Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 November 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 06 November 08 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crowdbands[edit]

Crowdbands (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:org. Most references and external links are dead. The surviving references hardly constitute independent significant coverage and are basically announcements of what the company intended to achieve. It seems that nothing materialized. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 23:55, 7 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! 23:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yoel Roth[edit]

Yoel Roth (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)

There is no significant coverage about the subject. Most coverage are passing mentions or short quotes. Most significant coverage is just a small part of the recent attention to layoffs at Twitter. MarioGom (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how to flag just a general discussion There's a few I'm working on adding(sorry, busy week) including this which is entirley focused on him, and is a notable source(I think- no expert- they're a large significant media org but aren't english focused so there's not much use of them on english language wiki).
I made it because there's significant coverage in the...Less reputable sphere(NY post has mutliple articles, a handful of clickbait sites, lots of poor repute TV news and livestreamers, etc) and having a well documented page on his background/actions seems to have value.
Not sure how else to document notability of someone who's (nominally) in charge of one of the most contentious aspects of a social media site of this size. Adacable (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome and thank you for your edits. We generally abstain here from creating articles for lower level company employees mentioned in the news, such as these. [1] [2] See the links I posted in my comment above for more information. StonyBrook babble 23:15, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I think this is slightly why I'm confused- He's reporting directly to the CEO, and their org chart puts him on the same levels as VPs/Directors. While I'm not 100% familiar with the corperate world, and I imagine it varies a lot, this doesn't appear to be a junior role? Or one which is similar to the ones linked, which are like, three levels lower on the org chart. Where does the cuttoff lie for a company on the size/influence of twitter, as a rule of thumb?
I certainly don't want to do the linkdin thing- But he is a figure who's consistently appearing in news articles(even prior to the musk aqquesition) and indeed has had a handful of articles written specifically about him. It seems valuable to have something which can exist outside of the hype cycle to provide a background to people reading those, but if that's not wikipedia that's fine. Adacable (talk) 10:26, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The NPR interview [3] is focused on company policy only, not a word about why he would be considered a notable person in his own right, say outside of his cubicle. Same is true for the other reputable sources cited, which only mention him in this context. As you mentioned, LinkedIn is not considered a good enough source for this type of information. There are lots of corporate types doing their jobs out there who sometimes get their 15 minutes of fame. But Twitter, Jack Dorsey and Elon Musk get into the encyclopedia, while other officers and employees generally don't. StonyBrook babble 15:59, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The info about Roth's tweet was already in the article in another paragraph, without mentioning Roth because he's not particularly relevant/notable to the subject at hand. That's why I removed your added text, but I also moved your reference here. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:11, 10 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 no consensus. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:04, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bashu nationalism[edit]

Bashu nationalism (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)

Majority of this page is only talking about Sichuan's history and not the actual movement itself — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noob251 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep there is plenty on the movement, and besides, content issues should be resolved on the talk page and through edits, not via AfD. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:01, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is no in-depth information about the movement and most of the sources about the movement come from the movement's own website therefore it is not notable AAAAA143222 (talk) 16:22, 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! 23:27, 31 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! 22:32, 7 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 Campus of Seattle University or a similar article with the same scope. There's consensus here that a standalone article is inappropriate. It is likely that the same holds true for the other buildings discussed here, but absent a bundled nomination, this discussion is insufficient to constitute a consensus for those articles. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Loyola Hall (Seattle University)[edit]

Loyola Hall (Seattle University) (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)

Every university has dozens of buildings that house educational departments and their existence is not notability. Sourced only to the single non-independent source of the College of Education's webpage at seattleu.edu, it's unclear what makes this building notable or why it was created this way. Reywas92Talk 22:41, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge all to form new article unless individual notability can be demonstrated. The Banner talk 09:12, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't think merging all would be appropriate. We should not just assume none of these buildings are notable, not to mention, none of the articles about these other buildings are tagged as part of this discussion. We should only be focusing on Loyola Hall at this time. I assume there are other sources which could be used to detail the building's construction, cost, etc, but perhaps not any/many published independent of Seattle University. I'm not against the creation of Campus of Seattle University, but keep in mind another option might be List of Seattle University buildings, per Category:Lists of university and college buildings in the United States. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet you've assumed they are automatically notable by creating them with one or few sources with limited subtantive coverage or independence. Even if some are notable, consolidation is a good WP:NOPAGE option. Either title is fine, though the latter mostly has tables and bullets while those with the former tend to also cover history and layout and non-building features with more prose. Reywas92Talk 17:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think these pages should be deleted. Even if redirected to a campus article or buildings list, the pages would serve a purpose. Also, the article histories should be preserved. IMO, merge or notability discussions should occur on an individual basis, after a parent entry is created. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:42, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge all is a good option. Hyperbolick (talk) 11:11, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong oppose. Comment does not even address secondary coverage and none of the other articles are tagged as part of this discussion. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:45, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This AFD discussion is about Loyola Hall (Seattle University), only. The other articles mentioned above have not even been tagged for AFD discussion, page creators were never notified, this is not a bundled nomination. So, please focus your comments on Loyola Hall alone. Liz Read! Talk! 08:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting and reminding participants that the only article up for debate is Loyola Hall (Seattle University).

Feel free at another time to make a bundled nomination including other related articles which have been tagged and their page creators notified of an AFD discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:16, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to a university-level article about its buildings, or to a starter section in the main university article, or "Keep but rename to broader topic of all buildings of the university" is always, I dare say, the proper outcome of any AFD about a university dorm or academic building etc. (Or outright "Keep" if there are sources and article is too big to merge comfortably.) There are too many of these AFDs, they should be immediately halted and closed as a technical or administrative action, and the nominators should be cautioned and directed to overwhelming precedents on this (or to what AFD discussion page topic summarizing this?). Nominators should never again get a notch on their belt for one of these. What does it require to eliminate continuation of a whole stream of hundreds of AFDs going on and on and on and on? --Doncram (talk,contribs) 20:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has become a discussion about merging a bunch of entries to a non-existent page. Most folks here take no issue with the text of this specific article, so I don't see a point in deleting altogether at this time. I suggest we keep for now (disclaimer: page creator), if this is too much content to merge into Seattle University. Anyone able to search the archives of The Seattle Times for more possible coverage? ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:20, 3 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! 22:30, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural close per Wikipedia:WRONGFORUM. If this were a bundeled nomination we could reasonably merge all of these articles based on this discussion, but it isn't. No notifications have been placed on the other pages, and in effect we don't have the structures in place or authority to make a unilateral decision here that impacts all of these articles without properly notifying the community on those article pages. Given the majority interest in a merge, this discussion should be closed for procedural reasons, and then a proper merge discussion should take place at WP:MERGEPROP, the correct forum for this discussion, with notifications placed on all of the articles being targeted for merger.4meter4 (talk) 22:41, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nonsense. Just because voters suggested a merge does not mean their votes here must be ignored and restated elsewhere. Merge is a perfectly acceptable AFD vote and outcome, even if the target does not yet exist. Reywas92Talk 17:33, 9 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Fereshteh Ahmadi[edit]

Death of Fereshteh Ahmadi (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)

It's been two weeks, but there doesn't seem to be ample enough coverage for the subject to fulfill WP:NEVENT. Should be redirected to Mahsa Amini protests#Casualties. - Mooonswimmer 21:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Iran. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable, even remotely. 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a farsiwiki page for the same matter. The picture of her daughter and her name hashtags went viral. Over 300 people were killed in Iran's protests so far, and the public don't know everyone's name. She is one of the known ones. PurpleLarimar (talk) 22:45, 7 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. Star Mississippi 16:43, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Etsko Schuitema[edit]

Etsko Schuitema (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)

I don’t think he is notable. The whole article is barely comprehensible and reads like a resume or advertisement. Almost nothing comes up about him on Google. He has very few citations on Google scholar. His books appear to be published by his own company on Amazon. No news articles on Google. Many of the citations are dead, unrelated, or suspicious ex. Wordpress blogs. Excessive primary sources. Many of the “citations” do not even mention him. The constant bolding, picture of him, external linking and intensive biographical information (like names and birthdates of all his kids) about someone who is unknown makes me think this was written by someone affiliated with him. If not, where did they find all of this info? This seems to be an advertisement about a non-notable person. Zaynab1418 (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of the article is “Afia Mansoor”. Searching that name and “Schuitema group” bring up her profile on their business website. This was definitely written as about advertisement. Zaynab1418 (talk) 21:15, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and South Africa. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Birth of intent" this sounds like a psychological self-help thing. Nothing notable about this. Oaktree b (talk) 00:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanispamcruftisement. XOR'easter (talk) 01:36, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Generally, the article is written in a CV manner and claims are made that are unprofessional and there are no reliable sources to prove them. For example, the first paragraph of the article is not an encyclopedic or he is mentioned as the founder of a company, which does not seem to be notable. I also agree that it seems to be an advertisement about a non-notable person. Alimovvarsu (talk) 21:50, 11 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 speedy keep. (non-admin closure) ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 17:19, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Fabinyi[edit]

Martin Fabinyi (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)

SIGCOV fail and the article is entirely uncited. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:52, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Australia. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:52, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Nomination appears based purely on the current version ands sourcing of the article, To better judge the subject one can look back to here before the current unsourced version (autobio or similar maybe?) appeared. No hint of any BEFORE being done. Brevity of nomination fails to consider his award nominations duffbeerforme (talk) 13:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Article history supports duffbeerforme's claims. Subject is notable for award nominations and has significant coverage in independent reliable sources.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 16:53, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Numerous citations from The Age, Sydney Morning Herald, etc. are now being added. Perseus25 (talk) 12:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, article has been overhauled thanks to Shaidar cuebiyar and clearly satisfies WP:ANYBIO. Dan arndt (talk) 08:59, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY. Thanks to edits by Perseus25 and Shaidar cuebiyar. Cabrils (talk) 08:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Numerous citations, awards and nominations. Yandeńo (talk) 17:01, 12 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Card Financial[edit]

Yellow Card Financial (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)

Some sources are press releases, some are written by contributors (see the Forbes source). These sources does not confer notability. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 20:30, 7 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) 21:16, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Klajdi Dule[edit]

Klajdi Dule (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)

Made some professional appearances, so would have met WP:NFOOTBALL when created but, since that guideline has been removed, the article seems to fall short. I can find nothing even close to WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC, the latter explicitly says that database sources are insufficient. In fact, I'm struggling to even find basic news coverage of Dule. Google News and ProQuest have nothing at all, which is quite damning for an internet-era footballer. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:11, 7 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. Star Mississippi 16:42, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Alves (footballer, born 1996)[edit]

Pedro Alves (footballer, born 1996) (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)

Sources cited are way short of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. Best I can find in my own WP:BEFORE is Gazeta Paços de Ferreira and JN which are not even remotely close to being significant coverage. Footballer made 5 brief appearances as a youth, according to Soccerway, then disappeared into regional divisions, according to the article. This might explain the lack of relevant coverage. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:00, 7 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. Star Mississippi 14:39, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maksim Kasalovic[edit]

Maksim Kasalovic (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 footballer which fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. The only online coverage is routine/trivial in nature (such as [5]). PROD was removed because the editor believed NFOOTBALL was still in effect, but now that NFOOTBALL has been deprecated, this article shouldn't have been created. Jogurney (talk) 19:27, 7 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 The Adventures of Sebastian Cole. Clean consensus that the subject isn't notable; arguments for keeping lack evidence or are not based in policy. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:16, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Cole[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Sebastian Cole (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 an actor that fails WP:NACTOR. The sources in the article are mainly IMbD links, the subject has also only played minor roles in movies. Jamiebuba (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    He just filmed a music video with Taylor Swift. Also he was a re-occurring character on an Amazon Prime show with Kevin Bacon and Kathryn Hahn, 4 episodes it looks like. Seems legit enough to me. Mercutio1400 (talk) 20:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Bit parts are not GNG nor ACTOR. The only Gsearch results are about a body that was found in the desert that hits on this name, either for the victim or the accused, neither seem to be this fellow. Oaktree b (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    He was in a re-occurring role for Amazons "I Love Dick" with some big actors, 4 episodes. Also he just worked with Taylor Swift in here new music video and she directed him personally. I think his internet presence is starting to come to like hence all the new content on him. Mercutio1400 (talk) 19:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also I searched google and his photo is the first that comes up and his IMDB page. Mercutio1400 (talk) 21:34, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't a major role, nor is there any major sourcing discussing him. Working with Taylor Swift isn't important, we need article discussing what he's done at length. Oaktree b (talk) 00:49, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sweden and Colombia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to IMDB he just filmed with Taylor Swift. Keep Mercutio1400 (talk) 21:04, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So you've said, three times. But just because he worked with someone famous doesn't make him famous, per WP:INHERITED, and the fact that not a single reliable source is talking about him being in the video is a good indication that he is not notable. By the way, if anyone wants to know who Mr. Cole is in the video, he is the Cupid with the bow and arrow who appears for precisely one second at 1:27. Richard3120 (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, seems he also was a re-occurring character on a very notable show and was in 4 episodes. Opening of the season finally is a scene of him. To be fair if working alongside actors like Kathryn Hahn and Kevin bacon on a major Amazon Prime original is not considered an "actor" I am not sure what does. Mercutio1400 (talk) 22:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:OTHERCONTENT section as well as your response is solely based on personal opinion.
And according to WP:INHERTED there are many other actors less notable with similar pages.
Final note, I thought Wikipedia was an encyclopedia about everything according to WP:NOTHING Mercutio1400 (talk) 22:55, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not my personal opinion at all – I'm following Wikipedia notability guidelines. Nobody disagrees that he is an actor... what is needed are reliable sources to show that he is a notable actor per WP:NACTOR. If there are other less notable actors, then their articles should be brought to AfD as well, not kept... that is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. And I'm not sure why you are quoting WP:NOTHING, it literally refutes your entire argument for keeping this article. Richard3120 (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you are saying. But I think he is notable enough. Hope his page stays up. Mercutio1400 (talk) 00:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are enough sources and I am finding more as I search.
76.171.130.153 (talk) 19:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect if found non-notable This page was created (by me) as a redirect to The Adventures of Sebastian Cole. Boleyn (talk) 19:45, 8 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. Star Mississippi 14:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Profium[edit]

Profium (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)

Unable to locate the significant independent coverage required by WP:GNG or WP:NCORP in either English or Finnish. Only reference is 1) non-independent, being authored by the CEO, who also appears to have been a major contributor for the article 2) is a passing mention of two sentences and 3) partially fails verification of what it's cited for. Ljleppan (talk) 17:33, 7 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. Star Mississippi 14:37, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Law Students in Action Project[edit]

Law Students in Action Project (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)

Tried a quick BEFORE search, yielded no independent coverage in RS. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Organizations. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this lengthy article is completely unsourced with unverifiable information that is likely very outdated. A search in Newspapers.com yielded one mention in the Democrat and Chronicle of Rochester, New York, in 2010 (in the context of a law student who had done pro bono work through LSAP). There is one mention of LSAP on the American Bar Association website, but that is tangential at best and member-submitted content anyway. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:48, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It looks like it was created for promotional purposes in 2007 and kind of just settled down unnoticed since then. It just doesn't pass WP:GNG and it's a matter of simply having gone unnoticed. Graywalls (talk) 01:35, 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 merge to Game Room. Star Mississippi 14:37, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Game Room games[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of Game Room games (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)

I've AfD'ed this listicle two and half years ago, but no consensus. Maybe this time it's different.

It's a very large table of games that were released for the Game Room emulator, which was available for the Xbox 360 console and Microsoft Windows PCs. WP:NOTCATALOG was my main argument then and that hasn't changed. List of x games for x service. It's also obsolete, the service is no longer available, if that matters at all. And it's completely unsourced. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 16:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge - I don't see a problem in documenting this sort of information on Wikipedia - it seems like it could go a long way in explaining the game's concept/premise - but both the list, and the game itself, have very small articles. It doesn't really need to be split out into 2 separate articles. Sergecross73 msg me 17:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as described. Certain titles perhaps, not the entire listing. Oaktree b (talk) 19:19, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as described. The content has merit, but I concur having it in a separate article no longer makes sense. As to sourcing, the situation is not unlike a movie's plot summary; the source is the product itself. When stating objective facts that can be verified within the content, explicit sourcing is not required. --McDoobAU93 15:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For the above !votes, Merge with what article for clarification. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 16:12, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIR and we don't need a catalog of every title released on every technology. There is already an article for this as an WP:ATD. Archrogue (talk) 18:51, 8 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 14:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Degen[edit]

Bob Degen (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)

Only source on page is an AllMusic EL with zero reviews, only a bio. Aside from this review I found only passing mentions. QuietHere (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Oaktree b:, can you review in light of the subsequent discussion of sources below? AllyD (talk) 07:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @AllyD I already opted to withdraw below so Oaktree's vote doesn't matter now. QuietHere (talk) 12:29, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A quick BEFORE reveals many high-quality sources deomstrating Mr Degen's notability:
An entry in the The New Grove Dictionary of Jazz
An entry in The Penguin Guide to Jazz on CD
An entry by Ron Wynn at All Music
An article in Frankfurter Rundschau
Just one of the first two would justify the article. Many other sources to be found too. I'll work on better incorporating these sources into the article when I have time. The nom may want to consider withdrawing. Vladimir.copic (talk) 02:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Author Keep He's in The New Grove, an encyclopedia on music. The argument's over at that point. Chubbles (talk) 06:00, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As others have noted above, we have Barry Kernfeld's biography in Grove (230 words), which verifies the article details. The subject's career has been largely in Germany, where coverage can be located via google.de, for example this Frankfurter Rundschau article from May 2022, where he is described as "a legend of German Jazz"; he also won the Hessischer Jazzpreis in 1994: [6]. AllyD (talk) 10:16, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition to the coverage noted above, he's had several albums released by Enja Records. This meets WP:MUSICBIO #5: "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." EddieHugh (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm more out of my depth here than I realised. I admit my unfamiliarity with pretty mucch everything y'all have mentioned above, but given the influx of keep votes in agreeance with each other this seems pretty cut and dry. My mistake. Consider this withdrawn. QuietHere (talk) 21:16, 8 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. The argument that no sources discuss the topic as-a-whole are persuasive. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noble immigration to the United States[edit]

Noble immigration to the United States (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:SYNTH / WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Just like other people, nobility migrates as well, to many countries, including the US (though not especially so). A random selection of some examples (including an ambassador, hardly a relevant inclusion) doesn't an article make. Fram (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (with caveat): I came to a similar conclusion as Fram when reviewing the article, and started a discussion on the talk page of the article. Based on my WP:BEFORE on Google Scholar, I think that there's enough coverage in the lens of Nobility in the US (a framing which includes both the presence and legal issues faced by nobility in the US, as well as the existence of informal nobility within US society) to license a creation of that article, and it would almost certainly include a section on immigration. That having been said, while I don't have a problem with suggesting a move-and-rewrite, it's not clear how much of the current content it would make sense to preserve, given the SYNTH nature of the current text. signed, Rosguill talk 16:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • including an ambassador, hardly a relevant inclusion I suggest reading the article before AFDing it. The text already explains why an ambassador (Prince Bandar) is counted as an immigrant in addition to being an ambassador: He bought large amounts of real estate not related to his ambassadorial duties, and became so connected with the Cowboys that he bought a seat next to the owner.
The nominator could have also read Bandar bin Sultan Al Saud which shows that he remained in the country to serve as unofficial ambassador even after being removed from his post. 3 minutes after this AFD nomination I was done typing this edit which added that information and citation.
On the more general subject the immigration of titled foreign persons generates constant, tremendous WP:RS press coverage. I hope no one will seriously try to contest that. As such WP:SYNTH is incorrect and notable examples, already with their own articles, backed up by RS, cannot be WP:INDISCRIMINATE.
As I said on Talk:Noble immigration to the United States yesterday to Rosguill scholarly interest really isn't required. WP:V#Reliable sources is required and I created the article with RS. However there certainly is scholarly interest and the idea that it doesn't exist may come from something as simple as the wrong search terms. I said I will add such and I will today. Invasive Spices (talk) 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Scholarly interest isn't strictly required, but specific coverage of the topic as a whole is, and scholarly publications are the best place to find it. If there were a bunch of NYT or similar-tier news sources covering the immigration of nobility as a class, rather than as individuals, that would be fine, but neither appear to exist based on my searching. I'm awaiting the scholarly sources you say you have found.signed, Rosguill talk 16:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Almost appears OR; I'm sure over the course of the last 245 years at least a few "nobles" have come to live in the USA, but it's not been discussed at any length that I could find. There was the The Hohenzollerns in America by Stephen Leacock that came to mind but it's fiction. Oaktree b (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing almost about it, cobbling together an article about a general phenomenon from coverage of individual (purported) examples of it, where the individual cited pieces of coverage do not discuss any sort of broader trend, is textbook OR. signed, Rosguill talk 19:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added this text. This shows it's a current (2019) matter of peer-reviewed study, and that this is noted outside the country (Quebec). It's a concept, it's current, it's in a society journal, it's even controversial and the controversy is controversial in other countries.
Rosguill: That article is purely about the 1810 proposed amendment I don't see how you can think that. It discusses the phenomenon of the immigration of titled individuals. It discusses the opposition to this phenomenon. It calls this opposition "xenophobia". Should I translate Villeneuve into English? (Copied from Talk:.) Invasive Spices (talk) 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Invasive Spices, je peux lire le francais tres bien. I don't see how the following is about anything other than the 1810 amendment and its recent resuscitation in right-wing discourse: Cette étude porte sur le Titles of Nobility Act, amendement constitutionnel adopté par le Congrès des États-Unis en 1810, mais ratifié par un nombre insuffisant d’États pour devenir partie de la constitution américaine. Peu connu, cet amendement suscite pourtant, depuis l’émergence d’Internet, un intérêt dans certains milieux de la droite antigouvernementale américaine, qui soutient que sa ratification eut lieu, mais fut étouffée par un complot. Cette étude postule que ces théories, quoiqu’erronées, méritent analyse, car elles permettent de comprendre la dynamique de la «pseudo-histoire» propre à certaines sous cultures politiques. Ce faisant, elle rectifie également les faits et met en lumière l’importance, aujourd’hui largement oubliée, de l’enjeu des titres de noblesse dans les États-Unis des XVIIIe et XIXe siècles. I've scanned through the article as a whole and don't see anything that deviates from that scope; are there specific passages with page numbers you'd like to point to? The references I see to xenophobia all appear to refer to the political climate surrounding the proposal of the Titles of Nobility Amendment, and the related passage of the Alien and Sedition Act; I don't see any analysis of a general phenomena of noble immigration to the US, other than brief mentions that the TONA would require nobles renounce their titles as part of a hypothetical path to citizenship. I think that this is an example of a source that would be a good resource for Nobility in the United States, but does not suffice for the creation of an article on nobility's immigration to the US. signed, Rosguill talk 21:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see. Cette étude porte sur le Titles of Nobility Act the paper is going to only be about the amendment and not about the fact that the thing it was against does actually exist. That would, however, be a very short paper.
As in the edit I am most significantly talking about p99: En 1803, Jérôme Bonaparte, frère cadet de Napoléon temporairement installé à New York ... Baltimore ... In 1803, Jerome Bonaparte, younger brother of Napoleon, temporarily moving to New York ... founded his family in Baltimore ...
Invasive Spices (talk) 7 November 2022 (UTC)
I think that example is again, too specific for what we're looking for. The fact that an RS has documented that a noble immigrated to the US is not enough to license the creation of an article on the abstract concept of noble immigration to the US, and the paper is specifically citing that example for its immediate relevance to the proposal of the TONA, the main focus of the paper. For a topic like this to be notable and OR-free, you would need to draw on sources that cover the phenomenon as a whole. Examples of such sources for other, analogous topics would be Mexican Immigration to the US (for Mexican immigration), Mothering for Class and Ethnicity: The Case of Indian Professional Immigrants in the United States (for Tamil, or specifically Tamil Brahmin, immigration), papers/books which directly identify the population they are analyzing as a population. You can find some sources that discuss nobility in the US in this way, but I have been unable to find any that discuss noble immigrants or the emigration of nobility in this fashion. signed, Rosguill talk 22:05, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added Hart and new quotes from Villeneuve. I think these are clearly more specific to titled immigration, and they add text about the 1795 act.[1][2] By the way I don't think Emerald books are peer reviewed.[7] Anyway I would like to have such sources but right now I am editing to respond to the critics to avoid deletion. Invasive Spices (talk) 8 November 2022 (UTC)
That article is more about the TONA and the context of rediscovery with the internet and xenophobia bla bla. That could be an interesting article if you had a few more papers about it. You could merge this stub into that. Oaktree b (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More about yes. But I'm facing the charge that I haven't established immigration of titled individuals exists as a concept, so I'm trying to use a RS (now 2[1][2]) to establish existence. Hopefully someone else will also use these source in that article. Invasive Spices (talk) 8 November 2022 (UTC)
The addition of yet another source that does not discuss the actual phenomenon of noble immigration, and instead solely discusses the circumstances surrounding the passage of the TONA, suggests that either you still fundamentally don't understand our objections or have decided to WP:IDHT. signed, Rosguill talk 00:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • yet another source that does not discuss the actual phenomenon of noble immigration, and instead solely discusses the circumstances surrounding the passage of the TONA It does not. I provided quotes to make this easier. [A different statute] fear that former French nobility fleeing the French Revolution would come to the United States and reestablish themselves as a privileged class is about the TONA circumstances?
I am not IDHT. I was trying to move toward a solution without getting bogged down in what I think is a secondary question: I think this is your preference Rosguill. I would like to have sources titled Immigration of Hereditary Upper Class Persons Into The United States however I don't believe that is necessary and I thought my reply made that sufficiently clear. Is this your demand alone or am I missing something in WP:SYNTH? I have been given the impression by the relevant WP: pages that I must establish existence of the concept. I think the sources I provided have established that more strongly, and the quotes provided by my latest edit definitely. Are you really still contesting whether I've established existence of the phenomenon?
If I can't use any RS to establish existence then yes I haven't understood SYNTH but certainly [Different statute] foreign emigrant ... who had borne a title of nobility should satisfy your demand. Invasive Spices (talk) 9 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Almost a day later and I hope the quotes made my point. Since then I have also added 3 more sources with quotes.[8] All are peer-reviewed, 2 articles, 1 book. These all overview the general experience of immigrants and the immigration process, and are not about any specific examples. Invasive Spices (talk) 10 November 2022 (UTC)
(Anyway Mexican immigration and Tamil Brahmin immigration are hilarious examples. Very well done Rosguill.)
English translation of French abstractsigned, Rosguill talk 21:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This study concerns the Titles of Nobility Act [sic], a constitutional amendment adopted by the US Congress in 1810, but ratified by an insufficient number of states to become part of the American Constitution. Little known, this amendment has nevertheless resurfaced, following the emergence of the Internet, as a point of interest for certain milieus of the American anti-government right wing, which assert that the ratification took place but was covered up by a conspiracy. This study suggests that these theories, although erroneous, merit study, as they allow us to understand the dynamics of "pseudo-history" manifest in certain political cultures. In doing so, it also clarifies the facts and brings to light the importance, today largely forgotten, of the importance of the question of noble titles in the US during the 18th and 19th centuries

References

  1. ^ a b Villeneuve, Hubert (2019). "L'amendement fantôme : révocation de citoyenneté, pseudo-histoire et conspiration autour du Titles of Nobility Amendment de 1810" [The Phantom Amendment: Revocation of Citizenship, Pseudo-History, and Conspiracy Around the Titles of Nobility Amendment of 1810]. Bulletin d'histoire politique [Political History Bulletin of Quebec]. 27 (3 Dossier : La république apprivoisée : racisme et institutions dans l'histoire politique des États-Unis). Consortium Érudit (Political History Association of Quebec (Association québécoise d'histoire politique, AQdHP) & (VLB Éditeur)): 88–109. doi:10.7202/1063726ar. ISSN 1929-7653. S2CID 204721942. Même si ces efforts demeurent infructueux ... le Naturalization Act of 1795 ... impose désormais à tout immigrant souhaitant obtenir la naturalisation ... de renoncer à tout titre de noblesse. C'est cette tension entre citoyenneté américaine et titres aristocratiques que tente de résoudre définitivement le TONA en 1810. [Although these efforts were unsuccessful ... the Naturalization Act of 1795 ... now requires any immigrant wishing to obtain naturalization ... to renounce any title of nobility. It was this tension between American citizenship and aristocratic titles that the TONA attempted to definitively resolve in 1810.]
  2. ^ a b Hart, Gideon (2011). "The "Original" Thirteenth Amendment: The Misunderstood Titles of Nobility Amendment". Marquette Law Review. S2CID 142628950. ...a larger naturalization bill, in 1795 ... exclude[d] "any foreign emigrant from citizenship who had borne a title of nobility in Europe till he had formally renounced it." 45 This portion of the bill, which remains codified as law today, 46 was proposed at least partially out of fear that former French nobility fleeing the French Revolution would come to the United States and reestablish themselves as a privileged class unless they "renounced all hereditary titles" that they may possess." However, the naturalization bill ... did not prevent a former noble from renouncing his title and then simply reclaiming it immediately after becoming a citizen. 48 ...[The author believes] the goal of the ToNA was initially only to correct the naturalization law... When combined, the first draft of the ToNA and the naturalization statute would serve to force an immigrating nobleman to renounce his title if he sought citizenship and then never reclaim that title (or claim any others) if he hoped to become a public official in the United States. 52 ...First, it now included within its purview ... those who held titles through descent (essentially barring foreign nobles from citizenship) ... 56
  • Delete This replicates the information on American royalty which is precisely about this topic. If there are sources here that would enhance that page they could be added there. Lamona (talk) 04:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really don't know how anyone could get that idea after reading the article. Neither "American" nor "royalty" fits with this article.
  • Although some of the subjects of this article become American citizens, Diane von Fürstenberg is the only one on the list who has.[1] That article appropriately focuses on those who begin as Americans and also mentions those who become Americans, not mentioning those who are only permanent residents notable for their permanent residence in the country. That especially doesn't cover Bandar bin Sultan Al Saud who is more influential in American foreign policy than almost any American, and who has bought a seat next to the owner of his favorite American team, but is not expected by anyone to ever change his citizenship.[2]
  • That article says it will limit itself to royalty. Already there's a problem because Diane von Fürstenberg is an "immigrant with a noble title but no royal title". I haven't checked to see if there are any others who aren't but there's one. This article more broadly covers "hereditary noble immigrants" and the entire "subject of their immigration". The legal history generates continued interest and controversy into the present day[3] and is completely outside of that article's scope. This article appropriately includes individuals such as DvF, whose immigration experience is interesting and notable but who is not a "royal immigrant". Invasive Spices (talk) 12 November 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.deseret.com/2002/7/21/19667397/von-furstenberg-sworn-in-as-a-bona-fide-citizen
  2. ^ Miles, Hugh (2009). "The Missing Prince". London Review of Books.
  3. ^ Villeneuve, Hubert (2019). "L'amendement fantôme : révocation de citoyenneté, pseudo-histoire et conspiration autour du Titles of Nobility Amendment de 1810" [The Phantom Amendment: Revocation of Citizenship, Pseudo-History, and Conspiracy Around the Titles of Nobility Amendment of 1810]. Bulletin d'histoire politique [Political History Bulletin of Quebec]. 27 (3 Dossier : La république apprivoisée : racisme et institutions dans l'histoire politique des États-Unis). Consortium Érudit (Political History Association of Quebec (Association québécoise d'histoire politique, AQdHP) & (VLB Éditeur)): 88–109. doi:10.7202/1063726ar. ISSN 1929-7653. S2CID 204721942. Même si ces efforts demeurent infructueux ... le Naturalization Act of 1795 ... impose désormais à tout immigrant souhaitant obtenir la naturalisation ... de renoncer à tout titre de noblesse. C'est cette tension entre citoyenneté américaine et titres aristocratiques que tente de résoudre définitivement le TONA en 1810. [Although these efforts were unsuccessful ... the Naturalization Act of 1795 ... now requires any immigrant wishing to obtain naturalization ... to renounce any title of nobility. It was this tension between American citizenship and aristocratic titles that the TONA attempted to definitively resolve in 1810.]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is clearly against deletion in this instance. Merging List of Christina Aguilera concerts into this article may be done at the discretion of any editor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:14, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christina Aguilera concert tours[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of Christina Aguilera concert tours (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)

I had created an article called List of Christina Aguilera live performances to cover all of her performances since the beginning of her career. When the article was up I thought this article was still necessary to focus on just concert tours. The issue was that there were a lot of problems that came up with that article because some performances like the ones on Top of the Pops had no references I could find for the venue or date they were held. So instead I just took the live performances article and reworked it into List of Christina Aguilera concerts which covers tours, residencies, festival shows, benefit concerts and stand alone shows. Now that the article is more narrow, I don't see a reason to keep this article. Aside from it being redundant, some references are outdated if I'm not mistaken. 204060baby (talk) 08:49, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 204060baby (talk) 15:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to List of Christina Aguilera concerts since we don't need both articles. Jahaza (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Lists. Skynxnex (talk) 17:49, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree this is an overlapping content fork with List of Christina Aguilera concerts and we should only have one of those pages but believe this is the wrong page to nominate for being merged. The other page was created two weeks ago and has only had a single editor contributing to it, who happens to the person nominating this article for deletion. This strikes me as an incorrect use of procedure; expanding the other article and potentially proposing a move there would have made more sense. Further, uncontroversial consensus moves and merges do not require AfD. I recommend procedural close and holding the discussion on the article talk pages. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 20:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Are you saying that it would have been better to expand the original List of Christina Aguilera concert tours article and then request a move to List of Christina Aguilera concerts? I also don't understand what it is you see as incorrect use of this procedure. If you could come to my talk page it would be really helpful. 204060baby (talk) 07:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge anything useful from the newer List of Christina Aguilera concerts into this article. Creating a new article and then nominating the article your new creation overlaps is not good collaborative work and should not be rewarded, even if done transparently. Jclemens (talk) 07:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse Merge List of Christina Aguilera concerts into List of Christina Aguilera concert tours although a rename might also be called for. Don't delete an article with 15 years' worth of edit history for a new article created by the nominator. You can help update the references on the existing article, 204060baby. Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I do actually agree with what you're saying, @Liz. I'm new to Wikipedia so I'm still learning a lot. I didn't know that long standing articles were favored. I think expanding the original article then requesting a rename so the title is correct is the right move. 204060baby (talk) 08:27, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Reverse Merge to WP:PRESERVE content and history.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:36, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and reverse merge as proposed by Dylnuge, Jclemens, Liz, and TonyTheTiger above. Concert tours are, of course, a notable subject for a list in and of themselves, and concerts generally take place within the context of concert tours. Exceptions can be noted within the article on the tours. BD2412 T 06:21, 14 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 redirect to Yahoo! Maktoob. Star Mississippi 14:27, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sport4ever[edit]

Sport4ever (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)

fail WP:GNG and WP:WEB, this article about normal internet forum which bought by maktoob (they bought many websites and merge it) then it acquired by yahoo, so it is a (inherited notability), the refs (3 / 4 / 5 ) talk about yahoo not about them and the other refs are broken. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 14:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to its parent company Yahoo! Yahoo! Maktoob and add a brief one-paragraph mention there. Not independently notable but it could be a common search term as an Arabic sports site. Also, being from the other side of the world, there could be non-English WP:SIGCOV out there that I could not find, so please ping me if anything becomes available. Frank Anchor 14:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be redirect to Yahoo! Maktoob --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 15:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know that page existed. That would be a better target. Thanks! Frank Anchor 15:40, 7 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) 17:31, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great baths[edit]

Great baths (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 criteria for a dab page. Besides all the formatting/linking issues, it does not disambiguate multiple titles of the same name. Other Roman baths are can be called "great baths" using great as an adjective, but the other entries do not refer to places by that name. MB 14:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are two "Great Bath"s. There is the one at Mohenjo-daro, and the one at the Roman Baths (Bath). In addition there is the "Great Bath" at Lechaion Road, although reading the source suggests there wasn't a large pool called a "Great Bath" like the other two pools, which is why I wrote "Great Bath(s)". I moved Great Bath, Mohenjo-daro to Great Bath without realizing the pool at the Roman Baths in Bath was also called a "Great Bath" and is actually larger than the Mohenjo-daro one. Instead of moving Great Bath back to Great Bath, Mohenjo-daro, I figured this was better. LightProof1995 (talk) 14:40, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've found another "Great Bath(s)" at Dion, Pieria, and added that to the list. LightProof1995 (talk) 15:19, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Seems like an effort to justify a disambiguation page for something that definitely doesn't need one Dexxtrall (talk) 21:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It was at first but I truly feel I have found enough "Great Baths" to warrant this not being deleted. LightProof1995 (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I reverted cut & paste moves which had the effect of moving material from Great baths to Great Baths. @LightProof1995: should not use cut & paste to move pages – use WP:RM to move pages properly – and it's unhelpful to commenters here to move titles that are under discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:18, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think any ambiguity can be handled with hatnotes. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:18, 11 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 Natalie Walker. Liz Read! Talk! 09:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daughter Darling[edit]

Daughter Darling (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 cite any sources and I found no additional coverage. Same for their album Sweet Shadows so consider this an AfD on both pages (as well as File:Daughterdarling-sweetshadows.jpg and Category:Daughter Darling albums while we're here). Redirect both to Natalie Walker assuming I'm right about her notability. QuietHere (talk) 12:08, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Sweet Shadows is a redirect back to the band now thanks to Doomsdayer520's bold redirect so that would take that, the image, and the category off the table and now this AfD's scope is back on just the band. Unless, of course, someone finds coverage for the album and can dispute that redirect. QuietHere (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I redirected the album article due to its lack of sources and dim hopes for improvement. That will cause the file for the album cover to be deleted as an orphan in a week or so. The "Daughter Darling albums" category is now empty but I don't know what will happen procedurally there. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:26, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's a CSD request on the category page now so that should be gone next week as well. QuietHere (talk) 20:22, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Natalie Walker. Walker has had a much longer career with some more media notice. For Daughter Darling, I managed to find one barely-reliable interview ([9]), but otherwise they have nothing beyond basic retail/streaming entries and minor social media chatter. The band can be (and already is) mentioned at Walker's article as one of her early endeavors. Her article needs help in its own right, but that is a separate discussion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:31, 8 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:11, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Bradley[edit]

Eric Bradley (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)

One source, does not appear to pass GNG cagliost (talk) 10:23, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. Shellwood (talk) 10:38, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lack of enough sources for GNG, barely one source found. Oaktree b (talk) 14:19, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not enough WP:SIGCOV to satisfy WP:GNG. Even the one non-primary source in the article is a brief review of his band that does not have any coverage of Bradley himself (outside of his name being mentioned as a member of the band and having good guitar skills). Frank Anchor 14:55, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG, we identified only simple mentions, which are not sufficient to establish notability.--Tysska (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't find anything about him other than his name listed in the bands he played in. There are other articles created, it seems, by the same user, for one of the bands, Levinhurst, and for individual albums: House by the Sea (album), Perfect Life (Levinhurst album), etc. None of them have sufficient sources so I'm thinking that this is fan enthusiasm at work. Unfortunately, none of these seem to have the sources for notability. Lamona (talk) 02:26, 10 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! 08:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Horseed Media[edit]

Horseed Media (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)

Somali website hosted in Netherlands and Finland, having been shut down by Somali authorities in Puntland. Although a history of repression is evident, the site fails WP:GNG, the article being based in the main on primary sources and little to nothing rewarding search. The article was previously deleted in 2018 via Prod and it would appear nothing has happened since then to add to notability. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, and Somalia. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Alexandermcnabb
    The website might fail notability in certain parts of the world but I believe it still has notability in Africa and particularly in Eastern Africa, and is otherwise a locally well-known media entity in Somalia, which is the reason I thought its worth a Wikipedia Page. If there are missing or inaccurate information, I will happily address it. Daljir (talk) 20:24, 21 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! 08:40, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:31, 31 October 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! 09:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted in an earlier comment, I think the notability part debatable. As it stands the majority part of the media in this part of the world can have their notability disputed due to the fact that the western media hardly cite them but that does not result the deletion of their Wikipedia pages. Thanks. Daljir (talk) 11:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the coverage in Horseed_Media#Recognition which state it is one of the most reliable news sources in Somalia. Strictly speaking, it may not meet GNG, but these sources are reliable and show it is an important organisation i.e. similar to how we judge individuals with WP:CREATIVE #1. SmartSE (talk) 12:42, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's a decent amount of coverage about the news source itself (e.g. [10], [11]), mostly related to the political issues it's faced. Per WP:NPERIODICAL The periodical has made significant impact in its field: both the political impact and the BBC citation listing it as a reliable source of reporting in Somalia suggest to me it's made a signifigant impact in the field of Somalian news reporting. Also, it's not directly relevant to notability, but NPP lists the source as generally reliable (and it is the only generally reliable source listed for Somalia local news) and it's cited on >100 pages currently; this seems to reasonably suggest that it's a major news source in Somalia, which combined with meeting WP:GNG makes me pretty comfortable in saying it's had significant impact in its field. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 15:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Google Scholar and Google Books searches show Horseed Media is widely used as a source for information in academic writing and reporting on current events in Somalia, which is an indicator of its reliability and notability (in general, if not a strict GNG sense). The Horseed Media entry in the BBC World Service Trust 2011 assessment of local media is one of the longer entries discussing radio stations in Puntland (pp. 117–118). The existing sources about the station's repression are primarily groups focused on press freedom, which I don't think would be primary (they're independent of Horseed Media both financially and editorially). —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 16:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Horseed Media was one of some 33 radio stations operating in Somalia - it is no longer. It merited a short entry in the BBC's 2011 Analysis of Somali Media which does NOT, as claimed in the article text, say that Horseed is "one of the most reputable media organizations in Somalia" - the text actually states "it has one of the strongest reputations in Puntland" (Puntland being an autonomous region of Somalia, home to about 2 million people of whom 65% are nomadic). It also notes that the station does not stream live and has some 10,000 daily listeners. However, that analysis carried out in 2011 predates the station's closure in Puntland and its move to a base in the Netherlands/Finland. I think it noteworthy that Keep voters above recognise that Horseed does not meet WP:GNG - and that its use as a source by other media outlets does no confer notability and does not represent "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I would also note that the political situation in Somalia is highly complex and that any assumption that Horseed Media is in some way notable because it's been/being repressed by a totalitarian government does not sit particularly well with the fact that the government of Puntland has been moving to a democratic form of governance since 2009. I mention this only because it was my own first assumption. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability is generally not timed, so I don't think it's current operational status affects its notability; same goes for the political details of the situation, or for that matter the reliability of the source (that'd be an RSN discussion; we have plenty of pages on outlets which are unreliable but notable). I'm only noting the independent coverage of the news outlet itself: in sources like the Committee to Project Journalists ([12]), the BBC World Service Trust Research and Learning Group ([13]), and Reporters without Borders ([14]). These all appear to be independent, reliable sources with significant coverage of Horseed Media.
    I agree that some of the Keep arguments are drifting from GNG specifically (my own does mention our usage of it as a reliable source, which isn't particularly relevant and I really didn't need to mention), but I'm pretty sure this source meets WP:GNG and WP:NPERIODICAL (which to the best of my knowledge is the closest matching "news source" notability guideline, since there isn't one for continuously broadcasting news sources like radio/TV). Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 22:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:NTEMP, WP:NSUSTAINED  A quick search brings up 2010 New York Times source covering Horseed Media radio interview with an insurgent warlord and the arrest of Abdifatah Jama Mire, director of Horseed Media by Puntland police. https://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/world/africa/14briefs-PUNTLAND.html. A version of this article appears in print on Aug. 14, 2010, Section A, Page 9 of the New York edition with the headline: Somalia: 5 Soldiers In Puntland Are Killed In Battle With Militants.

The same event was covered in depth, 278 words, by EFE News Service Madrid 14 Aug 2010 https://www.proquest.com/usnews/docview/743985033. A 2019 press statement by Somali Journalists Syndicate, lists Horseed Media at #2 of 8 of their Executive Committee https://sjsyndicate.org/2019/06/22/two-day-sjs-founding-congress-kicks-off-in-mogadishu/ In an article at Proquest, The Washington Post cites Horseed Media:https://www.proquest.com/usnews/docview/1751366554. Sieff, K. (2015). Somalia banned christmas and new year's -- even though it celebrates neither. here's why.: Somali authorities say christmas and new year's celebrations are contrary to islam and could become targets for attacks by islamist militants. Washington, United States Washington: WP Company LLC d/b/a The Washington Post. "We [Islamic scholars] are warning against the celebration of such events, which are not relevant to the principles of our religion," said Sheik Nur Barud Gurhan, deputy chairman of the Supreme Religious Council of Somalia, according to the Somali news agency Horseed Media. Human Rights Watch cite Horseed Media in a report on Attacks on Media Freedom in Somalia https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/somalia0516web_1.pdf Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time •WP:NSUSTAINED <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:NSUSTAINED&redirect=no> •WP:SUSTAINED <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:SUSTAINED&redirect=no> See also: Wikipedia:Notability § Events <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability%22%20%5Cl%20%22Events%22%20%5Co%20%22Wikipedia:Notability> a topic is "notable" in Wikipedia terms only if the outside world has already "taken notice of it". Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. However, sustained coverage is an indicator of notability, as described by notability of events https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/  Wikipedia:NEVENTS%22%20%5Co%20%22Wikipedia:NEVENTS>. Kleebis007

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 09:41, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chenkody[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Chenkody (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)

References (PinCodeIndia not terribly reliable) do not support claims of article. Coordinates are incorrect and a search on Google Maps for Chenkody does not result in an actual village so much as items (bridge, church, school) with the name rather than a designated area. Kazamzam (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:11, 24 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! 08:04, 31 October 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! 09:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The official 2011 Census of India site is dead/can longer be searched properly, however searching the mirror site www.census2011.co.in (can't link - blacklisted, but still useful, and not malicious) provides zero results for the name Chenkody. Searching the purported taluk, Kalkulam Taluk, shows that no entries in the list of villages there have a name that even resembles Chenkody, so it's clear this is not a misspelling or alternate transcription of any census-recognized place. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:15, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) JarrahTree 10:13, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mundijong railway station[edit]

Mundijong railway station (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 item with problem that not every stopping place on the south west main line deserves a separate article - even if there are sources from the history, it is as easily incorporated into locality article JarrahTree 08:23, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - another editor has cleaned up the article, and has rendered it notable and viable due to the potential of the location being an extension of the metropolitan railway system, original item was eminently prodable and deletable. Thanks for the cleanup. JarrahTree 10:03, 7 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) BJóv | talk UTC 09:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Goodwood Cricket[edit]

Goodwood Cricket (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)

Withdraw nomination. Apologies. I didn't realise this has been discussed previously with a keep consensus. Will close the case. Thanks. BJóv | talk UTC 09:24, 7 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:53, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arab-West Foundation[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Arab-West Foundation (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 notable and based on primary sources Iaintbrdpit (talk) 07:29, 7 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! 06:03, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chuca (footballer, born 1994)[edit]

Chuca (footballer, born 1994) (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)

Unable to locate any WP:SIGCOV of this player's career, which does not appear to have been especially significant. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:08, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:08, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:32, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - former footballer who made a total of three appearances in the Portuguese second division, which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. I can only find contract-related club press releases picked up by news outlets like this and this. Nothing indicates that the GNG can be met. Jogurney (talk) 16:29, 10 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:02, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Kahanoff[edit]

Ruth Kahanoff (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:BIO, could not find significant coverage. The sources supplied are all primary. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 06:02, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have prod’d for notability not established because all the article says is John Doe is the Simon Says Professor at Your Town College or Mary Jacobsen is a swimmer who placed tenth at the last Olympics. Almost always someone will tell me those things alone make them notable. When I ask why a swimmer who placed tenth in the Olympics is more notable than an Ambassador, whatever the answer is is one that doesn’t make sense to me. Ambassadors have tremendous powers in their mission countries, including the ability to negotiate treaties, in their mission counties speak for their country’s leader and so on. That makes them more powerful than the college swimmer and depending on current events and the countries involved, significantly more powerful. Bottom line, I am sick and tired of hearing that ambassadors are not inherently notable. I will agree that there are ambassadors that are more more notable than others but to say as an occupation they are not notable is nonsensical. BostonMensa (talk) 01:23, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
then why have over 90 ambassador articles been deleted? LibStar (talk) 01:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is going to unnecessary extremes. Ambassadors are not inherently notable (no need to get sick from this statement!) but often are notable under the WP:GNG. The cleanup hopefully got rid of those articles that were not notable. gidonb (talk) 12:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What you (BostonMensa) say may have been true when the fastest means of communication was to send a letter on horseback, but, in these days of communication at the speed of light, is no longer true. Important decisions and negotiations are made and conducted by leaders directly, rather than via ambassadors. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ambassadors do not automatically get an "inherent" notability freebie just because they exist, but instead must be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourcing — but the references here are all primary sources that were self-published by her own past employers, which is not notability-building sourcing. The way to make an ambassador notable enough for a Wikipedia article is not to use staff profiles on the websites of her own employers as verification that she exists, it's to show evidence that her diplomatic work has made her the subject of coverage in third-party reliable sources, such as media and books. Bearcat (talk) 15:19, 10 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Vicini[edit]

Tommy Vicini (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)

2008 IMDB only cited article. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Claim to notability as the Hamburglar can be verified but I don't think that's enough for notability. Subject's IMDB profile says that most roles are either stand-ins or body doubles. Also, nomination in the profile is his group's nomination rather than his individual contribution. Lenticel (talk) 05:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Wisconsin. Lenticel (talk) 05:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Agree with nomination. -- Dolotta (talk) 12:49, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hamburgler role is likely significant, but there are no sources talking about his role or the individual himself. Oaktree b (talk) 14:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Robble-robble–, er, I mean, Delete Long-standing body double and stand-in, no real roles otherwise. Nate • (chatter) 23:22, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There is a hit at newspapers.com in relation to the subject's theatre role in 1976 when he was 11 years old, but beyond that I haven't found anything else to establish notability. Dflaw4 (talk) 05:35, 9 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! 05:46, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jayatirtha Dasa[edit]

Jayatirtha Dasa (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 GNG, doesn't seem to have any significant independent coverage. MRRaja001 (talk) 06:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant figure in modern Gaudiya Vaishnavism and the Hare Krishna movement/ISKCON in particular. Lots of coverage in independent third-party sources: eg [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21] Dāsānudāsa (talk) 11:47, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:43, 31 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! 05:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm unable to open any of the GBooks sources given, or they are only snippets. From what I see, it appears trivial coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 14:23, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:BASIC & WP:SIGCOV on my accounts. Did a search and seems to have significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Article may need some work but should be kept, not removed.RealPharmer3 (talk) 23:57, 7 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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:41, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Groundwork Collaborative[edit]

Groundwork Collaborative (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 article is somewhat borderline. There are mentions of the group in multiple RS, but there is no significant coverage of the organization itself. The executive director likely meets WP:GNG but does not have an individual article, so it's not possible to merge/redirect. I vote that it be deleted or perhaps draftified. Citrivescence (talk) 03:14, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I'm the editor who created this page. Thanks so much for the feedback - this is my first article so I appreciate it. While the organization doesn't appear to have significant standalone coverage, it does however seem to have quite a few mentions in high quality sources spanning a few years (publications including NYT, Washington Post, NPR, CNN, etc), some of which are recent significant interviews or pieces with staff of the non-profit discussing the organization's work [edit: which are beyond trivial mentions], including:
Searching through Google News for the last year, I see around 20 pages where it appears the majority of news articles are RS. The org also appears to have citations on Google Scholar and Google Books. Given the above, I believe the article generally rises to the level of WP:GNG. Additionally, other organizations that seem to be roughly in the same category of non-profits (liberal economic policy & advocacy) appear alongside this organization (for example, groups listed in these Congressional press releases from Rep. Chuy Garcia or Rep. Katie Porter) have Wikipedia articles, yet appear to lack significant coverage but also have presumably passed the notability threshold, including Take on Wall Street, Small Business Majority and American Economic Liberties Project. With regards to the executive director, I've actually done enough research to create a page for that person, and was looking forward to launching that in the next couple of days. H acton (talk) 17:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:14, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. The article has potential, and notability through RS's has defninitely been established, but I think that it has some due weight and NPOV inaccuracies. Criticism and negative reception for the subject should be attempted to be found and added if RS's cover it, and part of the article definitely does seem like a bit of an advert. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks for the feedback. I've started adding some criticism to the article to ensure it can comply better with a NPOV. Appreciate all the comments to improve it.
H acton (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to see if there is additional support for Keeping or Draftifying.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify seems like a good idea, the creator seems willing to add more sources and further viewpoints. I'd encourage them to continue, this is what keeps wiki alive. Oaktree b (talk) 14:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. I have some doubts this subject meets ORG or GNG as lacking direct detailing, though some coverage has been presented. My initial instinct was to delete, but if the page creator is willing to continue with this, I'd prefer them do it out of mainspace, because IMHO it doesn't meet NPOV or NOTE right now, even with improvements presented as of this datestamp. BusterD (talk) 00:00, 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. If the school has already changed its name to something other than this page title, I don't think a redirect is called for. Liz Read! Talk! 05:40, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Milwaukee Community Cyber High School[edit]

Milwaukee Community Cyber High School (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)

only sources in the article are the school’s website’s pages. fails WP:NSCHOOL. lettherebedarklight〔晚安 おやすみ〕ping me when replying 03:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. @Lettherebedarklight is right here; unable to find SIGCOV. If an article which is suitable for redirecting exists, I would support making it a redirect, but this is definitely a WP:NSCHOOL fail. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:34, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 14:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - to Milwaukee Public Schools. That's pretty much SOP for less than notable US public schools. This is yet another leftover from when we presumed notability for secondary schools. 174.212.208.18 (talk) 19:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable charter school in the MPS system. No redirect needed. Nate • (chatter) 19:37, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So WP:ATD isn't policy any more? Unless you can show this school doesn't exist, your argument is out of policy. The reasons we don't do redirects doesn't hinge on notability. Since the city's name is in the article's title, it isn't confusing. And if you wish to hear other arguments, you might read WP:Redirects are cheap. 174.212.208.18 (talk) 22:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Not for a garden variety charter school; redirects are usually reserved for traditional schools and long-lived and acclaimed charter programs, which this doesn't meet either of them (especially as charter schools can change their name on an owner's whim or a sponsorship, whereas traditional schools require school board and community input). It's not even known as this now, but Central City Cyberschool, so it's an out of date name. I'm usually an advocate to redirect somewhere, but this is a case where it just doesn't deem it. Nate • (chatter) 02:56, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - due to lack of sources, I can't tell whether it passes User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_High_Schools_at_WP:AfD or not. Bearian (talk) 02:43, 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! 05:08, 7 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Algeria–Australia relations[edit]

Algeria–Australia relations (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. The only thing of note in these relations is that Algeria has an embassy in Canberra. My search in English language found no significant coverage of these relations which could include things like state visits, trade and agreements. I would reconsider if someone found something in Arabic. LibStar (talk) 03:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This article is only three sentences long and cites no independent sources. Of the non-independent sources it cites, one of them merely mentions Algeria in the list of the countries that the Australian embassy to France serves, but is primarily about the relationship between Australia and France. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:23, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's no substance to work with; I can find no substantive information to flesh out the article. Joyous! | Talk 05:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Algeria, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 10:42, 7 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:51, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cavin[edit]

Cavin (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:DICDEF, even solely cited to a dictionary, probably not expandable. No objection to a speedy merge if an appropriate target can be identified. BD2412 T 03:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it's determined this is even remotely notable, Merge to Fortification or possibly one of the linked articles there. The main article is a bit of a mess.Intothatdarkness 18:12, 9 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 speedy delete per G3 by Lourdes. (non-admin closure) Shellwood (talk) 10:49, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Fondle McShtabbins[edit]

Sir Fondle McShtabbins (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)

Speedy obvious to be deleted — Moops ⋠T⋡ 02:29, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nah bro please, i know this is a serious place Wodenn (talk) 02:38, 7 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) Enos733 (talk) 02:34, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sicilian Independent Labour Party[edit]

Sicilian Independent Labour Party (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)

Regional party practically unknown and barely mentioned in a few sources, which ran in just one costitituency in Sicily in 1946 with a poor result. It does not meet WP:GNG. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Checco: Even in this case: why notable? Not for its electoral result: it scored just 0.0% of the vote in 1946. The article must be evaluted for the available sources (and I see only a few mentions about it), while I don't honestly see any "valuable information that would be lost" on this article.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:05, 26 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! 22:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment I agree that this political party is pretty small beer but feel that there should be a place in Wikipedia for it, even if it does not merit a standalone article. The founder has a page in Italian Wikipedia...TheLongTone (talk) 14:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think the problem here is that the party would have been referred to by slightly different names. 'Partito Siciliano del Lavoro' gives more hits, and for example https://books.google.at/books?id=VmVHwYA4RBYC&pg=PA75 Separatism, the Allies and the Mafia: The Struggle for Sicilian Independence (p. 75)] outlines that the Allied powers considered the party as a notable actor at the time. The positioning of the party on Sicilian independence during Allied occupation is covered in other literature as well. Is also covered We also find mentions of 'Partito Independentista Siciliano del Lavoro'. --Soman (talk) 16:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep I'm torn about this one because I can find mentions in Google Books but since I can't get more than a snippet I have no idea how substantial the information is about this party. I also have seen, like Soman says, that there may be different versions of the name. Without access to the sources it will not be clear if the source is really about this particular party. I don't think this is an article that can be completed using online searches; it is going to take a trip to a library to find hard-copy sources. Lamona (talk) 02:51, 10 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 speedy keep – withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:52, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anthem for a New Tomorrow[edit]

Anthem for a New Tomorrow (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 album. I could not find any secondary source talking about this album except one short AllMusic review. Roostery123 (talk) 01:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Found additional reviews from Punk News and Exclaim! There's also coverage to be found from Maximum Rocknroll and other zines, not sure the reliability of those though. QuietHere (talk) 07:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:NALBUM. Sources in the article, including the ones presented by QuietHere, are reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 02:36, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Added a notability argument in lede plus a "Reception and influence" section plus some sources from Wikipedia Library. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:29, 12 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 01:13, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

COBOL ReSource[edit]

COBOL ReSource (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:PROMO WP:GNG WP:PROD. Most of the article's text appears to be dedicated to selling the product in question. AtlasDuane (talk) 01:13, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. AtlasDuane (talk) 01:13, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article does not identify what the subject is and I could not find any sources using Google. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 03:08, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can find enough references to it to convince me it's a real thing (e.g. [22] [23]), but none with enough information to be useful as sources. 3mi1y (talk) 08:42, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete appears OR due to lack of sourcing and I can't find much, or would even know what to look for in this case. Oaktree b (talk) 14:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT. The article is essentially just an advertisement for a non-notable subject. Partofthemachine (talk) 03:44, 8 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 01:06, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moqui, Arizona[edit]

Moqui, Arizona (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)

Added to GNIS from a book on "prehistoric irrigation", I have no idea why they thought this could be pinned on a particular spot, especially since almost everyone else thinks "Moqui" is either the name of a tribe or something someone made up one day. Essentially unsearchable but really I see no reason to think this indicates a real spot, though I must admit that I have not been able to gain access to the source work. Mangoe (talk) 01:06, 7 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 01:06, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Claudette Lali[edit]

Claudette Lali (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)

Journeywoman actress who does not have the credits to satisfy WP:NACTOR nor the media attention for WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:06, 7 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 00:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Terrence K. Williams[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Terrence K. Williams (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)

Insufficient sourcing to establish notability. Previous article about this subject was deleted in June 2020 and nothing has changed since then. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:19, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:19, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 01:14, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks in-depth coverage in independent references to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:42, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only new thing appears to be a passing mention in a news story that he tweeted false information about something. Nothing of significance has changed since the last go-around. XOR'easter (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:BASIC There are more references to be added. Lightburst (talk) 19:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article currently cites (1) his personal webpage, (2) his authored book, (3) WP:NEWSWEEK, (4) a WaPo article that I can't read but appears to be a passing mention, and (5) a passing mention in Fox News. If this is representative of the other references to be added, he doesn't meet BASIC. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete scattered mentions about his comedy act and where he's appeared on stage. Nothing about the author part. Five citations for meeting Trump is a bit much; ref stacking usually means you aren't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He is name-checked in articles about Trump and MAGA as a pro-Trump black comedian who tweets. He's obviously well known in those circles, but I don't find sources that would meet notability here. Lamona (talk) 02:45, 10 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 00:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ladakh Ecological Development and Environmental Group[edit]

Ladakh Ecological Development and Environmental Group (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:ORG. Limited coverage in gnews and gbooks. LibStar (talk) 00:06, 7 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_7&oldid=1121936215"