Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 October 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 23	October 25 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Young Global Leaders[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. While plenty of "sources" exist, they are almost uniformly non-independent, PR, insignificant, or promotional in nature. This topic does not have sufficient significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:39, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Politics. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:39, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough independent sources. Like: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] This topic meets GNG.🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 08:04, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, keep, I guess--but I did some major pruning. The sourcing is not so strong that it warrants the kind of content it had. Drmies (talk) 00:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

People NEED to know who is a part of the WEF, and I very much suspect that's exactly why it's going to be deleted. 2A00:23C6:F494:8501:30ED:F594:DFA4:58FC (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you NEED to keep track of Young Global Leaders for conspiratorial purposes, the WEF itself has a full database, which I'm sure has been archived in many places. The question on Wikipedia is whether the content is notable enough to be encyclopedic. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep the Subject seems important to an extent. I have analyzed the article, and saw that it is notable enough. And, can be kept.Ploreky^{Have a problem?} 17:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Malo95 and Drmies. There appears to be just enough significant coverage in reliable independent sources to cross the notability threshold. Sal2100 (talk) 17:30, 28 October 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!} 08:19, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trojan Construction Group[edit]

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

I bring this to AFD as according to my opinion, the notability of the corporation is questionable per WP:CORP. From the sources used, all or nearly all of the sources are routine coverage of what the company is doing, and most are discussing about buildings/projects that the company made, and not about the company itself. Some sources also discuss about Alpha Dhabi Holding, which is the company holding this company. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 23:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 01:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 01:18, 18 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!} 23:31, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- agree with nom, almost all sources are about Trojan Holding (now renamed Alpha Dhabi Holding), the parent company. The only source that's clearly about the Trojan Construction Group is this one, and that's not enough to meet NCORP. The sources about the buildings/projects don't seem to mention TCG at all. Alyo (chat·edits) 16:01, 25 October 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!} 23:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

T. R. Kesavan[edit]

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

Does not meet the general notability guideline or NPROF. Weak coverage, not sufficient for a stand alone article. MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as I said when I prodded it, not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional puff. I didn’t find any in depth coverage in RIS. Mccapra (talk) 07:01, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Shellwood (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete: As MaxnaCarta said. Contributor008 (talk) 04:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I don't want to be a Deletionist, but it seems not notable enough. Person doesn't have atleast 1 independent source about him and not a WP:PASSING that can prove his notability. Ploreky^{Have a problem?} 17:20, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not enough in-depth coverage as onel5959 and Mccapra mentioned. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:49, 29 October 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!} 06:36, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ife Bell[edit]

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

Insufficient RS coverage found. The DailyGuide Network may be a RS, but the other sources do not seem like they meet our independent RS requirement and I was unable to find sufficient coverage by searching. (t · c) buidhe 22:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Ghana, and United States of America. (t · c) buidhe 22:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ping AmirŞah, WaddlesJP13 who already commented on the notability of the article. (t · c) buidhe 22:14, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Can someone (maybe the nominator) elaborate on her position as Zosimli Naa? What does this title mean? pburka (talk) 22:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like Zosimli Naa (or Zo-simli Naa) is a semi-honorary title in Tamale, Ghana, translated as "Chief of Friendship". The first Zosimli Naa, a white American woman, Doctor Susan J. Herlin, was enskinned in 1995,[7] and Ife Bell Tipag'ya succeeded her following Herlin's death in 2014.[8] It looks like Kennedy S. Johnson might have also held the title in 2021.[9] I don't think the position itself confers automatic notability, but the title is notable, I think. If someone creates the Zo-simli Naa page before this AfD runs its course, I propose redirecting this page there. pburka (talk) 00:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SIGCOV. The only reason for being notable is her position, Zosimli Naa. Because of importance of her position she is not notable, as fails WP:POLITICIAN. Nasin3030 (talk) 12:54, 18 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!} 22:45, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speady and Strong Delete Does not in any way seem relevant and in any way notable. If education or job does make her in a little bit notable, then my Mom is more notable than her. hahahahaPloreky^{Have a problem?}

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:50, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vonve Isaac Blessing[edit]

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

I don't think this 7-year old beauty pageant contender meets WP:GNG nor WP:NBEAUTY. The sourcing consists of a Twitter post, an interview, a blog post, and an unverifiable post (I'm getting a blank page). It seems that none of the pageants she has competed in are notable. Perhaps in a few years she may be notable, but not now (a BEFORE search did not reveal any SIGCOV.) Bringing it here for the community to decide. Netherzone (talk) 21:49, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Beauty pageants. Netherzone (talk) 21:49, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 21:51, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no evidence for passing WP:GNG or WP:NBEAUTY. Nasin3030 (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This article was already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. It's confusing as it is not clear when or why the article was de-PROD'd but it's obvious it was PROD'd so that makes it ineligible.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources found, cute kid, unsure it's suitable for an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 22:56, 24 October 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 Bobo Craxi. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Area[edit]

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

Page about a tiny personal political organization, with no sources, that doesn't meet WP:Notability. In practice, the article merely states that this political organization exists / has existed. At most it could be merged with Bobo Craxi's article. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The party, though small, existed and played a role in Italian centre-left politics. It is beneficial to have a specific article on the subject, but, if no consensus is achieved on keeping it, I hope it can at least be merged into Italian Socialist Party (2007). Please note that AS was a split of the PSI and later its members returned to the PSI. --Checco (talk) 04:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What role has this (unknown) organization played? It is only a personal organization that exclusively concerns Bobo Craxi (it doesn't concern PSI, because for the history of the latter it is irrelevant at all), and honestly I am not aware that it has played any role in any context... In practice, in the article it is written only that this organization existed. Could you explain the role played by this organization?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:35, 6 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!} 22:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Checco I don't want to be pressing, but you still haven't answered my question: I'd like you to prove your statement that this organization has "played a role in Italian centre-left politics" (and where is the benefit of keeping this page, if the same page tells nothing).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:37, 14 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!} 21:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bobo Craxi's article due to missing WP:Notability & Single sourced article. The citations has also social media pages.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pranesh Ravikumar (talk • contribs) 16:00, 18 ott 2022 (UTC)

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!} 22:34, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bobo Craxi as it is essentially synonymous with his person. Mangoe (talk) 03:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shaka Smith[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. --Ferien (talk) 19:00, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --Ferien (talk) 19:00, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 19:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:23, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added information - doesn’t warrant deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8002:B40:470D:68FA:A2D1:E9DA:2A5B (talk) 00:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a problem with a lack of information, this is a problem about the topic not being notable enough for Wikipedia. --Ferien (talk) 17:38, 15 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!} 20:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decorated fit career, featured in every major us fit publication and major entertainment pubs (ok mag, radar etc), award winning podcast host & verified Instagram influencer with nearly one million followers across platforms with credits in major tv shows - article should remain. 2603:8002:B40:470D:DCD:2336:4CA:F2A4 (talk) 02:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hoping for some more feedback here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article comes across as promotional (possibly UPE?) Mostly sourced to interviews and tabloid-type coverage. Lean delete.-KH-1 (talk) 04:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Shaka gives many interviews, but there are no articles about him and noting in reliable sources either. Some are trivial mentions. Oaktree b (talk) 00:11, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shray Rai Tiwari[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Bbb23 (talk) 20:31, 17 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!} 22:26, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails any notability criteria.Ploreky^{Have a problem?} 17:25, 28 October 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. I read the consensus here as coming to the conclusion that being awarded a CBE is not sufficient to establish notability. Those who disagree are free to take this decision to WIkipedia:Deletion review. If there is an RFC on a policy page that concludes that awards like a CBE are enough to establish notability, I'll be glad to restore this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clifford Mayhew Dodkins[edit]

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

Was deprodded without improvement with the comment, "Doesn't need deleting. He is very well known in militaria collecting circles". However searches did not turn up enough coverage to show that this officer meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and United Kingdom. dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 15:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why delete it? It's a perfectly valid article and of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S9036408 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Held the CBE, which has always been considered to meet the criteria of WP:ANYBIO #1. See here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, is there are policy you can point to that CBE alone means automatically notability? If there is, I'm happy to speedy close.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:18, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear precedent that it passes the notability guideline WP:ANYBIO, as I have illustrated. Only one person with a CBE has ever been deleted at AfD, and they undoubtedly shouldn't have been. CBEs are not given out in cornflakes packets. Only about 100 are awarded every year in a country of over 60 million people. If these people are not notable under ANYBIO #1, then who is? -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Receiving multiple notable awards, can be a reason for passing WP:ANYBIO. ZanciD (talk) 19:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)(sock strike Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:14, 24 October 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 02:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if he does (and I would dispute the author of three notable books in his field does), that's irrelevant per the clear wording of WP:BIO given he clearly passes WP:ANYBIO. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:14, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, as others have pointed out his award(s) are not high enough to satisfy ANYBIO. Mztourist (talk) 10:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, nobody has said that apart from you. Of course the CBE is high enough. To claim otherwise is to completely misunderstand the British honours system. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See others who agree with me below. Your collection of old deletion discussions doesn't convince me. Mztourist (talk) 14:26, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One person, after you posted what you posted above. Hardly old. Precedent is important. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus changes, just like how SOLDIER was deprecated. Mztourist (talk) 03:06, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: As of first line of WP:ANYBIO, he is notable as The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor. Contributor008 (talk) 09:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - nowhere does policy state that recipients of several lower level (meaning not the top two levels) of civilian/military awards, automatically qualify for notability. For example, the Purple Heart is both well known and significant. Yet we would not suggest that every soldier who has two Purple Hearts would be notable.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The Purple Heart is merely received for being unlucky enough to be wounded, not for any sort of achievement. This doesn't even merit a badge in many countries, let alone a medal. It's not in any way significant. But the salient fact here is his CBE, a very high award. He also received the DSO, a second-level military gallantry/leadership award. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:56, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Okay, then say the Bronze Star Medal. And again, please show policy. I understand your viewpoint, and would have been to speedy close it if you had earlier (can't now), but viewpoints are not policy. Again, if there was an individual, who's only claim to fame was having won 2 Defense Distinguished Service Medals, that would not be enough to show notability. So please, point to the policy. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Two fourth-level awards? No, doesn't establish notability. But WP:CONSENSUS is also important. Written policy is not the be all and end all on Wikipedia. And consensus is clear, established over many years and many AfDs. Again, we're talking about a single award meeting ANYBIO, not multiple awards. The DSO merely adds to the notability. It doesn't establish it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  
  I'd suggest you brush up on the Purple Heart. It was the first military decoration awarded in a systematic way by the US government, and 'merely' being wounded in combat is more significant than the Bronze Star (without V), the Air Medal, and a number of other awards routinely trotted out as notable. If nothing else the Purple Heart can establish an individual's service in a combat zone. The Bronze Star (without V) does not. Intothat darkness 21:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I'll repeat, in most countries being wounded doesn't merit any award at all. The fact the USA does award a medal for it doesn't make it a significant award. Wrong place, wrong time, that's it. Not awarded for any sort of merit. The Bronze Star and Air Medal fall into much the same category, incidentally. No more than fourth-level awards at best, if that. No idea why we're mentioning them on the same page as the CBE, a high and relatively rare award for military or civilian achievement, or the DSO, a second-level military award for leadership or gallantry. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:49, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  There's no indication in the article his DSO was awarded for any specific event or action. To me it smacks of the "end of tour" packages that became common during the Vietnam War for officers above a certain grade (with the assumption they must have done something worthy of recognition during their tour...or just to pad their portfolios depending on which source you consult). Intothat darkness 14:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in absence of further sourcing. I'm not convinced by the CBE-based argument (i.e. that it's sufficiently high for an automatic unambiguous notability). And in any case it's an additional criteria of which we are told meeting one or more [additional criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included. On a fundamental level, there simply doesn't appear to exist the prerequisite sourcing for a reasonably sourced article to be written about him. I'd be amenable to a merge/redirect, but I'm not sure of a suitable target.

As an aside, the article's use of images to pad the page is rather annoying and masks how the text largely just repeats the same few bits of information multiple times (compare "Written works" and "Bibliography"). I've WP:BOLDly removed most images and floated those that remain. I didn't touch the prose for now, but even if kept a significant cleanup (likely to a stub) is needed. -Ljleppan (talk) 07:04, 13 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!} 20:11, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mainly per Ljleppan. I remain unconvinced by the CBE and DSO-based arguments. Would certainly not oppose a merge or redirect if a suitable target was identified (something relating to militaria collecting, perhaps). Intothat darkness 14:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting once more. This discussion seems to have narrowed on the sole question of whether being awarded a CBE is sufficient to establish notability and Keep this article. Is there any rebuttal of whether or not WP:ANYBIO applies here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:19, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, CBE does not rise to the level of ANYBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete It seems that this person holds some importance, and can be deemed notable. But from current situations, I doubt. Please convince me otherwise Ploreky^{Have a problem?} 17:30, 28 October 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. There is consensus against this existing, and there does not appear to be clear consensus to split the material. If the latter changes, happy to provide it in draft for merging and attribution purposes. Star Mississippi 17:06, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest structures in Yugoslavia[edit]

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

I used to think that this list would be a nice historical list, but people keep adding modern-day structures to it, so it becomes a hodgepodge of anachronistic information. The navbox it's in says it's about a "region", but unfortunately, the former Yugoslav region is not a well-defined region in Europe so this is rather moot. But most importantly, it looks like the list itself is still a WP:SYNTH violation - the article doesn't reference secondary sources that talk about lists of structures in Yugoslavia, it's just a bit of original research by overzealous Wikipedia editors. Ultimately, I don't really think there's any typical English readers who would ask the question "what were the tallest structures in a specific multi-ethnic country that had existed in the 20th century in the Balkans", so this is generally pointless. If there was an article about architecture in Yugoslavia that went into detail about this general topic, this might be a nice addendum, but as is, it's just weird. Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Lists, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia, Slovenia, and Yugoslavia. Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment before we proceed with deletion, would it make sense to take it apart and create per-republic lists of tallest structures? Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, North Macedonia and Slovenia only have pages for tallest buildings. Serbia has a page for tallest structures, just a quick check is needed whether all of them are there. Finally, Kosovo has both and Montenegro has neither. -Vipz (talk) 02:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the content from here can be used there, sure. I'm not sure if each of those topics is necessarily verifiable and notable, though. Is there secondary source coverage for this in turn? In either case, it's easy to preserve the content outside of article space for later. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 06:11, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Split and delete per above. -Vipz (talk) 13:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that the architecture link turned blue, so there is an article about the more general topic, but it doesn't mention height of structures at all, so if there's some sources to discuss that, a section can be started there perhaps. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 06:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It turned blue because I remembered that the article for architecture of Yugoslavia existed, and made architecture in Yugoslavia a redirect to it. I think it would be fine to have a paragraph or section dealing with tallest structures/buildings in that article - just like this one does. -Vipz (talk) 00:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there are more similar lists of other countries then nominate them too for deletion. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 06:22, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only other former country with such list is Soviet Union: List of tallest structures built in the Soviet Union. -Vipz (talk) 00:02, 14 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!} 19:56, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it can be kept as a list that only includes structure built during Yugoslav times, Keep. If it is just an aggregation of tallest structure lists in all the successor states, then Delete. The Soviet Union list Vipz linked seems like a useful article. --Local hero ^talk 21:09, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The key difference is that Soviet Union was a global superpower, so even relatively niche aspects of it can be presumed to be notable. SFRY, not so much. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:40, 22 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!} 22:03, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 04:47, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:50, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Intel Technology Journal[edit]

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

It was an in-house technical journal focussing on Intel products which only existed for a few years. No indication of notability on the page, few mentions elsewhere and there has been a notability tag on the page for years. JMWt (talk) 19:20, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:31, 18 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!} 22:01, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just a primary source. There is no compliance with the GNG. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 01:39, 25 October 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!} 23:16, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario 3 Special[edit]

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

Procedural nomination after closing Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 17 § Super Mario 3 Special as "restore and send to AfD". Some ancient history:

Prodded 31 August 2006 (3 minutes after creation) by RobJ1981
Converted to merge proposal to Super Mario Bros. Special (itself BLAR'd to Super Mario Bros. § Super Mario Bros. Special by Abryn in 2009) by SNS 25 minutes later
After the creator and one other opposed on talk, 216.43.51.147 removed the merge proposal on 3 September 2006. (N.B. That was the only edit ever made by the user concurring on talk.)
BLAR'd to Super Mario Bros. 3 by A Man In Black on 15 October 2006 with rationale One of countless HK specials, no real notability, redirecting
After 8 months of edit-warring, things settled on maintaining that redirect

The RfD close should be read as consensus against redirecting to Super Mario Bros. 3. I bring to AfD the question of whether this article should be kept, deleted, or redirected/merged to some other target. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:53, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable and isn’t and will never be covered in the Super Mario Bros. 3 article. This is also not a commonly used alternate name for Mario 3 so a redirect is unnecessary.--65.92.162.81 (talk) 01:14, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sure if this is a vanity article, but it definitely does not meet WP:GNG. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:35, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not independently notable, not likely to be mentioned at the redirect target any time soon considering the lack of reliable sourcing. Not particularly likely to change any time soon, considering its unofficial, obscure, and old. Sergecross73 msg me 16:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, and im not sure if writing about piracy materials is allowed on wp. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 18:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See: Somari. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 16:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Eh.... I"d say that's more of a bootleg version of Sonic than an actual pirated version. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:08, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely sure of the distinction you're trying to make here, but regardless, yes, it's fine write about illegal things, just as long isn't linking to illegal things through sourcing, external links, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 02:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources within the article. Most likely fails notability. Despite that we are allowed to write articles about pirated versions of video games as long they pass notability. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 16:52, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources at all in the article, non-notable since it seems to just be a bootleg version of the game for Gameboy that basically no one knows about. Had a template saying it exists on Wikiquote which I deleted since it does not exist on Wikiquote (it wouldn't have any reason to anyways, it's a video game, there are no quotes really). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Contains no sources and isn't notable. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:53, 29 October 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 Sterilization (microbiology)#Chemical sterilization. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical sterilisation[edit]

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

This is redundant. It tries to cover two subjects that already have their own articles. Balnibarbarian (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 October 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:37, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a very badly structured disambiguation page. I suggest either keeping it and rewriting it to match the structure of a disambiguation page or redirecting it to the more well-known meaning (probably making people infertile). RPI2026F1 (talk) 20:32, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and convert to WP:DAB. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 22:52, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll rework it, then. Balnibarbarian (talk) 12:20, 26 October 2022 (UTC) Actually, there is already a disambiguation page for sterilization.Balnibarbarian (talk) 12:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~Sterilization~~ Sterilization (microbiology)#Chemical sterilization. The content currently on the page reads like dictionary content (WP:NOTDICT) and the dab at sterilization already covers the topics here. There doesn't seem to be enough unique content about chemical sterilization to demand a separate dab, seems reasonable to WP:DABCOMBINE. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 19:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Chemical castration should probably be added to that dab if this is done though (as a hatnote or see also). Chemical castration isn't a form of sterilization scientifically speaking, but in common usage sterilize (in the medical biology sense) and castrate are sometimes used as interchangable synonyms. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 16:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also fine with Sterilization (microbiology)#Chemical sterilization as a redirect target here. It's been established that Sterility (physiology) has no mention of chemical sterilization and Chemosterilant seems like it might be an intention but I don't know enough about the topic to be sure and either way the first article seems like the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 02:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A content fork. We have sterilization (microbiology) covering this subject.My very best wishes (talk) 03:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sterilization (microbiology)#Chemical sterilization. The proposed disambiguation page does not work because the other article (Sterility (physiology)) does not mention the word "chemical" anywhere so would fail WP:DABMENTION, and I agree with everyone else that the current content fails as an article. I don't strongly object to targeting the disambiguation page Sterilization instead, but think the microbiology target is slightly better. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sterilization (microbiology)#Chemical sterilization, per * Pppery *. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 20:26, 30 October 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!} 23:19, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unintentional (2022)[edit]

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

Non-notable short film. The article initially claimed that the film won three international awards but that's misleading. First, the festival in question (the Black Swan International Film Festival) is itself not notable and it awards prizes in dozens of categories every month. On top of that, the festival doles out (for each of the dozens of categories and for every month) a number of Outstanding Achievement Awards which seem to act as consolation prizes. This is what Unintentional received. I don't think this meets WP:GNG. Pichpich (talk) 19:06, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:15, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable film and the google search on this film only comes up with the wikipedia article and a IMB article.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 04:57, 30 October 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!} 08:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kundo Phooler Mala[edit]

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

Disputed draftification without improvement. Fails WP:GNG, no significant coverage in reliable sources exists. W 42 17:59, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. W 42 17:59, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, if the infobox figure of 211 episodes is to be believed, then you'd wonder if there is anything approaching WP:SIGCOV in Bengali language. I don't think the creator should have reverted the draft move though and I am probably leaning delete, although can't reliably search bengali sources to outright say if notability can be asserted. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:56, 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]

Delete Well, it has no article in any other language wiki, and I'm not using Gtranslate for every source that pops up to see if it is A-a RS, and B-pertinent to the discussion. If you can't source it properly, AfD isn't here to re-write it for you. Could draftify (again) I suppose, but it seems like we've been down that path already. Oaktree b (talk) 19:29, 24 October 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!} 06:53, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of offenses under the Criminal Code of Republic of China[edit]

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

This isn't an encyclopedia article, it's a table of contents copy-pasted from a Chinese legal code. Largoplazo (talk) 11:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law. Largoplazo (talk) 11:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 11:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't know how I feel about the notability of this as a subject, but at the least it should be draftified until it's translated and can be checked for potential copyright issues. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 16:41, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:07, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To be a valid list, it must be in English and sourced. My very best wishes (talk) 03:10, 29 October 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chilinda District[edit]

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

the district is inexistent; Internet search results do not report anything on the topic; the article says it was "proposed to be created" 5 years ago but it has not been mentioned on any news source or even by Zambia's government from that time. GeographicAccountant (talk) 17:40, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Africa. Shellwood (talk) 18:29, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The creator is a long-banned user, who was notorious for mass-generating articles from lists in generally unreliable sources. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is one in a list of "articles" on geographical subdivisions, helpfully listed on his user page. (These were generated over an interval of 12 seconds!) Could someone who knows the subject matter please check if there are other problematic or nonsensical entries... Imaginatorium (talk) 05:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Imaginatorium All the other articles he created on Zambia represent existing districts, as shown on the Districts of Zambia article. This is the only one that needs to be deleted. GeographicAccountant (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's fine then. Thanks for your work on this... Imaginatorium (talk) 17:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete wikipedia is not telling the future. 24.138.27.215 (talk) 11:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: This district has not been created and will not be. The Only place from all Google Searches where this "proposed district" has been mentioned is on this "Zambian Parliament Session" (Link 1) from the 10th of March 2017. From that time, the Government of Zambia has not said a word about that (or at least "sources" cannot be found) and the User who created Chilinda District should have confirmed properly if that "proposal" will actually take place. It's now 2022, with a different President & Cabinet & there is still no talk about the creation of this district. So, if all the available Geographical Sources say that there is No District of Zambia with this name (& that there are no "plans" to allocate any land area as a new district), then this article "should not exist" on any online website, including Wikipedia. GeographicAccountant (talk) 17:24, 20 October 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!} 19:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by population in 1950[edit]

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

Empty list created by now-indeffed ASTRO Clifford. The article was prodded on 9 October, then deprodded on 14 October, before the entire list was axed as OR on 16 October. – dudhhr (1 enby in a trenchcoat)^talk _contribs (he/they) 18:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – dudhhr (1 enby in a trenchcoat)^talk _contribs (he/they) 18:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. – dudhhr (1 enby in a trenchcoat)^talk _contribs (he/they) 18:19, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. On the face if it, it would appear that an article on List of countries by population in 1950 would be a good thing. This, however isn't it. I could go into considerable detail about the many things wrong with the data in the article (before I blanked it), but suffice to say it is full of material which is either WP:OR, badly sourced, or lacking any source at all. And furthermore, it has to be asked whether such a definitive list could ever be created, in accordance with Wikipedia policy. The essential issue is that there appear to be relatively few even remotely complete sources for such data, all seem to be problematic in one way or another (even the best are inevitably estimates, not least because census data is rarely available for the relevant year), and any attempt to combine such sources into a single table inevitably involves the sort of picking and chosing that WP:OR policy forbids. The best we could probably come up with would be a list of lists of countries by population in 1950, each cited to a different source. Definitive data for the period apparently doesn't exist, and we shouldn't be constructing articles around the premise that it does. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. If someone wants to re-create a version of this article that doesn't have WP:OR like this article, and all of the other articles by this creator that were deleted. But nothing worth saving from the current OR packed version of this article. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see the point, was there something special about 1950? It was the mid-century point I suppose, but seems rather random. Oaktree b (talk) 19:33, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete under WP:TNT. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:41, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Category:Lists of countries by population by year has other articles like this one. Should they all be nominated at once for the same problem? There should be somewhere on the United Nations website or other legitimate sources showing the world population year by year. Picking a year the first census done before and after World War 2 would make sense perhaps. Or an article showing time periods where the human population rapidly dropped do to war or disease, could be a valid list. Dream Focus 22:49, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should similar lists be nominated? Quite possibly, in that the dogs-breakfast mixed-source/WP:OR approach seen in the 1950 list is sadly far from unique. As for what legitimate sources have to say on the matter, the U.S. Census Bureau has estimated population data for 1950 in its database. It also has this to say about the validity of such data: Total midyear population estimates and projections in the IDB are available for 1950 onward for all current countries whether or not they existed in 1950. The data and methods through which the 1950 populations were developed vary depending on the availability of data for each country. For many statistically less developed and lower income countries, modern censuses were not conducted until the 1960s or 1970s, and reliable population data therefore are not available. (from [10] p 38). A reliable source saying that data to create a comprehensive and accurate list for 1950 doesn't exist... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the census data quoted above. Doesn’t appear that such a list is currently possible for the time period. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:E55D:FE90:B92:110F (talk) 23:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't looked into the source material closely, but obviously there is going to be a (very recent) point which should mark the earliest possible time populations can be so comprehensively estimated. AndyTheGrump's quote above suggests 1960s/1970s and that seems reasonable. I note the existence of Estimates of historical world population, which does seem a reasonable topic, and would suggest it be considered that all earlier lists be deleted, or if they contain anything useful, merged and redirected to that article. CMD (talk) 05:34, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd not seen that article. Given that it seems to cover the topic appropriately, both citing credible sources and going into significant detail over the uncertainties involved - which the 'List' articles singularly fail to do, in addition to all their other faults - the suggestion that the other lists be deleted and redirected seems entirely sensible. Frankly, I'd be surprised if there was anything much of significance which required merger. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as with all creations by this editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:09, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm in agreement with most of what the editors above have said. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think we need a separate article for census of every single year. -TheodoreIndiana (talk) 12:11, 31 October 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!} 19:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speech of Rishi Sunak[edit]

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

No notability for this future speech, and a much too generic title. Please don't create articles for things which might become notable but are far from certain to be really important (we have very few "speech of" articles, and no obvious precedent that British PM acceptance speeches are obviously notable subjects). Fram (talk) 15:21, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 15:21, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Per nom, don't make speculative nonsense like this. There is no notability evident, and there is zero reason to assume an acceptance speech will need its own article when it can be covered in the election article and/or his own article. Not aware of any other such articles on these. Reywas92^Talk 15:35, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Little chance (and easy enough to make one then if so) it will be notable enough to merit its own article. Skynxnex (talk) 17:44, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete CRYSTALBALL [11]. Based on the last two that held his post, he might not last long enough to have an impact. Oaktree b (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bog-standard and expected speeches don't get articles. Nate • (chatter) 21:32, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete oer Mrschimpf. Wikipedia is not a directory of politician's speeches. Create a new wiki for them. WP:NOT. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Speeches are not worthy of their own wikipedia articles unless they will make a historic event. Which is very unlikely nowadays. Ploreky^{Have a problem?} 14:35, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His speech is typical politician speech, nothing historical or very notable. Politicians will make speech from time to time, and almost all of them will be non-historic. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 16:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no evidence that this is anything other than a standard speech made by an incoming Prime Minister and there was nothing in it likely to be considered of major historic significance. If it was felt any coverage of it was needed it could easily be made at the Rishi Sunak article. Dunarc (talk) 22:45, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Run of the mill and not independently notable. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:13, 29 October 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. UtherSRG (talk) 21:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

George A. Lane[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPROF. UtherSRG (talk) 15:08, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - brrrr... WP:SNOW is here! - UtherSRG (talk) 21:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Authors. UtherSRG (talk) 15:08, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Thriley (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to pass WP:AUTHOR criteria 3 due to the multiple reviews. CT55555 (talk) 15:49, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found and added even more published book reviews. Easy pass of WP:AUTHOR (although I think this comes under #4c rather than #3). —David Eppstein (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The many book reviews now present, several of which were also present when this was prodded, represent a clear pass of WP:AUTHOR. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep David Eppstein has found evidence this is a notable author. Dream Focus 10:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:AUTHOR. Thank you David Eppstein for all the additional sourcing! Thriley (talk) 19:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:UtherSRG this seems clearly like a WP:SNOW keep. Would you be willing to withdraw the deletion suggestion? CT55555 (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed & done - UtherSRG (talk) 21:38, 25 October 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!} 19:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jaineeraj Rajpurohit[edit]

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

Indian actor fails WP:NBIO with no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:59, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:00, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete All the news links on this page are all promotion links,fail WP:RS reading the news reference clearly shows that Jaineeraj has to resort to the name of a big actor to make him notable. Lionfox0909 (talk) 15:35, 24 October 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!} 19:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SuzanMarie[edit]

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

Not finding evidence that the subject will pass WP:GNG & WP:NACTOR, after combing included sources, only two have enough content to potentially pass as significant coverage: ibtimes (unreliable per WP:RSP) and The National Era.

I don't know much about TNE (besides that the name is the same as an 1847 Washington newspaper) but the little research I did does not inspire confidence: No mentions of editorial responsibility or easy-to-find address, it's a wordpress site, established in 2021 (Archive.org backs this as well) with some leftover test pages to boot (found by navigating to the generic "author" URL) and questionably generic author names ("George A").

Given that, and my failed source search, this will need better sources to be brought up to satisfy our notability requirements. ASUKITE 14:35, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, Film, Television, and Australia. ASUKITE 14:35, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, concur with the nom on the unreliability of the cited sources, the only other thing I could find from a search was this local news story, which is very clearly paid churnalism in any case. Devonian Wombat (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I make no comment with regard to the subject's career as an author, director or produced, but with respect to her acting career, this seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Dflaw4 (talk) 09:18, 27 October 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!} 19:08, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Burak Bulut & Kurtuluş Kuş[edit]

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

Single year-old band that was cross-wiki created by ~~a few users~~ the same user during the past two days. No albums, no major awards or chart listings. Meets none of the WP:NMUSIC criteria apart from maybe #10 for their appearance in Ibo Show, and meeting that alone is not enough as explained in the sentence after it. The sources aren't good either. A few of them are in "Kimdir?" style, which are considered to be unreliable due to their lack of editorial oversight, regardless of the publisher. Refs 4, 6, 8, 11 and 13 are from local websites that can't be used to establish notability as they tend to write these articles in return of some money. Onedio (ref 12) is similar to Forbes contributors and should not be used for anything. Ref 14 is about a car crash that doesn't mention either of the members. The "breaking the Turkish record" is not verified by either of the sources given for it inline. Refs 5 and 17 are from reliable publishers about the same thing, but are only a few sentences long each, which isn't significant coverage. This only leaves us with refs 2 and 3, both from reliable publishers. The problem is that these two are a word for word copy of each other, so it's actually a single source. When you filter out the quotes and bits that are about Eypio, you only get the songs they sang during the concert. Without a single reliable, independent and significant source, this band also fails the GNG. Just regular spam of a non-notable band, machine translated into a few other projects. ~Styyx^Talk? 14:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Turkey. ~Styyx^Talk? 14:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with above, zilch for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to satisfy the requirements of WP:NMUSIC. Dan arndt (talk) 04:09, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Turkey's famous singers, the first Turk Ane has been downloaded more than a billion times.And for that, they have received an award.--Hshtag (talk) 00:20, 28 October 2022 (UTC) — Hshtag (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

^{[citation needed]} ~Styyx^Talk? 10:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Kadı Message 18:28, 29 October 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!} 19:08, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Engesser Junction, Arizona[edit]

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

A spot where some dirt roads come together, according to the tops. Other than that I have nothing at all. Mangoe (talk) 13:54, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Skynxnex (talk) 13:57, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find nothing of significance. Hog Farm _Talk 16:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable road junction. –dlthewave ☎ 18:20, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet requirements to pass WP:GNG Idunnox3 (talk) 23:12, 30 October 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!} 19:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Top10.com[edit]

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

The article is written like an advert, but of course that is a reason to improve, not delete. Looking at the sourcing however, there is only trivial coverage of routine announcements. The most in-depth coverage from a reliable source is probably the Guardian piece, which is just a few sentences long; the rest is just rehashed press releases. I have been unable to find better sources, so conclude that WP:NCORP (particularly WP:CORPDEPTH) is not satisfied. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:20, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites, Israel, and United Kingdom. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:20, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources don't establish notability. Fairly obvious product of paid editing, too. - MrOllie (talk) 12:35, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons above. The Guardian is probably the best one, but it's short. Rest are trivial coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 12:58, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I came across the site serval times and I wondered what is the story behind it I tried to collect all the pieces into one coherent article. I really liked the story I found, and after reading couple of similar wiki-articles (example1, example2, example3), I created this one.

I didn't get paid for writing it, I don't receive any benefit from it beside feeling proud :-) Yaniv unger (talk) 14:20, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The promotion problem is essentially excessive text. Not a biggie. If the topic was notable, we would fix the article. However, it looks like WP:NN. That's the key problem. No use to cleaning up an article that does not belong here. gidonb (talk) 15:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Guardian article counts toward notability but isn't sufficient for keep. If more articles are found, I may change my opinion. gidonb (talk) 01:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:15, 29 October 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 Pipes & Flowers. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 11:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Labyrinth (Elisa song)[edit]

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

Unsourced, found no additional coverage. Redirect to Pipes & Flowers (although that article is also highly questionable; haven't got time to check right now though). QuietHere (talk) 10:57, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Italy. QuietHere (talk) 10:57, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pipes & Flowers. This was released in the days before the official FIMI charts which is why there's no chart position, but regardless of that, it doesn't appear to have charted on the Musica e dischi charts which existed before that. However, the parent album did reach the top ten on M&D and has been certified triple platinum in Italy, so it's more likely that sources exist for it and that it's a valid redirect target. Richard3120 (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pipes & Flowers. Fails WP:NSONG lacks any reliable sources. Dan arndt (talk) 03:58, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pipes & Flowers. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 05:13, 29 October 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!} 19:19, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Parson[edit]

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

Fails WP:PERP (and WP:BLPCRIME). Not notable apart from the accusations, and not convicted, so shouldn't have an article. Fram (talk) 09:46, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Washington, D.C.. Fram (talk) 09:46, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I started the article because he was a respected out gay officer but almost everything I found is about his recent arrest. There are sources out there calling him a hero before his arrest but they are c

crowded oit right now. One of the sources talks about it. but I was so exhausted I WAS HAVING trouble. I’ll keep working on it.

Delete routine crime, nothing notable about this fellow. Sources are simply mentions. Oaktree b (talk) 13:04, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve been updating the article as I’ve been finding sources as to why he was called a hero when I first red about him. I didn’t know about his arrest when I first read about him and thought he would be a good subject. I thought about his being an out gay cop in a major city. I think it is because his arrest is so recent and there is so much coverage that makes it hard to find positive coverage. BostonMensa (talk) 16

13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Comment The coverage doesn't have to be positive, but it has to be in reliable sources, talk about the subject at length and non-trivial. We don't have much of anything that we can use for an article here, that's the issue. Oaktree b (talk) 22:59, 29 October 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. Not the correct AfD target. I assume that would be Mark Slater (fund manager). (non-admin closure) Why? I Ask (talk) 16:14, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Slater[edit]

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

Reason Loic123marion (talk) 08:20, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article was paid for, and we wish for the article to be deleted. This has been requested by Mark Slater and I am an employee of his.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 October 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:45, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a disambiguation page. Assuming you meant to nominate Mark Slater (fund manager), I don't see any particularly good reason to delete (rather than rewrite or otherwise improve) that article either. WindTempos ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Disambiguation page stays, which of the Marks did you want to delete? Oaktree b (talk) 13:06, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: this is an incompetent nomination as there is clearly no reason to delete the disambiguation page. The nominator may have intended to propose a specific page for deletion, but this AfD should be closed. PamD 07:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 09:31, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Krays: New Blood[edit]

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

WP:NFF: Future film with no evidence it has entered production, move to draft space BOVINEBOY2008 08:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and England. Skynxnex (talk) 14:01, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality as a Service[edit]

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

No significant coverage in independent RS. (t · c) buidhe 07:58, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After analysing the sources cited, I added a notability template to the article a few hours ago, giving my reasoning on Talk:Nationality as a Service. To summarise, the sources are all either non-WP:RS, non-independent, or don't support the content. I can't find any real evidence that 'Nationality as a Service' has even been discussed in reliable sources, or that it is anything more than a particularly-dubious example of the interminable 'X as a service' buzzword-phraseology the English-speaking world has been blighted with over the last decade or so. The article seems to be engaging in WP:OR to even establish that the concept exists beyond being used on a couple of blogs. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:48, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A11. This appears to be a phrase coined by a single group or maybe two related groups (that are themselves not notable) and there doesn't appear to be a single mention of it in a reliable source (as per AndyTheGrump's analysis; these are all self-published sources), even in passing (so WP:NEO). The page doesn't make a credible claim to notability and appears to be a group of people trying to give their neologism some credibility by making a wiki page for it. It seems highly likely that the person making this page either is one of the people who coined it or heard it on the podcast episode which is cited twice and aired days before the page was made. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 18:41, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per AndyTheGrump's analysis, and checking the recent additions to the article, none of the current references appear to confer notability. Searching online I can't find any other sources that would be any better, it appears to be a neologism amongst a small group. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:09, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haiku Society of America[edit]

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

You'd think maybe this article's subject would be clearly notable. Apparently, not so. A Google News search turned up nothing substantively about this organization, which does not appear to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. A loose necktie (talk) 07:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Organizations. Skynxnex (talk) 14:02, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not sure why only a Google news search was considered? There are pages and pages of hits in Google Books, some without preview, but including seven substantive hits in Lenard D. Moore and African American Haiku: Merging Traditions; some hits in Haiku, Other Arts, and Literary Disciplines, including the statement that it is the largest society devoted to haiku outside Japan, and has official definitions of forms which are discussed (p126); five substantive hits in One Hundred Frogs: From Renga to Haiku to English including more discussions of their definitions and some stuff about their journal Frogpond; lots of hits in Haiku Mind: 108 Poems to Cultivate Awareness and Open Your Heart whose bios freq. mention their involvement in the society from which more history could be constructed; more history on how their definition was reached The Classic Tradition of Haiku: An Anthology; also Haiku in English: The First Hundred Years; International Who's Who in Poetry 2005 (incl people winning their prizes); Haiku--The Sacred Art: A Spiritual Practice in Three Lines (two paragraphs on society plus sep para of Frogpond) and lots more (that's just the first two pages of hits). The WL Ebscosearch also has a lot of hits though the top ones are mainly from Frogpond and some of the others look like press releases. Incl Saying it in 17 syllables. By: Mulrine, Anna, U.S. News & World Report, 00415537, 06/30/97, Vol. 122, Issue 25 (paragraph); Poetry. By: Von Drasek, Lisa, School Library Journal, 03628930, , Vol. 48, Issue 8 (3 sentences, including mention of their awards) and lots more there and on Proquest. Their papers are kept at the Online Archive of California [12]. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article

Added sources and some text

Passes GNG

— Cielquiparle (talk) 21:31, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As this is a non-profit organization, IMO we're looking at the two criteria per WP:NONPROFIT. IMHO the refs found by Espresso Addict, most of them with around 10 hits, are independent, secondary, and passes WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:RS, hence meeting the second criteria: The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization. The first criteria of WP:NONPROFIT, The scope of their activities is national or international in scale, from my perspective is probably passed because of the decent coverage and it being the largest society dedicated to haiku and related forms of poetry outside Japan per ref 1. The article has also been significantly improved since the AfD nomination. VickKiang (talk) 02:36, 27 October 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!} 07:09, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just Urbane[edit]

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

Just Urbane is an Indian lifestyle magazine. The article has been brought out of draft against consensus (two editors had declined submission at AfC) by an SPA and is a refbombed stub sourced to its own articles, incidental mentions of people featured on its cover and winning a small business award. Fails WP:NCORP, suspect UPE/COI. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Business, and India. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to clean the article to some extent, but it is probably better to just delete it — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 19:08, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Not notable magazine and I think that circulation of this magazine is very low that's why I can't find it in Audit Bureau of Circulations of India. Contributor008 (talk) 04:55, 26 October 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. Keep as I don't see support for deletion or a strong argument for why this page should be deleted other than it being proposed as a test case. I encourage participants to engage in a discussion about Wikipedia policies on Indexes though as this seems to be a bit ambiguous. Links to possible policy pages are listed in previous relisting comment. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Index of World War II articles (0–9)[edit]

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

An unorganized, simply alphabetical list of articles serves no useful purpose. Category:World War II and all its subcategories do a much, much better job. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:28, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are 24 more (letter) indices, but let's try a test case first. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is there a policy on this kind of index? Given there are a lot of pages, it seems to me that an alphabetical list is doing a different job to Category:World War II. JMWt (talk) 08:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We certainly have indices and this one is included in our index of indices: Wikipedia:Contents/Indices. Is there a policy? I don't know, we maybe just have them, like disambiguation pages, redirects, files and articles. Even if there is a policy it wouldn't stop people trying to delete indices. Some people a while ago tried to get rid of portals, so why not indices (or articles)? Thincat (talk) 10:57, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: erroneous nomination as wrong forum due to inappropriate scope. Alphabetical is a standard form of organization, and Wikipedia indexes are alphabetical by definition! I respectfully request that this deletion discussion be closed, and/or that the nominator withdraw the nomination. The argument that indexes serve no useful purpose is an issue for an AfD or RfC of the whole index system (see: Wikipedia:Contents/Indices), making an AfD for a single index, let alone a single page of a 25-page multi-page index, the wrong forum for determining what to do about that issue. The scope of notification should match the scope of the issue: the proper procedure for deleting the index system would be to nominate the whole system for deletion, and placing a deletion notice on every index article page, rather than going after it one page at a time (and thereby notifying hardly anybody). If there was a valid reason for deleting a particular multi-page index article (not the alphabetical nature of indexes), the procedure would be to nominate the whole index for deletion and place a deletion notice on all of its pages, rather than isolate a tiny piece of it in an attempt to set a precedent (as a "test case") for the removal of the rest of its pages — which also makes this AfD page a wrong forum. The nominator has cited no rules violations, and has instead posed alphabetical format, one of the two standard formats for lists (per list policy), as a reason for deletion (the other format being hierarchical), thus opposing that policy. In addition to this, the nominator appears to be opposed to indexes (alphabetical navigation lists) in general, in favor of categories. Note, that indexes, make up one of the navigation systems, that together, comprise the overall Wikipedia:Contents system. Both of those issues — discontinuing use of alphabetical list format, and deleting indexes just because they are indexes — go beyond the scope of an AfD of an individual page, and so, should be discussed by the wider community, if at all. Relevant policies and guidelines are Wikipedia:Speedy keep, Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, Wikipedia:Lists, Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists, and Wikipedia:Indexes. See also: Wikipedia:Gaming the system, for further perspective. Sincerely, — The Transhumanist 22:51, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. This topic is so vast, an index would have to be humongous, totally unwieldy. For example, as far as I can tell, none of the 1st Division World War II entries are present. Where are the 1st Corps? First Army contains many 1st Army entries; where are they? There is a tiny fraction of the vast number of people involved. Why is Anne Frank in the A list? No Audie Murphy under either A or M? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Clarityfiend, JMWt, Thincat, and Explicit: Clarityfiend, you didn't address the speedy keep objections to your nomination. The notification should match the scope of the discussion. You're arguing to delete a huge index by posting a deletion discussion on only one of its pages, exposing this talk to a mere fraction of the index's user traffic, without posting a notice on its 24 other pages. Deleting part of an index would damage the whole, by creating a gap, without providing the visitors to the rest of it the opportunity to participate in the decision making process. A conquer-and-divide deletion nomination of one page of a 25-page index is unacceptable — it is inappropriate to attempt to delete 1/25th of such a list in a progression to delete the whole thing. It's an abuse of the AfD process, with the same effect as gaming the system... You also argued in the nomination above that the page should be deleted because it is an alphabetical list, that is, an index, which is an official type of navigation aid on Wikipedia. An AfD on a small fraction of a multi-page list is not the proper venue for discussing the applicability of an entire class of navigation article. I respectfully request that you withdraw your nomination. And I have an offer for you: we can explore the available options for improving the whole index on its main talk page, and I would be happy to collaborate with you in doing so. For example, we could look at the best indexes and index sets on Wikipedia, and assess what it would take (tools, etc.) to bring and maintain the WWII index up to that caliber of excellence, among other things. And, if, after that, you are still not satisfied, a new deletion nomination (on the whole index) can easily be posted. I look forward to working with you. Sincerely, — The Transhumanist 17:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though without guessing the nominator's motives I don't know whether WP:SPEEDYKEEP applies. Most likely the nominator was in a grumpy mood (I am too because I live in Britain). I don't start to follow how a "simply alphabetical" list can be "unorganized" unless it is the misplacement of items that is the problem (and "Anne Frank" is given as a not too relevant example). My reading is that the other pages mentioned are not being nominated for deletion. If more links are added to this page and it becomes too long it can be very easily split. I think WP:IDONTLIKEIT can be an entirely valid reason to be nominating for deletion but it may not persuade others. It certainly doesn't persuade me. Even if I deeply disliked an article I wouldn't then think that other people should be stopped from reading it, or other editors from improving it. So keep, rather definitely keep. Thincat (talk) 08:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I think the relevant pages to consider are Wikipedia:Set index articles and Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:09, 24 October 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James Batemon III[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NBASKETBALL or WP:SPORTCRIT. Bruxton (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Bruxton (talk) 23:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Wisconsin. Shellwood (talk) 00:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! The article includes references and all the needed info to be included to wikipedia, so i would like you to remove the deletion mark from the article. Thank you!! Savvasg21 (talk) 14:47, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NBASKETBALL or WP:SPORTCRIT.4meter4 (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - enough sources in the article to meet GNG. NBASKETBALL is irrelevant if a subject meets GNG. Rlendog (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 331dot (talk) 09:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The info have been updated! Savvasg21 (talk) 15:00, 12 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!} 07:19, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Doesn't seem to meet WP:NBASKETBALL but appears to pass GNG with updated info. JojoMN1987 (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JojoMN1987, this is your first ever edit. How do you know what GNG is and what qualifies a subject to pass it? And I fixed your broken link. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:32, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the fix. I'm aware of what GNG is and qualifications needed. This is not my first account, I created a new one. Thank you for the concern. JojoMN1987 (talk) 20:10, 23 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!} 07:03, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Collaborative project management[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

After it was brought up at Teahouse I spent a while looking at this page and am struggling to verify it's a real thing that even exists. Searching for "Collaborative project management" brings up results, but most of them seem unrelated or extremely generic. It feels like a likely string of words to come up with independently (everyone loves collaboration, and project management is totally a thing).

At the very least this article is heavily WP:PROMO, but I also suspect it's not a commonly used term (for reference, I have never heard it before, and I work in software engineering, a field where it's supposedly been widely adopted). Looking through the sources I'm finding a lot of specific problems:

Besides the paper by Stuffer, which I have no access to, no source seems to reference a Dr. Rupert Stuffer in association with "collaborative project management" at all ([13])
The Mistrík et al paper ([14]) uses the term "Collaborative Software Engineering" and does not mention any other fields, despite the article claiming to be a broad industrial trend applying to at least the auto industry.
The USAID document ([15]) does not contain the phrase. The Cattani et al paper ([16]) does not contain the phrase.
The Project Management Institute article seems legit enough. It's title uses the words "collaborative project management" together, but the phrase only appears once in the article; it seems to be describing a generic thing and not the specific thing this article claims to be about ([17])

Previous AfD was no consensus, with comments noting that there definitely are discussions about elements of this article in project-driven fields. I wonder if "Use of collaborative technology in project management" would be a more accurate title, but I'm also assessing this from the perspective as it's written, where it seems to want to define and claim the existence of a general term.

I get that business terms can often seem fuzzy, but contrasting this with something like Agile software development it feels exceptionally vague. I'm doubtful this has any notability or even that it exists as a Thing and not just a buzzword with dubious meaning that varies depending on who is applying it. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 04:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Management. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 04:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed research confirmation.

I only recently learned about CPM, so I can't give a correct comment on its history, etc.

However, I will write only a few things that come to my mind.

1) The original German Wikipedia is not updated frequently.(The English version has more updates)

2) It seems to be a hot topic in the German automobile industry.

　　Siegfried Seibert: WI-Projekt.Kollaboratives Projektmanagement (Projektarbeit im SS 2008) (siegfried-seibert.de)

3) Dr. Rupert Stuffer is also named here. (although the link is broken)

　　Technische Universität München – Wikipedia

So, regarding Collaborative project management, I think it's necessary to clarify the source, but I don't think it's enough to delete the page. Mocha c jp (talk) 04:51, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note, Wikipedia is not a reliable source—we can't cite ourselves (or Wikipedia projects in other languages). Of course, the citations provided on other wiki pages might be reliable. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 05:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the reliability of Wikipedia itself. Mocha c jp (talk) 05:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Rupert Stuffer is probably this person.

Datenhelden mit Dr. Rupert Stuffer

Dr. Rupert Stuffer spricht mit unserem Partner Quinscape im Interview über die Grenzen und Möglichkeiten des No-Code/Low-Code-Ansatzes, der Mitarbeitern die individuelle Gestaltung ihres digitalen Arbeitsplatzes ermöglicht. Außerdem blickt der Projektmanagement-Pionier auf die Herausforderung, hybride Projekte durch Software effizient zu unterstützen und gibt einen Ausblick, wie der Trend der Agilisierung das Projektmanagement künftig verändern wird.

https://www.collaboration-factory.de/webinare/datenhelden Mocha c jp (talk) 05:39, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In this case a word placed next to a well known term has gotten google hits and usage in the titles of books and articles, just because that well known term is used often. This is just "Project management" when more than one person has access to the project data - it is not a distinct topic, and it should not have a distinct Wikipedia article. - MrOllie (talk) 21:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continuation, My opinion is as follows. Since around 2000, the term has been mainly used in Germany, and many people have continued to edit it for a long time, so I think it is an effective term. I don't think there is anything particularly strange about the content. Dr. Rupert Stuffer is also listed at the Technical University of Munich. If this term is subject to deletion, shouldn't similar terms also be subject to deletion? Social project management, Collaborative software: Should it be called Groupware in general, should it be renamed? (Collaborative software, I've never heard of it) Agile management: The term "Agile Project Management" has not been picked up by any of the international organizations developing Project Management Standards. Mocha c jp (talk) 23:56, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Modern project management is, by its very nature, collaborative. I Googled "collaborative project management", and, while the term "collaborative" would appear, the text only referred to "project management", giving the impression that "collaborative" is a marketing term, not a technical term, and therefore, "collaborative project management" is only a buzzword which can suggest many things, depending on who is using it.

Even if this is a "thing" in Germany, is there any research on the theory or practice of "collaborative project management"? If Google is of no help in an English-language search, perhaps the German equivalent, kooperatives Projektmanagement, might turn up reliable sources, such that an English article about a German phenomenon could be created.

However, when I searched the German term, the results were primarily for a German book written by Erik Wischnewski, an astronomer: Kooperatives Projektmanagement: Strategien Zur Nachhaltigen Verbesserung Der Projektabwicklung (Cooperative project management: strategies for the sustainable improvement of project execution). Personally, I don't trust the quality standards of the German Wikipedia, and the fact that an article in German exists is no reason to have one here. That article is essentially somebody's OR. It may well be WP:TOOSOON, or it may be a passing buzzword.--Quisqualis (talk) 07:49, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation in advance,

If it is deleted, what will happen to the contents?

Would you like to add it to the project management? (Assuming that the contents are adjusted) Mocha c jp (talk) 08:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contents will be in a special administrator archive. The content is so vague that adding any of it to Project management would not improve that article, in my opinion.--Quisqualis (talk) 08:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will ask you for the future. Mocha c jp (talk) 10:39, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

・Shouldn't we not just add "collaborative" to "project management" but leave it somewhere as a way of thinking about the development of PM?

・Similarly, what do you think about “social project management”? Don't you think it should be deleted as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mocha c jp (talk • contribs)

Content doesn't need to be notable enough to have an entire page of its own in order to be added to another article (see WP:NOTEWORTHY) but I'm not convinced there's much on this page worth saving. There are literally zero sources for the history section (to be clear, no one is questioning whether Rupert Stuffer is a real person; we need a citation showing that the claims made about him are true), and the remainder of the content doesn't seem to describe a cohesive thing. As for Social project management, yeah, at a glance it looks like it might be worth discussing as well. Check out WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS here though; the fact that there are other pages like this one doesn't really have much bearing on the discussion of this one.

Also as a general tip on AfD discussions, this isn't a vote and it doesn't help to bold multiple things. Conventionally people tend to use bold text only in their first comment on the page, and usually use language that makes it clear what they think should happen like "Keep" or "Merge into X." Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 15:22, 20 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!} 04:15, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Uncited, content-free generalities, with no evidence that a decent article with this title could or needs to be written. XOR'easter (talk) 15:58, 24 October 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 05:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keith C. Smith[edit]

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

Apart from being ambassador, nothing notable is shown in the article. Ambassadors do not confer notability. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:26, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 13:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NPOL: Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them. An ambassador to another country is a national office and could be considered an international office in some circumstances. In addition, if the lack of references are a concern than the following could both be added. [18] [19] Eternal Shadow Talk 00:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added additional content with more sourcing. It seems like there are a couple more sources I could add perhaps but they are behind paywalls. Eternal Shadow Talk 03:16, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ambassadors do not get automatic notability freebies under WP:NPOL — NPOL #1 applies to elected legislators and/or cabinet officials, not diplomatic appointees. Ambassadors, rather, get into Wikipedia only if they can be shown to clear WP:GNG on reliable source media coverage about their work as ambassadors, but the referencing here is entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as content self-published by his own employer or other organizations directly affiliated with the claims. You make a person notable by referencing the article to journalism or books, not to staff profiles on the websites of his own employers. Bearcat (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:57, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat.

Raymond Kestis (talk) 04:15, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG, I did a newspapers.com search and aside form his two-sentence inclusion in a syndicated news bulletin announcing several presidential diplomatic appointees, no coverage. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:29, 24 October 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!} 08:29, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kamsons Pharmacy[edit]

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

Article about a chain of pharmacies in the UK. I don’t see the in depth coverage in RIS that would demonstrate notability. Mccapra (talk) 03:18, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and United Kingdom. Mccapra (talk) 03:18, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:57, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article on a group of retail shops; the text and given references are mundane, describing a prescription distribution announcement and family events. Clearly a company going about its business, but I am not seeing the coverage about the retailer (or the parent family company, Waremoss Ltd.) which is needed to demonstrate attained notability here. AllyD (talk) 07:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Belinda M'Boma[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:SPORTSPERSON and arguably is a GNG fail. Zero results on Google News, and is very likely a SIGCOV fail as nearly all found results only mention her in passing. InvadingInvader (talk) 03:43, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, and France. InvadingInvader (talk) 03:43, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Was unable to find anything other than brief mentions in game reports. She seems to have played two seasons in the top-tier French league and at least one season in the second-tier along with some games for the Madagascar national team. While she probably played more seasons (at least between 2007 and 2010), there is no indications that she gained the significant coverage needed to pass WP:GNG. Alvaldi (talk) 10:52, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 24 October 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!} 05:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Performing Arts Building[edit]

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

This article should not stand on its own, and its content is already a part of List of Reed College buildings. There is no evident notability that it passes the GNG independently, and SIGCOV is absent. Also proposing that the old article becomes a redirect to the entry if possible. InvadingInvader (talk) 03:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Oregon. InvadingInvader (talk) 03:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG (disclaimer: creator). The topic has been covered by multiple reliable secondary sources detailing design, budget cut, construction, opening ceremony, recognition, etc. The article should be expanded not deleted. (Also, acknowledging the Opsis website cannot be used as a source, there's a list of 10 awards which have recognized the building's design.) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 12:27, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't all this be included in List of Reed College buildings? InvadingInvader (talk) 23:34, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If editors were to fully flesh out the article based on all available sourcing, I think there would be too much content to shove into a table cell. So, no, hence my keep vote based on amount of secondary coverage. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:46, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why not WP:DIY? The current revision as of writing this reply still looks like it can be condensed into the table. InvadingInvader (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I could ask the same to you, why not WP:DIY? I don't wish to drop the other things I'm working on just to flesh out this article right now because that's what you want. Articles for deletion is not place to force editors to expand pages to their fullest potential. You're focused on the current text fitting in the table, but that's not the point. Think of the potential for this individual entry and assess notability based on all available coverage. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it has too much potential aside from a few trivial awards. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 10 decent sources, "building's design has also been recognized by the AIA Education Facility Design Awards" indicates individual notability, makes sense for it to have its own article with photo and infobox. Would be good if it could be destubbed of course but think it's fine as a start.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the AIA award is sufficient for notability, but this article should be retitled more specifically. I couldn't begin to list the institutions that have a "Performing Arts" building on their campus. 174.212.208.18 (talk) 23:40, 27 October 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) Lenny Marks (talk) 13:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Worst Case[edit]

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

I beleive the article fails notability per WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. A BEFORE search turned up only one SIGCOV and it was from a source of questionable reliability. I wasn't confident enough for PROD so I thought I'd put it up to the community. Lenny Marks (talk) 03:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator: During my search I had found only summaries and press releases, but editors have found many solid reviews and this is clearly a keep. Thanks for your work! I will add the sources to the talk page and tag "sources exist". --Lenny Marks (talk) 13:05, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lenny Marks (talk) 03:30, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Sherwood, Juanita (2010-04-06). "Book Review: 'Worst Case' By James Patterson and Michael Ledwidge". Journal Gazette. Retrieved 2022-10-24 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: "If you like Patterson, this one is right up there with some of his better plots and his usual fast reads. The perpetrator is "bad," but the explanation for his evil actions is somewhat understandable, although one wouldn't condone his actions."
2. Faridah, Ermira (2010-06-19). "Feel the fear". New Straits Times. Archived from the original on 2022-10-24. Retrieved 2022-10-24.
  The review notes: " The formula of "James Patterson and Michael Ledwidge" is a recipe for success. Worst Case has a fast-paced storyline that keeps me in the car long after I reach my destination. Sure, there are moments when I felt that the story is too good to be true - a widow with 10 adopted children living in New York? Surviving on an NYPD paycheck? But I accepted the implausibility of it as the authors softened my sentiment by dangling the charming children right in my ears! What's great about this audiobook are the talents behind the narration."
3. McDonald, John F. "Worst Case". New York Journal of Books. Archived from the original on 2022-10-24. Retrieved 2022-10-24.
  According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 227#New York Journal of Books, New York Journal of Books is a reliable source.
  The book review notes: "If the book is clichéd and a little pretentious in parts, it can be forgiven insofar as it is clever and informed in its analysis of the problems of the world and is intelligent in its assessment of the causes of those problems—even if it ultimately rejects the solution."
4. Farquhar, Rob (2010-03-10). "Sun Read". Cairns Sun. Archived from the original on 2022-10-24. Retrieved 2022-10-24.
  The review notes: "The pace of Worst Case is very much like an action movie ... Characters are introduced through word and deed and readers are left to fill the rest in with their imagination.Verdict: Concisely written and very pacey, Worst Case is excellent, enjoyable popcorn fiction."
5. de Klerk, Jenny (2010-04-22). "Worst Case". The Star. p. 10. ProQuest 431006706.
  The review notes: "It's a James Patterson thriller, which means, by definition, that the action is non-stop and breathless to the end. This is the second adventure of New York cop Michael Bennett. ... It's certainly impressive what the NYPD can muster - tracking, dogs, bomb squads, sharpshooters, endless back-up, computer technology galore. I wonder what we could do with a similar scenario? This is rollercoaster stuff."
6. Broughton, Tania (2010-03-25). "Worst Case". The Mercury. p. 30. ProQuest 430801247.
  The article notes: "In Worst Case we are introduced to a new hero, Detective Michael Bennett of New York's Major Cases Squad who is on the trail of a kidnapper who is snatching rich kids. ... Worst Case is a simple yet gripping read which shouldn't take too long to get through."
7. Govender, Meneesha (2010-05-05). "I had promised myself I would not touch another James Patterson offering after having subjected myself to his last novel from his Maximum Ride series". Daily News. p. 13. ProQuest 251028922.
  The review notes: "So I opted for Worst Case. It wasn't as bad as I had expected. I finished it in a few hours and my boredom was assuaged. ... Add a bit of a love triangle to this mix - Bennet is torn between FBI agent Emily Parker and his housekeeper - and it really is quite an enjoyable, fast-paced thriller."
8. "Worst Case". Publishers Weekly. Vol. 257, no. 18. 2010-05-03. ISSN 0000-0019. Archived from the original on 2022-10-24. Retrieved 2022-10-24.
  The review notes: "As the kidnapper, John Glover employs a nasal whining tone perfectly suited to the character, and the phone conversations between cop and criminal are rich with tension. Orlagh Cassidy gives Emily an appealing gentleness, but her other female characters sound slightly clichéd."
9. "The book factory". Sunday Mercury. 2010-01-31. Archived from the original on 2022-10-24. Retrieved 2022-10-24.
  The article notes: "Not all of his collaborators began their careers as writers, he admits. Some were in advertising and marketing, others simply frustrated writers who needed help up the publishing ladder, including Michael Ledwidge, who has co-written Patterson's latest thriller, Worst Case, featuring police hero Michael Bennett, dedicated detective and fatherof-10."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Worst Case to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:54, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your work. Withdrawing and will add sources to talk page. --Lenny Marks (talk) 13:06, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Awful lot of reviews there. Hyperbolick (talk) 11:14, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 02:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Sable[edit]

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

This minor comic book series seems to fail WP:GNG and related (WP:NBOOK, etc.). The few references in the article don't seem very reliable of meeting WP:SIGCOV and my BEFORE failed to locate anything helpful. He did get a TV series ( Sable (TV series)) which likewise seems to have very little coverage. The best I see is this. While this comic existed, it seems to have made too little impact to deserve a stand-alone article. Thoughts? Maybe a merge to the publisher, First Comics? It would be good to preserve some basic information and redirects rather than making this into a red link. Frankly, I'd be happy to see this rescued, but right now I am afraid this is mostly unreferenced fancruft/original research on an entity that does not appear to be notable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As stated in the AfD explanatory text above, the Jon Sable comic resulted in a show on network television in the 1980s, which is a pretty good indicator that a comic book made a mark on the world. But Wikipedia's book notability guidelines don't say a TV adaptation is automatic proof of notability, so I'll also share the following proof. First a quick search pulled up critical articles about the comic, including one in Critical Survey of Graphic Novels: Heroes & Superheroes stating that the comic was one of the first of the independent and dark superhero stories of the 1980s and "helped usher in the grim and gritty sensibility that came to define the genre." In addition, there are two reviews of the series in Publishers Weekly (see link 1 and link 2) along with the comic being written about and reviewed in places like The Comics Journal (see this link for an example) and Comics Buyer's Guide (unable to link to, but you can search for it in the Wikipedia Library). It also appears there was significant coverage of the comic in the comic-industry press of the 1980s and '90s, but unfortunately very little of that is online or easily accessible. Finally, Gene Simmons is a fan of the series -- Wikipedia definitely can't delete one of Gene's favorite comics. :-) Anyway, all of that definitely proves this series meets Wikipedia's book notability guidelines. I've also added this info and these and other citations to the article.--SouthernNights (talk) 19:35, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:21, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:27, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV per the evidence provided by SouthernNights.4meter4 (talk) 03:13, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And when the nominator does as lousy a BEFORE search as this, he ought to just withdraw it when his error is shown. Stop wasting everybody's time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.149.176.57 (talk) 17:36, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

D (data language specification)[edit]

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

Per the commentary at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Third Manifesto: when it was suggested that The Third Manifesto be merged into this article, I looked for sources about this data language and discovered that it too seems to fail WP:GNG. No matter what search terms I used, mostly combinations of the authors' names with "data language" and similar terms, I came up with no in-depth independent sources about this subject. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:08, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:08, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tech Talk PSE[edit]

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

I found nothing that shows notability. SL93 (talk) 01:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 01:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not meeting WP:GNG. Google News returning no results is telling. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 04:01, 24 October 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, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Adams[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to me to rise to the level of encyclopedic notability. His primary claim to notability appears to be friendship with Benjamin Franklin (from which notability can not be inherited). A history of Boston written a century later mentions the subject's death, but notes in a footnote that "Materials are very scanty for a biography of Matthew Adams", with most content relating to the subject's better known family members. BD2412 T 00:46, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 00:46, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of significant coverage by reliable sources and the article looks more like a Descriptive Narrative Essay written by his ghost rather than a real informative article inside an encyclopaedia. Raymond Kestis (talk) 00:54, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Being used as a coatrack for his better-known son ... who was himself Just Another Preacher, and doesn't seem to have made any significant historical mark. Wikipedia is still not a memorial, and there's no sigcov supporting more than that this was Just Some Guy. Ravenswing 21:12, 24 October 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!} 05:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Harriton[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable outside of the one writing credit for "Everything Is Awesome" unless touring for multiple highly notable artists (Kesha, Adam Lambert, the Smashing Pumpkins) counts toward WP:MUSICBIO's "is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles" (though I wouldn't think so). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JoLi for the duo. QuietHere (talk) 00:04, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. QuietHere (talk) 00:04, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet notability requirements, and as stated by QuietHere is really only known for the Lego Movie theme song. Nothing else is considered notable. Raymond Kestis (talk) 00:42, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:MUSICBIO#8 Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, e.g. co-creator of an Oscar-nominated [20], Grammy-nominated [21] song, (also winner of a Hollywood Music in Media Award), and WP:COMPOSER#1 Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition. There also appears to be WP:BASIC notability as a musician, as noted in the nom and sources, e.g. as a member of the Smashing Pumpkins (NYT, 2008), (SPIN, 2007), (Salon, 2018), and via the WP Library: Lisa Harriton and the infinite gladness: can a jazz cat find happiness as a rock star? If it's with the Smashing Pumpkins, that would be yes (Keyboard, 2008, via Gale, significant biographical, education, music career coverage), "Great Pumpkins" (LAT, 2007, brief note of her performance, via ProQuest 422172752). Beccaynr (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2022 (UTC) - comment updated Beccaynr (talk) 23:13, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See, one thing I mentioned in the JoLi AfD but not here is that I'm unsure how MUSICBIO applies since she's not confirmed as a performer on the song, only a writer, and thusly I would assume she falls under WP:COMPOSER instead which doesn't mention pretty much any of these. As for what I did say, I find the memberships questionable given their brevity and only being touring status rather than studio/full membership. That Gale link doesn't work for me so I can't verify but it would certainly help her case, though the other articles only mention her briefly and not primarily which wouldn't cover notability. QuietHere (talk) 23:42, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:COMPOSER#1, she has credit for co-writing Everything Is Awesome, which is a notable composition, and WP:ANYBIO notability also seems supported by the several nominations and awards, if the WP:MUSICBIO list (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) should be read as excluding her (which I do not think the list or sources support). In addition, there is also significant coverage (with some interview) from Keyboard that can help develop the article. Per WP:BASIC, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, and the additional sources help demonstrate the amount of time she was a member of the Smashing Pumpkins, provide some context, and demonstrate her role was mentioned ten years later, so this combined coverage appears to provide at least some additional support for her notability. Beccaynr (talk) 00:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - based on the rationale above by Beccaynr; she meets [[WP:MUSICBIO}} #8, WP:COMPOSER #1. She/her work has been nominated for major awards such as a Grammy, an Academy Award and a Critic's Choice award. Also meets WP:BASIC. She has also won several awards, two of which seem notable, the Hollywood Music in Media Award and the Houston Film Critics Society Award. Netherzone (talk) 14:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gonna hold off for a bit longer 'cause I want some more eyes on the page now that all the new sources have come in just in case things are too good to be true, but I admit you've done quite a job with this article and it's in a far better position now, love to see it. QuietHere (talk) 23:18, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added more sources about her and some of her recent work at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Bartholomew (2nd nomination), so perhaps we can consider those incorporated by reference into this discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 23:27, 25 October 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Opinio Juris (blog)[edit]

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

Opinio Juris ("An opinion of law") is a legal blog. This article is in the main sourced to the blog itself, with three references being examples of the blog being cited by Human Rights Watch. Other than this, we have no evidence of the notability of the blog. Opinio Juris is actually the title of the Michigan Journal of International Law, arguably more notable. The blog fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Websites, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Some mentions, but can't find enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thank you. Some comments, from my background as an international law scholar:

The Michigan Journal of International Law (not particularly read outside the United States) is a) not named 'Opinio Juris' (from what I see, they have a special section with only one publication under that rubric from 2017), and b) certainly not more notable than Opinio Juris (which has a global audience). One (imperfect) illustration of this is that the MJIL has around 900 followers in Twitter, in contrast to the 36k of Opinio Juris (blog).

A search in Google Scholar of "opiniojuris.org", which will necessarily understate the impact of the blog (because not all publication citation requirements allow for links), shows over 5k results (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22opiniojuris.org%22&btnG=).

An important factor is the prominence of the contributors to the blog: they include, quite simply, the leading international law scholars around the world.

I think it would be reflective of a U.S.-centric approach to notability to allow the U.S. blog 'Lawfare' to have an entry and not the (global) 'Opinio Juris'. Pugliese23 (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - Opinio Juris is an imprint of MJIL. Which is arguably more notable than the blog. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not. I have been researching and working on international law for 15 years (in four continents) and I never came across it. Ask any international law scholar, anywhere in the world, even in Michigan. No one would dare compare their notability. I am still finding my way around Wikipedia, do as you please. I have found that the consensus tends to form around the person proposing the deletion. I am just telling you as I see it, and I truly am an experienced international law scholar: Opinio Juris is notable. Run the metrics, check Google results, it is incredibly popular, it has nothing to do with an imprint that last published something in 2017. Pugliese23 (talk) 23:03, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So help me out with this, because I'm not a legal expert and so am obviously too stupid to understand the facts. When the Michigan Journal of International Law says, "MJIL's OpinioJuris imprint collects expert short-form publications on key issues in international law produced by world-renowned scholars. The views and opinions expressed in these articles are those of the authors only." they actually are talking about a London bus, right? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know why you try to ridicule my arguments (which I know to be very strong, again, whether or not I want to prove it (in response to Raymond Kestis), I have research and taught this field for a long time), but I nevertheless reply in good faith.

They are talking about an imprint that last published something in 2017 and no one really knows. For all I know, it only published those articles by a same author. I believe if you were to ask the MJIL editorial team they would promptly acknowledge it has been discontinued. I don't really care because this article is not about that imprint.

It is curious, however, that you take that single abandoned section of the MJIL website at face value but are not satisfied by the daily posts published at Opinio Juris, nor the endless citations in academic articles or references in the media.

The discussion below got interesting and I have nothing to add, because I am new. As an academic, I would assume citations in reliable journals should count as a criterion for notability. Pugliese23 (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are three things wrong with this:

1. There is no way to verify if you are, in fact, an international law scholar. You cannot be confirmed as one unless you have proof that you are one.

2. Google searches are not a reliable way to find out article notability.

3. Opinio Juris has not attracted significant attention over time, at least according to reliable sources. Raymond Kestis (talk) 00:50, 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!} 23:16, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Pugliese. --NSH001 (talk) 10:08, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources to meet WP:GNG. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:11, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:02, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per MrsSnoozyTurtle and my reply to Pugliese23. Raymond Kestis (talk) 00:51, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per explanation above. Oaktree b (talk) 02:17, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here are reliable sources that discuss Opinio Juris. The Manila Standard Today article provides nontrivial coverage, while the other sources are passing mentions.
Can editors find independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage about Opinio Juris or a merge target per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion?
1. Roque Jr., Harry (2010-07-22). "Plagiarized and twisted". Manila Standard Today. Archived from the original on 2022-10-24. Retrieved 2022-10-24.
  The article described Opinio Juris as a "well-known US-based legal blog", an "international law blog", and "a blog widely circulated among international law academics from around the world". The article further notes: "Opinio Juris is a US-based blog run by several academics in the field of international law. It is a forum for informed discussion and lively debate about international law and international relations. It was founded by Chris Borgen, a law professor at St. John's University Law School, who started the site with Peggy McGuinness of the University of Missouri Law School and Julian Ku of Hofstra Law School. The site debuted in January 2005."
2. Miéville, China (2010). "Multilateralism as Terror: International Law, Haiti and Imperialism". In Klabbers, Jan (ed.). Finnish Yearbook of International Law, Volume 19, 2008. Oxford: Hart Publishing. p. 74. ISBN 978-1-84946-041-5. ISSN 0786-6453. Retrieved 2022-10-24 – via Google Books.
  In a footnote, the book calls Opinio Juris "the most important international law blog". The book further notes, "Of the whole of the extensive Opinio Juris blogroll, which covers all the most important international law blogs, only two blogs deserve credit for raising critical questions about the event ..."
3. Bob, Yonah Jeremy (2021-06-24). "Where does Israel stand with the ICC? - analysis". The Jerusalem Post. Archived from the original on 2022-10-24. Retrieved 2022-10-24.
  The article described Opinio Juris as a "top legal blog".
  Here is the full quote: "In likely his most extensive interview since becoming ICC prosecutor-designate, with top legal blog Opinio Juris on May 21, Khan recalled a story from when he joined the British bar in 1992, when the senior lawyers interviewing him “without regard to Khan’s presence in the room, began discussing whether Khan looked more Pakistani or English.”"
4. Bob, Yonah Jeremy (2014-04-04). "Analysis: Palestinians may face 2012 cut-off at ICC". The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 2022-10-24. {{cite news}}: |archive-date= requires |archive-url= (help)
  The article described Opinio Juris as "one of the leading academic blogs on international law".
  Here is the full quote: "Academic Kevin Jon Heller reported on it on Opinio Juris, one of the leading academic blogs on international law."
There is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Opinio Juris to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:01, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, the Manila paper is probably the best one of the bunch, but it's rather small. The rest are passing mentions. We'd need to see a story or review in the journals to even consider it GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 12:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It has thousands of citations in articles published by the most prestigious university presses. A quick Google Scholar search will show them. See, e.g., Anthea Roberts, 'Is International Law International?' (Oxford University Press; p. 262, p. 239, etc.)
News references, from a quick search:
The New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/technology/on-the-web-a-fine-line-on-free-speech-across-globe.html

Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obamas-decision-to-turn-to-congress-on-syria-decision-is-fodder-for-debate/2013/09/04/e59aace6-14ca-11e3-a100-66fa8fd9a50c_story.html

Wall Street Journal: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB114003839602575090

Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/outsider-khan-must-steer-war-crimes-court-through-choppy-waters-2021-06-15/

BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-16029121

El Mundo (Spain): https://www.elmundo.es/internacional/2022/09/15/63239b33e4d4d8c91d8b4581.html
Pugliese23 (talk) 23:12, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of these are substantial coverage, that's the issue, these are all trivial mentions. Oaktree b (talk) 03:04, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One last question and I will check out of this discussion, just so I learn. Wouldn't so many references in the most read newspapers around the world and an infinite number of academic articles and books (including the Roberts book I cited, which is one of the leading studies of international law as an academic field) amount to significant coverage, which I believe is the standard?

If disciplinary blogs cannot be notable, fair enough. Pugliese23 (talk) 22:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The WSJ in particular has one line about the blog, in an entirely unrelated article discussing the current state of affairs of the bla blah. The BBC article is about a guy in Africa working with the International Criminal Court. The Washington Post article says Mr. XYZ wrote xyz in the blog, then moves on. One line about the blog in a thousand newspapers is still trivial coverage. We need something discussing it a length (or at least a little bit). The Manila paper is the best of these. Oaktree b (talk) 17:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All these are is really mentions of the blog, without anything discussing the blog, other than a passage of facts (from the blog to the article in question). Oaktree b (talk) 17:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia SNG veterans, is there a reason why we look at the number of citations to see if academics meet (WP:NAUTHOR #1), but we don't to judge the relevance of scholarly publications? While I agree that the GNG isn't quite met, this seems to me like an influential medium in the narrow field of international law. I can't help but wonder how much in-depth coverage traditional journals receive. Any thoughts? Pilaz (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we've looked at citations in reliable journals in the past, some will just quote one another to boost the rating. It generally isn't the only thing used for an academic, they should have more than just a high citation number. Oaktree b (talk) 14:44, 27 October 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.