Jungle Ventures funding for startups - pretty much what you'd expect a VC fund to be doing in fact. In short, it's all trivial coverage as defined in WP:NCORP and, as we are informed by the excellent WP:SERIESA, Wikipedia is not Crunchbase. As the nominator notes, the previous AfD was plagued by socks and dubious IPs that masked the pretty self-evident fact that this is not a notable enterprise. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I clearly see that multiple references are good and reliable enough to back key investments, figures, activities, plans, exits, and so on mentioned in the article. The subject passes Wikipedia Notability (general notability guideline), in particular: Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time. Based on the multiple references provided in the article which have been published by reliable media worldwide during the past ten years on various occasions I see the topic gained general notability and cannot be narrowed to a non-notable company article or that is was only covered by press-releases. Tristana Wors (talk) 07:29, 7 November 2022 (UTC) Sock strike. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC) [reply]

  • Hi Tristana Wors, this is a company therefore the WP:NCORP guidelines also apply. Nobody has said the references aren't good and reliable enough to support the facts mentioned in the article but references used to support facts have a different standard to meet than references used to establish notability. As commented above, can you point to a reference which meets NCORP and point to any in-depth "Independent Content", thanks. HighKing++ 11:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's quote the rules:
    Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other and meet the four criteria below to determine if a source qualifies towards establishing notability.
    1. Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth.
    2. Be completely independent of the article subject.
    3. Meet the standard for being a reliable source.
    4. Be a secondary source; primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability.
    An individual source must meet all of these criteria to be counted towards establishing notability; each source needs to be significant, independent, reliable, and secondary. In addition, there must also be multiple such sources to establish notability.
    Here is for example The Times of India source: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/jungle-ventures-to-triple-its-investment-team-in-india/articleshow/94206344.cms
    It is a reliable, independent, secondary source with significant (more than “brief mentions and routine announcements”) coverage.
    Another one from Business Standard https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/venture-capital-firm-jungle-ventures-raises-240-million-for-third-fund-119103000052_1.html :
    It is independent, secondary, reliable, and with significant (overpassing a one-sentence mention or routine announcement) coverage.
    Regarding the New York Times use case at wp:NCORP of evaluating the sources, the main key principle is that the coverage is significant if it more than "a single-sentence mention in an article about another company". At least both sources are the one, who pass four-criteria rule: significant, independent, reliable, secondary.
    The same is with most of the sources in the article, including TechCrunch or the Wall Street Journal. Tristana Wors (talk) 07:54, 10 November 2022 (UTC) Sock strike. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC) [reply]
  • Response OK, you don't appear to understand the full requirement of "Independent" - so lets look a little closer at WP:ORGIND and the requirement for "Independent Content"
  • "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject
  1. Your first source from the Economic Times gets all of its information from one of the founding partners. It says it right in the first sentence. There is no "Independent Content" in this article. It fails WP:ORGIND.
  2. Your next source from Business Standard was published the day after the Company Press Release of the exact same title and with largely the same information. In addition, the source you've presented contains phrases such as "We continue to be focused" which shows it is simply regurgitating company info. This is an example of "Dependent Coverage" (material substantially based on press releases) and it also fails ORGIND.
We don't consider references which parrot company information or regurgitate PR as meeting NCORP criteria. HighKing++ 13:35, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We're not a directory of venture capital firms and their investments. These kick off a ton of routine announcements, but despite the volume of sources in this article, the coverage is all dollars and cents, no impact. For example, the Times of India (Economic Times) article mentioned above, available through the Wikipedia proquest access, leads with "...founding partner Amit Anand told ET in an interview" and quotes the man throughout the rest of the article. Hardly independent; mostly the founder prognosticating in the newspaper about market conditions. FalconK (talk) 10:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to WP:PROMOTIONAL. Also, despite the refbomb, doesn't seem to be notable. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:07, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It appears that there is no coverage other than what the firm raises, buys, sells, etc. Fails WP:NCORP as a result. However, I would be hesitant to vote delete as there is coverage of the company, and I would think on that basis, at least some articles would have been written to analyse/cover the company in a significant way? If there are, I think it could be kept, but I would like to see if anyone can bring up such articles. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 07:38, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are still some questions about sources existing "out there".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:07, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per my previous vote on the 1-st nomination of this page. Despite apparent refbomb I see enough deep coverage media links sufficient for GNG and NCORP guidelines. --Morpho achilles (talk) 15:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC) Sock strike. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC) *:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jungle_Ventures I mean this nomination Morpho achilles (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2022 (UTC) Sock strike. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC) [reply]

  • Comment Which references specifically? As per NCORP, *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability, please link to the specific references you are referring to. HighKing++ 13:35, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I say keep but with an element of regret. It appears to be true that the sources are repeating information given to them by the company regarding funding. However, these are high quality sources, so we'd expect them to have done some due diligence on the truth of these claims (of course it is hard to be sure if they actually did). And they're not just short repeats of the amounts, they are fuller articles with biographies and quotes. I think the sources have therefore decided that the topic is notable and we have option but to do likewise. JMWt (talk) 07:37, 22 November 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 13:35, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mustapha Ado Muhammad[edit]

Mustapha Ado Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only reliable albeit not independent source that has a significant coverage about him is the only source already available in the article. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 18:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: fails NBIO. MurrayGreshler (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not finding much outside of the only source already available in the article. Fails WIKIPEDIA:GNG.AndrewYuke (talk) 13:11, 18 November 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 23:48, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Leigh[edit]

Bobby Leigh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined PROD but I don’t see anything that makes this subject notable. No sustained career in music or acting; apparently, no awards and no significant artistic legacy. Basically a guy who’s been about for a while and had a fairly interesting life. Does not pass WP:ANYBIO. Mccapra (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:02, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unfortunately as there is a lack of independent reliable sources coverage at this time so that WP:GNG is not passed, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:10, 18 November 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 08:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rankin & Chris[edit]

Rankin & Chris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a filmmaking duo, not reliably sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:CREATIVE. The only notability claim stated here is that their work exists, which isn't automatically enough in and of itself in the absence of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about them in media, but this is entirely unsourced apart from a single "staff" profile on the self-published website of a directly affiliated organization, which is not support for notability. Bearcat (talk) 15:35, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:55, 13 November 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 Comodule. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Colinear map[edit]

Colinear map (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:ORPHAN, as the only link from the main space is from a disambiguation hatnote; the word "colinear" does not appear in coalgebra, the main article of the category of this article. This seems WP:OR, as the article is based on a single primary source. In any case, this is a minor subject that is not sufficiently notable for having a specific article D.Lazard (talk) 14:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Caterina Consani (2007). Noncommutative Geometry and Number Theory; Where Arithmetic Meets Geometry and Physics. Vieweg+Teubner Verlag. p. 157. ISBN 9783834803528.
  2. ^ Stefaan Caenepeel (2002). Brauer Groups, Hopf Algebras and Galois Theory. Springer Netherlands. ISBN 9781402003462.
SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 22:43, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting to module homomorphism is nonsensical, as comodules are not considered there. More generally, other names for "colinear map" could be "comodule homorphism" and "morphism of comodules". As it seems that none of these phrases occur in Wikipedia, this makes a redirect highly problematic. D.Lazard (talk) 09:32, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Comodule. The name "colinear map" is probably less standard than the names D.Lazard mentions ("comodule homorphism" and "morphism of comodules"). The minimal content is totally fine. It's very unlikely that this will be expanded beyond a stub, but the content is deserving of coverage as a section at Comodule, where it would fit it naturally (just as Module (mathematics) has a section about module homomorphisms). --JBL (talk) 17:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a better solution. Striking vote above. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 21:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is a clear consensus for merging into Comodule. I do not understand why this has been delisted. D.Lazard (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If another admin disagrees and sees a consensus in this discussion, they can close it at any time. Liz Read! Talk! 07:29, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Ohlenkamp[edit]

Neil Ohlenkamp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article relies heavily on JudoInfo.com, which despite its general title, is the subject's own website, and on blurbs for books that derive from self-submitted information. In seeking to correct the article and to expand it (it claimed a book for which he wrote the foreward as authored by him, and almost entirely omitted his coaching, which is what he is known for including work with one year's US Paralympics team and one year's US Disabled Games team—the one incoming link is a See also at Paralympic judo), I found nothing online except when I used Google to search within the website for the United States Judo Association. This includes nothing on his own competition record: his page at Judobase appears to be blank, and a search at JudoInside.com came up with no results. Nothing in Google newspapers archive search, either. It is possible that someone in the know can find an entry for him in a database with useful information, or archived news coverage that I haven't been able to shake loose (I don't have access to Newspapers.com, for example), or that his book has made more of a splash than indicatedby my search turning up only one review, on a specialist site and by a writer who trains with the subject. But I have been unable to find evidence that he meets the notability guidelines. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:48, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I quit after 3 pages, but did you find any extended coverage? I found many references to his expertise—including citations of his website (which claims to have been a pioneering internet page for judo information) and 2 quotes in "The Greatest Collection of Humorous Sporting Quotations Ever!"—and his activities running his club. This supports his work for the National Braille Institute; this mention supports his coaching the US Blind Judo team. I see a mention that may indicate his day job was with the Social Security Administration in Santa Barbara, a Senate Committee staff listing, and a genealogy book that may give his date and place of birth, but per BLPI'm reluctant to link those here as they could be another person of the same name. But are there any extended articles about him, as opposed to brief notes and things he has written himself? I don't see any. In the absence of any, what are our current standards for coaches? I understand that Olympic athletes who didn't medal are no longer automatically notable; surely the requirements for a one-year Paralympic coach are at least as high, but as I say I think there's news coverage I can't see. I rooted through the LA Times archive and found only this on him coaching blind athletes and this mention as the coach of Lynn Manning (which I intend to use to improve that article if nobody else does, but with regard to Ohlenkamp, it falls under WP:NOTINHERITED IMO). The most promising avenue, I think, would be to argue that he's had a transformative effect on his sport, but I'm not finding enough despite his own claims for his website. There are a lot of martial arts entrepreneurs who make big claims, run successful dojos, and publish articles and book forewords. Does Google show you anything better than I've summarized? Yngvadottir (talk) 07:10, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I found no evidence of him being notable as a judo competitor. Rank and teaching classes do not show WP notability. I didn't see any significant independent coverage of him that shows WP:GNG is met. It's great that he coaches blind athletes, but independent coverage of him seems to be more in passing. Papaursa (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Author of a notable Judo book, Creator of the most popular Judo website, well known coach for Judo.[1] Passes GNG. BlackAmerican (talk) 09:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I have is that all of that info comes from a web page he wrote on the website he created and the book was reviewed by one of his students. There is nothing that doesn't come from him, his students, or organizations he's involved with. None of that counts as independent coverage. It's very likely he wrote the usjjf.com article on himself. FWIW, USA Judo is the U.S. judo organization recognized by the International Judo Federation which is the sport's international governing body (as recognized by the Global Association of International Sports Federations). Papaursa (talk) 12:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
commennt is this independent coverage? [2] BlackAmerican (talk) 14:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A social media business that wants to use judo analogies mentions him and his website. It's not clear if the company is independent of Ohlenkamp (i.e., no business dealings) and there's no evidence the source you asked about is reliable (as WP defines it). Mentioning his site is pretty weak for claiming significant coverage. All in all, I don't think this source helps him meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 22:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.usjjf.org/uploads/5/2/4/8/52481119/neil_ohlenkamp.pdf
  2. ^ https://www.google.com/books/edition/Social_Media_Judo/G8Id2LayAOAC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Neil+Ohlenkamp&pg=PA21&printsec=frontcover

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I dont see any independent coverage of him and his Judo accomplishments on their own don't meet WP:GNG

Nswix (talk) 21:26, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:47, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete His name pops up on Bleacher Report as a citation used in a history article. Nothing else found about him, it's pretty much basic facts (schooling, later life). Oaktree b (talk) 02:00, 14 November 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. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Transition (aviation)[edit]

Transition (aviation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is not a technical term, just an everyday word whose meaning is always clear from the context in which it occurs. It even states that "Transition is a common term in aviation" — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:09, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge - Since we already have a disambiguation page it should be merged to Transition and then Transition (aviation) redirected there. - Ahunt (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The main disambig page disambiguates between articles on different kinds of transition. There are no such articles in the aviation list, they are just topics which mention transitions. These are not deeply technical terms ("change" often serves just as well) and we do not normally disambiguate every article that contains some common word or other. Exactly what is there left to merge across? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:25, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. I'll maybe have to consider changing my 'merge' below to 'delete. I'll wait to see what others have to say though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For one example: "transition altitude" IS a deeply technical term with a very precise meaning. It figures in lots of legally binding documents, such as the various AIPs. That it does not have its own article does not change that. Jan olieslagers (talk) 09:39, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a two-word term, made up of two common words. The term might possibly deserve an article, but that isn't relevant here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:49, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Ahunt & Delete per Steelpillow. Not an 'aviation term'. A common word, used in aviation to mean the same sort of thing as it does elsewhere: the process or a period of changing from one state or condition to another. [1]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:21, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 20:17, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Nothing to disambiguate. I would agree with a redirect if this primarily referred to something, perhaps translational lift, but I'm not convinced it does. MB 01:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an ordinary word. That it's used in aviation doesn't make it suddenly special, since it's used in that field in a way that's practically identical to its everyday meaning. If there are areas where it has a very precise aviation-related meaning, it can be defined with a section (or even a sentence) within whatever article mentions it. Joyous! | Talk 21:50, 17 November 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 Granblue Fantasy. Star Mississippi 19:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Granblue Fantasy characters[edit]

List of Granblue Fantasy characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NLIST and WP:SIGCOV as it is totally sourced to primary sources. No evidence this list of characters meets Wikipedia guidelines. Jontesta (talk) 19:41, 13 November 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 keep per maple et al plus the lack of delete votes. (non-admin closure) Dronebogus (talk) 01:53, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lavender Town[edit]

Lavender Town (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable game level that doesn't have WP:SIGCOV. If you review the WP:REFSPAM you will find that most of these are passing mentions, or even unreliable blogs. Jontesta (talk) 19:37, 13 November 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 Fictional brand. Merge should be selective and only include sourced content. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Finder-Spyder[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Finder-Spyder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable fictional website without WP:SIGCOV in independent sources. Most of this is referenced to unreliable sources. Once you remove those there isn't anything to write a real article. Jontesta (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As stated in the nomination, the current sources are not sufficient for establishing notability, as they are all listicles from mostly non-reliable websites. Searching for anything else really turns up nothing in reliable sources - a few more of the similar kind of "trivia" mentions, and that is about it. It looks like the article was previously deleted in 2010 and then recreated several years later, but it does not look like it gained any more notability since the initial deletion at all. Rorshacma (talk) 16:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked for proper article sources and found a few, but each full article cited Wikipedia as its source like this one: https://mashable.com/article/finder-spyder-investigation
    There are good sources for fake brands overall. If anybody wants to improve Fictional brand, the Finder-Spyder content could make more sense within that article. Rjjiii (talk) 08:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge selectively to Fictional brand in the spirit of WP:AtD. This appears in secondary sources (like this one), and I think it would be a loss if the interested reader would not find this explained on Wikipedia. But I did not see enough to warrant a stand-alone article. Daranios (talk) 20:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Daranios. I am not seeing much outside [5], so stand-alone article has problems withWP:SIGCOV, but yeah, it's totally worth mentioning in fictional brands article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:54, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from nominator I still believe in good faith that there is no significant coverage of this subject and it should be deleted. However, if there was a consensus to merge, I would not object. Jontesta (talk) 03:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and excise the appearances list. While merge might be a good idea in theory, there's not really a listing of notable fictional brands into which the one paragraph of reasonably sourced text could go. If someone wants to really create a List of fictional brands (which is just a redirect to the proposed merge target at this point, I would be fine with a merge. Jclemens (talk) 06:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Daranios. I see some sources but it is not enough for a separate article. Archrogue (talk) 01:49, 23 November 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 Features of the Marvel Universe#Regions and countries. Anyone feeling there is a need to merge any content can do so. Stifle (talk) 09:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subterranea (comics)[edit]

Subterranea (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is WP:SYNTH of primary sources and does not pass WP:NOTPLOT. If you were to remove the WP:OR comparing the different storylines in different comics, there would be nothing left. A search shows only passing mentions and plot details without any WP:SIGCOV in independent sources. At most, those passing mentions can be summarized at an article that meets Wikipedia guidelines. Jontesta (talk) 19:30, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which part do you believe should be merged? Joyous! | Talk 22:16, 17 November 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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Bruxton (talk) 19:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NoirCon[edit]

NoirCon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG, available coverage is limited to PR or interviews with one of its organizers. Said founder, Deen Kogan, may well be notable based on the coverage I came across, but I'm not seeing enough to establish the notability of NoirCon itself. signed, Rosguill talk 18:25, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Events. signed, Rosguill talk 18:25, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete - Just learning my way around on Wikipedia (disclaimer) -- to me, the article speaks to "an event," a Recurring local event, in a specialty niche where a narrow group of people might find the subject notable. The article has "local support" in terms of a city newspaper and a recurring article in time to the convention. Agree that the article is PR and I cannot find much support. Perhaps "the event" threshold would be used in assessing notability. Also, I am finding consistent interest in blogs articles (which are not reliable sources) but they indicate to me that interest in the subject on the part of a few individuals exists. I am glad I am not the decision maker here.. to keep or delete Flibbertigibbets (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. - Alvaldi (talk) 14:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Lacks Significant coverage as you mentioned - that seems to be the consensus; Noircon has a sustained presence - and has interest in a niche. Not Wikipedia quality sources - but there are blogs that speak to Noircon. (so for someone it is meaningful to have an entry). I am feeling my way around which is good consensus can be reached (and I can learn)
    [6]https://sohopress.com/author-fuminori-nakamura-and-soho-publisher-bronwen-hruska-honored-at-noircon-2014/ Flibbertigibbets (talk) 13:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs are WP:SPS sources and can't be used to establish notablity. 00:35, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tamás Varga (footballer)[edit]

Tamás Varga (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Played 59 minutes of professional league football then disappeared into the semi-pro/amateur leagues for the rest of his career. The article is a badly sourced BLP stats stub that does not demonstrate WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. The best source that I can find in my own searches is Erdmost, which is a trivial mention of Varga. Please note that his name is extremely common in Hungary so it's possible to find coverage of namesakes such as a goalkeeper coach from Veszprém and a water polo player. I am of the opinion that the Varga Tamás born in Győr in 1991 is not notable. I have no opinion on the notability or lack thereof of his namesakes. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Draftify per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Bruxton (talk) 19:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ashish Dixit[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ashish Dixit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Semi-procedural nomination: was soft-deleted at AfD 22 days ago, where the nominator asserted that neither WP:GNG nor WP:NACTOR were met. It was requested for undeletion today, but the additional sources provided are PR spots in the ToI about upcoming performances by the actor and don't do much to further establish notability. This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. N.b., per the nominating statement of the first AfD, there appears to be some cross-wiki spamming of this subject's biography on other wikipedia projects. signed, Rosguill talk 17:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Ad astra (phrase). Stifle (talk) 12:24, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per aspera ad astra[edit]

Per aspera ad astra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just a translation and list of nonnotable uses of the phrase. Wikipedia is neither Wiktionary nor TVTropes. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 16:46, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What relevant information would you recommend for moving over? I'm not challenging your opinion, but it is much easier for the editors who are completing a merge to fully understand what is being proposed. Joyous! | Talk 22:20, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into "Ad astra (phrase)". Essentially the same as Dawkin Verbier's comment. This is clearly more than a dictionary definition, and at least some of the persons/institutions using the motto are themselves notable, although this is not a prerequisite for an article about the motto. However, as one of several variations it might be better treated under the other page, and the list could probably use some trimming. P Aculeius (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the items or sections do you think are most likely in need of trimming? As above with Dawkin Verbier's comment, I'm not challenging your opinion, but as someone who frequently carries out these merges, it's much easier with some clarification. Joyous! | Talk 22:24, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd keep the nations, states, and cities for whom it's a motto, along with major organizations such as military units, but trim individuals of limited notability ("29th Governor General of Canada"), and relatively obscure or confusing entities ("Honored Scientist of Armenia", "Crew 2020"). IMO most, perhaps nearly all of the uses of the phrase in literature and music are passing or trivial uses. The works it appears in may not be, but unless it's the theme of the work in question, what we have is a random selection from a potentially-limitless number of passing mentions in the arts.
If Vergil uses the exact phrase it might be notable in the body of the article, since it would be the first, or one of the first examples, and probably responsible for much of its subsequent use; a humorous translation in To Kill a Mockingbird or its appearance over the door of Starfleet Academy is not—probably—but some instances may have a better argument for significance than others. I don't see the benefit to listing every school, song, video game, or anime in which a motto appears, or the list will just keep growing out of control. It might be notable that it's the motto of Winston Churchill or Heidelberg University; it's probably not notable that it's the motto of George Clooney or Pall Mall cigarettes or the Podunk Boys' Preparatory Academy.
Probably the first two images can go—the Apollo 1 plaque is a notable use (as the Voyager golden record would be), but the plaque isn't that famous, the picture of it isn't great, and it doesn't really add much to the article. The bookplate is crooked and has a lot of wasted space. The coat of arms is a typical use, and designed for graphic appeal. If two of them are kept, the Apollo 1 plaque at least has some cultural importance—nothing against Finland in the nineteenth century, but the illustration is a minor detail in the design of a relatively obscure book. P Aculeius (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 07:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hieronymus Medices[edit]

Hieronymus Medices (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article makes some claim to significance, e.g., that the text is relevant in helping novices understand the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas. Those claims are supported by no evidence, and I don't think there's enough accessible material to make this article work. I have copy-edited it for clarity, and much of it was unintelligible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Actualcpscm (talk • contribs) 19:30, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion was created improperly and not transcluded to the log until now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 15:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete despite his entry in the CE, there's really nothing else on the guy. I tried his anglicized name as well, came back with nothing. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've found a couple of brief write-ups in Latin: [7], [8]. They both have similar information: he studied in Lomardy and Bologna, he worked for the Inquisition in Mantua, and he wrote a syllogistic version of the Summa Theologica which was very helpful for students. I'm undecided whether this is sufficient for notability. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With that first link I lean towards this being a bit closer to keep, especially since it confirms a few biographical details I was less keen about taking at face-value from CE. However, it doesn't really muster much new. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The 391-word entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia [1] is evidence of notability and significant coverage. There's also a paywalled entry in the online version of the German Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon [2]. An older, print version of the Kirchenlexikon is footnoted in the Catholic Encylopedia entry, along with three Latin sources. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears to be a significant minor figure in the history of religious thought. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. I think the Catholic Encyclopedia article by itself would be enough, but we have several sources besides. Jahaza (talk) 03:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the reliable book sources identified in this discussion which show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:55, 18 November 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 14:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Slink[edit]

The Slink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A BEFORE does not bring up significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Does not meet NCORP. Princess of Ara 14:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Entertainment, Companies, and Nigeria. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:20, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article in question meet the Wikipedia notability policy, the article in question has references from secondary and reliable news source Blessed Favour (talk) 15:16, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — A before search showed sources that are reliable and in-depth but not independent. Notability does not just come because it's November. The press does not develop a sudden interest in a brand because it's November. That being said, I don't know why ALL the sources shows November as a date of publication. Aside from that, I would consider this to be too soon. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 19:06, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm unable to locate any sources that meet NCORP criteria for notability. What I can find are all based on PR or barely disguised puff pieces. HighKing++ 15:58, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:SIRS. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:14, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fabin Rasheed[edit]

Fabin Rasheed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:NBIO - sources appear mostly to either be about "NFT art" in general or only make passing mention of the subject. The .ART interview is interesting, but that seems to be the only source dedicated to the subject, and I'm not sure that's sufficient. firefly ( t · c ) 13:41, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find many of the sources questionable. Several seem to be user provided content. No evidence that he was in all the exhibitions listed. From checking the sources, I believe he is part of an Adobe team working on AI. He has appeared on panels and created AI art, but it is unclear if he is doing this as part of his job or if he is involved in a creative process, or if it makes a difference either way. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:45, 13 November 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 14:14, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Violin Concerto (Bernard Tan)[edit]

Violin Concerto (Bernard Tan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Before search yields no notable coverage of this song. Reference linked is not about the concerto but the composer. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 13:39, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:37, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ferox[edit]

Ferox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is not a valid disambiguation page because the entries are all WP:Partial title matches: they are not articles that might otherwise be called "Ferox". At best it is an incomplete list of the 89 articles with "ferox" in the title. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete disambigs are not search results. Also a WP:NOTDIC violation. Dronebogus (talk) 12:52, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Remove most of the entries not related to fishes. I researched a little and Salmo ferox is often just referred to as "Ferox".
Roostery123 (talk) 15:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:00, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Plantdrew, is there any value/precedent for keeping the plant/animal part of this as a SIA? MB 18:15, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MB:, I don't think there is any value to this; readers would be better served by search results than a (likely incomplete) SIA. I favor deletion of any page that only lists species sharing an epithet. There is no precedent for keeping that sort of content in any recent discussions. I believe some titles of this type have been deleted, but I can't remember any specific examples. At one point, I was unilaterally redirecting some of these to Wiktionary. Some titles have been redirected to List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names (which already has an entry for "ferox" with a link to Wiktionary) Relevant previous discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digitata (2012), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tinctoria (2015), and especially Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tristis (2nd nomination) (2020) (the primary discussion about creating this type of content in the first place took place at Talk:Tristis in 2011). There are other pages of this type in Category:Taxonomy disambiguation pages (and there are likely many more that aren't categorized); I'd be inclined to delete a large number of the pages in the category if brought to AfD. Plantdrew (talk) 19:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all entries are partial title matches. Plantdrew (talk) 17:31, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete search results are sufficient here rather than a disambiguation page, because there are no actual title conflicts with just "ferox". Steven Walling • talk 18:07, 16 November 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 Ahmadiyya. There is a clear consensus of redirecting this to Ahmadiyya. Closing per snowball clause. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī (talk) 06:45, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History of Ahmadiyya Muslim Community[edit]

History of Ahmadiyya Muslim Community (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pointless fork of Ahmadiyya with far worse referencing. PepperBeast (talk) 12:23, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per your reasoning.
Dawkin Verbier (talk) 13:50, 13 November 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 Pacific FC#Year-by-year. No policy based justification to keep. There are two situations where spinoff subarticles become necessary, and no keep !voters discussed how either of them were met here. On the other hand, those !voting delete and redirect directly explained why this content should not be spun off: because it is a WP:CFORK by scope. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude (talk) 04:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pacific FC seasons[edit]

List of Pacific FC seasons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List of seasons for a very young club where the main article Pacific FC isn't that big. Completely unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK. Suggest merge into the main article then delete. Govvy (talk) 11:49, 13 November 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. Star Mississippi 19:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Hyun-jin[edit]

Kim Hyun-jin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failed GNG with majority of source passing mention. There were also couple of source from multiple news agency reporting/reposting on same topic, essentially adding the same source over and over. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:08, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 10:38, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. A search for "김현진" "배우" ("Kim Hyun-jin" "actor", since none of the other subjects with the same name on the Korean Wikipedia disambiguation page ko:김현진 are actors) yields a plethora of sources. I haven't looked into them yet, but I suspect he's notable. I'll try wading into them over the next couple of days. ✗plicit 14:11, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As it turns out, there are several actors with the same name (I counted five others), so results were a little muddled. However, I have added a bit to the page and it seems to me that this actor is meets WP:NACTOR. ✗plicit 13:30, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per same reason as Explicit. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 13:06, 17 November 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 08:04, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Japan Masters[edit]

Japan Masters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly made, fails WP:GNG and yet to be conducted by the badminton world authority. This was previously a redirect to Akita Masters but from next year both the tournaments will be different. Can also be said as a case of WP:TOOSOON. zoglophie 08:55, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:53, 13 November 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 08:05, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin Yunita[edit]

Kristin Yunita (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBAD & WP:GNG. zoglophie 08:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:53, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) → lettherebedarklight → 晚安 → おやすみ → 15:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rhede (disambiguation)[edit]

Rhede (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TWODABS applies. Rhede already has a hatnote for the smaller municipality. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep, I added one marginal entry; couldn't find anything else. MB 16:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I took a look at the hat note (and the definition); we have "two like topics that are different" without "disambiguation" the index search does not make a differentiation between the two - Doing a web search it was quite confusing between geographic areas, it is not handled the same way as "New York" in the search index. For organization clarity (utility) I am saying keep - make any search easier for any folks that are interested. eg disambiguate Flibbertigibbets (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I favor anything that helps the reader. D pages are cheap and helpful. Lightburst (talk) 23:21, 20 November 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 Polish Center for Holocaust Research. Liz Read! Talk! 08:00, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Polish School of Holocaust Scholarship[edit]

New Polish School of Holocaust Scholarship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an article with heavy notability issues. It was created by a currently globally banned user and composed in a completely not WP:NPOV fashion. A 3-day conference that gained some media coverage back in 2019 but received no further coverage since. According to our criteria, this is a typical WP:NOTNEWS case. GizzyCatBella🍁 08:18, 13 November 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 Kashmir (Pakistani band). Liz Read! Talk! 07:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bilal Ali (Vocalist)[edit]

Bilal Ali (Vocalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable in their own right, the sources cited (which appear numerous) refer to the band and its activities, and a search finds just the usual social media etc. accounts. Fails WP:GNG / WP:MUSICBIO. Redirect to band name possible ATD. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:19, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Note that the article previously had a link to the wrong band. This singer is in Kashmir (Pakistani band), not the unrelated Kashmir (Danish band). That has been fixed. Focus on the Pakistani band if considering a redirect. Also, do not confuse this guy with the politician also named Bilal Ali. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kashmir (Pakistani band) just in case someone happens to search for the singer's name, though note the possible confusion with the other Bilal Ali. This singer, except for winning a minor fashion award, has achieved nothing notable outside the band except for a few unnoticed solo songs. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:35, 13 November 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 the page creator wants to work on this article in Draft space, let me know. Liz Read! Talk! 04:39, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zano (ZnO)[edit]

Zano (ZnO) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After performing WP:BEFORE, there does not appear to be enough reliable, independent literature discussing this brand name in any substantial detail. Zinc oxide (the non-brand chemical) has plenty of coverage in scientific literature for its use in sunscreens, and perhaps the subsection in the article zinc oxide could be expanded somewhat, but it's doubtful this article could be expanded past a couple sentences, and its utility is dubious at best. I would suggest a redirect, but there's already a disambiguation page called "Zano". TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:25, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheTechnician27::After reviewing Wikipedia:BEFORE, I think article could be fixed through normal editing, with the additional mention of EverZinc which is the subsidiary of Umicore. The reference quality available is excellent as it is a well studied product line and I am happy to continue working on it, given I have more time as the article was only recently created.

  1. "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD."
  2. "If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article."
Zinc oxide products like Zano have wide applications because zinc oxide is not homogeneous, as certain particle sizes, dispersions, states, shapes allow zinc oxide to be used in areas such as electronics, industrial and cosmetic. Such widespread application is inherently interesting and useful to those entering those spaces.DemocratGreen (talk) 02:09, 7 November 2022 (UTC) DemocratGreen (talk) 02:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, DG. I think it's really cool when there are specialist editors who work to expand the depth of our coverage on a specific subject, and I think Wikipedia's more niche content is a huge part of what makes it remarkable, but I have to say I disagree here. To start, stating which company manufactures the article's subject doesn't constitute fixing notability issues. It doesn't hurt the article, but it's an entirely lateral change as far as a discussion about notability is concerned. The applications of zinc oxide are quite numerous, but the logic here is flawed: those applications are already covered in Zinc oxide#Applications. As I noted before, it seems zinc oxide's (the generic compound) application for UV absorption might warrant more substantial coverage in that article section, but saying "[product type] has a wide variety of applications; [product] is a brand of [product type]; therefore, [product] deserves its own article" would allow me to say "computers have an enormous range of applications; therefore, an article should exist about every commercially manufactured computer". Finally, to address the point about being inherently interesting and useful, I'll point out that Wikipedia's inclusion criteria don't operate on either of those standards. Why these standards are what they are has been the subject of endless discussion since the project began, but in general, they exist to enforce quality by making sure all of our standalone articles can say something substantial about a subject and cite this information to multiple reliable, independent sources. They don't exist to adjudicate whether a subject is interesting, useful, or anything else. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:34, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These articles are just aiming to create more transparency around an ingredient families use daily in cosmetics. The petrochemical alternatives are not recognised as GRASE by the FDA, they are made by pharmaceutical companies that have not produced safety data in 30 years plus. Zinc oxide is a topic worth covering simply for the reason of DALYs. Furthermore, to reiterate zinc oxide is not homogeneous, there are different particle size distributions and characteristics. I am not planning on covering every UV filter ever made, only the major ones. There is a lot of research that goes into zinc oxide. Blanketing the second most abundant trace mineral in your body as unsubstantial and under researched is odd. DemocratGreen (talk) 03:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:19, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 13:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lemonade is a historically, culturally, and industrially significant beverage, but the lemonade I sold from a stand at the age of nine does not need its own article. A product that is a branded version of a substance has to be article-worthy as a brand; the noteworthiness of the substance doesn't translate over automatically. XOR'easter (talk) 13:13, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Smells of promo, zinc oxide is zinc oxide. You mix it with other stuff to make it anything special. Oaktree b (talk) 22:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – It's entirely apparent to me that DemocratGreen is not here for promotional reasons. It's prudent to be skeptical when underhanded or ignorant companies routinely try to leverage the project for guerilla marketing, but I think it's unnecessary to cast aspersions in this case. DG, as best I can tell, is a well-meaning editor who has a niche they're very passionate about, and it's probably quite hurtful to have their earnest effort to improve the project construed as corporate astroturfing. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:38, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Note: article was draftified prematurely by DemocratGreen, reverted by yours truly. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 07:31, 16 November 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 2011 Sudirman Cup. Liz Read! Talk! 07:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

India at the 2011 Sudirman Cup[edit]

India at the 2011 Sudirman Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Really unnecessary article, we don't make articles separate for teams in particular championships instead we only make the tournament article like here 2011 Sudirman Cup. India didn't even medalled in this tournament, I don't understand what was this article for and remained undetected until now?! zoglophie 06:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2011 Sudirman Cup. No reason for this article to exist. Onegreatjoke (talk) 06:21, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:17, 13 November 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 Cinematronics. ✗plicit 05:03, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball The Season II[edit]

Baseball The Season II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can not find a reliable source for this article that proves its notablility. Seems to fail WP:GNG Onegreatjoke (talk) 05:46, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:17, 13 November 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 06:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Occhiogrosso[edit]

Joe Occhiogrosso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of this article does not seem to meet criteria for notability as a businessperson. His books are self-published. He does write a regular column for Weekly World News under the name "Joe Bigeye," but I don't think that rises to the level needed to be included here. Joyous! | Talk 05:26, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Business. Joyous! | Talk 05:26, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:09, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article has several fundamental issues: 1. The whole article reads like a advertisement to promote him Joe O. is known as one of the most successful sales professionals and entrepreneurs in the country 2. I read the whole article and did not see any evidence of entrepreneurship, While he is mentioned as an entrepreneur. 3. There is no reliable sources to cover the biography of him from his education to his economic activities. He does not meet any criteria for notability. Alimovvarsu (talk) 22:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 06:15, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:PROMOTION as the article is entirely self-promotional (and blatantly autobiographical), which means it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. To be clear, he and his business, All-Pro Title Group, were featured in The Courier News in 2004, but that article is nearly entirely driven by what Occhiogrosso is saying about himself and his company. He is also prominent in two NJ.com articles discussing his involvement in volunteer work in Nicaragua and in the Amazon rainforest (cited within the article), and he is mentioned in other newspaper articles for his work as an energy salesman and his efforts in political fundraising, etc., but these don't really point to a notability argument either in the Wikipedia sense (see WP:Notability (People)). The article does cite a paywalled article about a contentious departure from a past employer, but overall there is no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources that back up notability per WP:BASIC, let alone WP:GNG. (And for what it's worth...there is no actual secondary source to verify that "Joe Bigeye" on the Weekly World News blog is actually Joe Occhiogrosso, either; not that it would make a difference for notability purposes, but that's the kind of claim that automatically gets deleted.) Anyway, if it is self-promotion and marketing you are after, there are other websites and networks that are much better suited for that, which would also be a better use of everyone's time. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:15, 13 November 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. Arguments based on WP:NOT, a policy, carry greater weight, and therefore carry the day for the delete side. Stifle (talk) 12:25, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dynamite Entertainment titles[edit]

List of Dynamite Entertainment titles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List of books by a publisher; should be deleted due to WP:NOTCATALOG. Mikeblas (talk) 01:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See #6 at WP:NOTCATALOG, which says "Thus, for example, Wikipedia should not include a list of all books published by HarperCollins, but may include a bibliography of books written by HarperCollins author Veronica Roth." and applies pretty directly here. Hope that helps! -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:46, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Category:Dynamite Entertainment titles show there are plenty of things they publish that are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article. So be a valid list for navigation and information. If there were columns listing the years, the writers, how many issues, etc, that'd be more useful. Dream Focus 21:09, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - However, this article needs to be curated and better organized. I think a 90-day period would allow editors to get this article into shape. It certainly doesn't need to go back into the main Dynamite Entertainment article where it used to be. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 01:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Point 6 under NOTCATALOG is "A resource for conducting business" and gives an example of every book published by Harper Collins. It also carves out an exception for Lists of creative works with an example of books by a specific author. Unlike traditional book publishers, comic books often have an entwined chronology that unites everything they publish. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think that applies to this list. For sure, the article doesn't present any "entwined chronology that unites everything", and there are many groups of characters and universes not owned by this publisher. -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTCATALOG. WP:SAL is a guideline, WP:NOT is a core content policy that supersedes every notability guideline. The entwined chronology reasoning isn't correct; the company uses many different franchises. The keep arguments are invalid and can be discounted.Lurking shadow (talk) 14:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:35, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agree, NOTCATALOG. If you want, break it out into various small lists by author or by decade perhaps. I'd prefer to see some critical discussion of the works presented, rather than a laundry list of everything. Oaktree b (talk) 05:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SAL:"Being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as the notability guidelines."
It isn't acceptable under WP:SAL because it isn't acceptable under WP:NOT. I hope that argument solves the dispute for everyone. Lurking shadow (talk) 09:32, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails NLIST - there's no possible independent, reliable sourcing to satisfy this as a class, it is purely a catalogue/directory, which is what we are not. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:36, 23 November 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 Ranking Stone. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 04:00, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Al Rescate[edit]

Al Rescate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Open issue since 2015 regarding an obscure musician; link provided as support suggests the group had "no reviews" Flibbertigibbets (talk) 01:30, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ranking Stone per WP:PRESERVEWP:ATD-R. Lurking shadow (talk) 09:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per your redirect suggestion; There are a series of albums listed on Wikipedia
If you can look at the talk page User talk:ArcangelLaMarivilla and build your own impressions, let me know what you think (I see similar articles being removed over time)
And the
Find the sources for the above mostly "allmusic" which is a quality source; because "the editorial team, not the reviewer" is making a judgment call on the meaningfulness of the album. The albums in question and the artist have been listed with NO indication (or ranking) that the artist (or albums) have any reach.
In an effort to fix the article - Prior to nomination I looked for sources and support verification "indication of notability - past and present"
 Looking at this article individually I nominated it for discussion; perhaps it would have been appropriate to discuss a range of articles (so that is why I don't think redirect is the way to go, but that's just me and an opinion);
"Sometimes you will find a number of related articles, all of which you feel should be deleted together. To make it easier for those participating in the discussion, it may be helpful to bundle all of them together into a single nomination. However, for group nominations, it is often a good idea to only list one article at AfD and see how it goes, before listing an entire group."
Perhaps more discussion might figure out what is the right thing to do, if anything. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 13:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS I am starting to re-read some articles and discussions a day later.. to see if I see/find things differently - and I am learning in the process (that is why I am writing out what I am thinking about as part of learning).. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 14:00, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One possible solution: If Al Rescate (album) is redirected to the singer after this particular AfD runs its course, that can be the solution for the other albums if those articles suffer from the same weaknesses. That can be done per WP:BOLD with an edit summary that references the decision in this AfD. Also, a redirect can be reversed if someone finds more useful info for one of the albums in the future. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:33, 16 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_November_13&oldid=1123569305"