Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 February 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 26 February 28 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Closing a few minutes early per WP:SNOW. Randykitty (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of free-kick goals by Lionel Messi in official matches[edit]

List of free-kick goals by Lionel Messi in official matches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm happy to be proved wrong here but I don't think scoring from a free-kick is as notable as scoring a senior international goal. Transfermarkt does list these goals but very few, if any, other sources do. Similar to this list and other AfDs relating to individual footballer achievements. He certainly scored a lot but he trails Juninho Pernambucano and many others according to sources so he hasn't broken a record here. The list itself violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE and the topic does not have enough coverage for WP:GNG or WP:NLIST. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lionel Messi's list of goals for Argentina is considered a great article. This free-kick goals article is an inspiration from List of international goals scored by Lionel Messi. None of the articles detail a world record, as the record holder of goals for the national team is Cristiano Ronaldo. However, no active player in world football has scored more free-kicks than Lionel Messi, who was just named the best player in the world a few hours ago. THIAGOW13 (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Out of the sources that you've cited, only Transfermarkt actually confirms the contents of this article. Per WP:TRANSFERMARKT, we reject that as a source. Therefore, there are no reliable sources supporting this article. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The second source also confirms with much more precision all the cited data. It's a very accurate count with all dates recorded. THIAGOW13 (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTSTATS and points made above. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:22, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. We really don't need lists of all goals scored by a player via a specific method, which would inevitable open the floodgates to lists of all goals from penalties, headers, etc etc by specific players, all of which would just be trivia -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:NOTSTATS strong applies. --Mvqr (talk) 12:04, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
About WP:NOTSTATS: The statistics are on tables and are less excessive than other articles like the List of international goals scored by Lionel Messi which account for 98 goals for the national team, instead of 61 official free-kicks. It should be a recommendation to add more explanations to the article to improve it. Another good point not to delete the article, would be that Messi, the player with the most free-kick goals currently, can possibly pass Juninho Pernanbucano with 77 free-kick goals, which would be, in addition to a current record, a historical record. THIAGOW13 (talk) 12:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If he goes on to break Juninho's record then a sentence can be added to Lionel Messi. There is no need to create an article listing all goals that led to that record. It's WP:CRYSTAL anyway to presume that he will break the record. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Currently already a record. We are talking about another record. This article has nothing to do with WP:CRYSTAL or WP:NOTSTATS THIAGOW13 (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with just mentioning that he scored 61 goals direct from a free-kick at Lionel Messi? We don't need an entire article just to state this statistic. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many people look up stats on Wikipedia for context. It is not only necessary to just state the total, it is necessary to give context. It's a flawed part of my article, we can detail several important goals by Leo Messi, like his goal against the USA that made him overcome Batistuta, Or his career goal number 600, against Liverpool in the UCL semi final. Free-kicks are a hallmark of Messi THIAGOW13 (talk) 13:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lionel Messi#Player profile is the best place for this, not a separate article and we certainly don't need a list of every single free-kick scored. In the same way, we wouldn't want a list of penalty-kicks either, even though he is very good at taking them. Such stats cruft would be better on a fandom site. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with all of the above. Govvy (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Umm, @GiantSnowman: You really need to pick and choose your wording better, notability is not an issue here. It's all about the content and the way it is represented. Messi will always be notable in everything he does. Govvy (talk) 22:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    let's have a List of Lionel Messi farts then shall we? GiantSnowman 18:21, 3 March 2023 (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 Soulslike. WP:SNOW merge (non-admin closure) Dronebogus (talk) 07:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bonfire (Dark Souls)[edit]

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

Background: This article previously existed in 2018, but it was agreed that it was not a notable subject, and merged into the main Dark Souls article (then titled Souls (series)). Recently, Zxcvbnm recreated the article, after which point a discussion began on WT:VG as to whether or not the subject was notable, and criticizing its recreation as being in breach of the previous consensus. Those arguing against the article's existence have characterized it as WP:GAMECRUFT, while those in favor have said that the subject has since become notable, and that a re-evaluation of the article's viability is needed. I do not lean particularly one way or another, but am taking this discussion to the appropriate venue so that its notability or lack thereof may also be assessed by those outside of WP:VG and hopefully the issue may be settled. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 23:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping to all involved in the WT:VG discussion: (Dissident93—Masem—Sergecross73—ferret—(Oinkers42)—MsDusa—TheJoebro64—Nomader) silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 23:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Much of the reception is cobbled together from mostly trivial mentions and references. There are a couple of okay sources, but nothing that actually helps it stand apart. One source talks about the connection between Shovel Knight and Dark Souls' bonfires, and while the text acknowledges that YCG didn't confirm it, the actual article text seems to suggest that they explicitly denied it, rather perhaps having similar themes. Saying that Shovel Knight borrowed from Dark Souls is a big stretch, especially considering how big a gap there is in the article between discussing games borrowing the imagery. The fact that the paragraph opens with "Meanwhile," suggests that she's not claiming that imagery was not borrowed, just that it was evocative of Dark Souls. Furthermore, the article is kind of dire with respect to sourcing outside of the Reception section. Very light on Development, and nothing in Characteristics. As far as deletion versus redirect or merge goes, I don't think that people will generally be searching for "Bonfire (Dark Souls)," so it'd be a pointless redirect.
All that said, did we really need to be so procedural about it? All we had was the creator of the article and someone who made an invalid argument about consensus! - Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Soulslike (since this is also a feature of Elden Ring, etc). While there is more coverage of this as a gameplay mechanic than one typically would find for a game or series-specific element, I am not seeing the coverage given to be sufficiently fleshed out to be standalone from the genre (soulslike), and infact, a more comprehensive approach of soulslike games is arrived at by discussing the importance of the bonfire concept to them as opposed to typical checkpoint/save systems. It is important while there may be GNG coverage here, we are not required to create an article on every topic that is notable, and instead strive for comprehensive articles that might combine two or three closely related subjects. This seems like the perfect approach handle with bonfires within soulslike games, rather than splitting off. --Masem (t) 01:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Zxcvbnm's sources. And being specific to a single series has never meant that notable subjects can't have their own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DecafPotato (talk • contribs) 18:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This entire comment feels like a response to an argument no one was making... Sergecross73 msg me 03:03, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the first half isn't, but the second part I could've sworn was addressing something in specific....or maybe I was just tired. DecafPotato (talk) 07:04, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge mostly per Masem. I think there's actually enough here to pass WP:GNG and keep the article. The GamesRadar+, Vice, and Koktaku sources in particular are quite extensive and explicitly about the article's topic. Having said that, I think the content is indeed better served bulking up the Soulslike article. The latter half of sources in the article don't really provide anything useful or meaningful for an encyclopedia article and could be dropped. —Torchiest talkedits 03:04, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel I should respond to the idea that it shouldn't be standalone, since it seems numerous people are taking this tack. The sources examine the bonfire as used in Dark Souls, DSII and DSIII, in other words, as a thematic element in the Souls universe as well as a game mechanic. Saying it belongs in Soulslike is ignoring its unique elements compared to other bonfire-clone save points. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:19, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is 100% possible, in Soulslike, to discuss the thematic nature of the bonfire itself as part of the Dark Souls setting, before moving on to discuss that the other soulslike beyond DS use a similar "reset world checkpoint" that keep the difficulty and challenge of DS (including in Demons' Souls). It is so tightly connected with what the soulslike page covers that while a standalone could be possible, you are making both articles less comprehensive that way rather than the merged one that explains one of the unique features of soulslike compared to other action-adventure games.
    Soulslike has a lot of room to expand with some of the stuff identified about bonfires, we're not aspect to strip away what's well sourced (though the gameplay facets need to be better sourced or trimmed down). Masem (t) 13:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with this. Merging it does not preclude discussing any of the thematic elements. And the idea is that while it could theoretically be a standalone article, there wouldn't necessarily be much beyond what would fit well in the Soulslike article, so it doesn't serve a very useful purpose. And all of this doesn't rule out potentially splitting it off at some later date if the amount of coverage increases over time. —Torchiest talkedits 15:22, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also agreed - the bonfire article isn't really that long. It's under 12k in size, and that's including the formatting. Most of the content could be retained in a merge. It isn't a "selective merge" type situation. The only stuff that needs to be trimmed is largely the stuff describing how Dark Souls functions, which is already present in the series article. Sergecross73 msg me 16:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:TOOLITTLE, a common fallacy when stating an article should be removed. The article still has significant potential for expansion, especially with the couple of new sources found below that are also specifically about DS bonfires. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:53, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not what I was saying in that comment. My point was that the content will still largely be retained, it will just be placed at a different location. Sometimes, these massive, sprawling articles need a selective merge where it's condensed into a brief paragraph at the merge target. This is not one of those times. It was meant as a consolation that little, if any, actual content would be lost in the merge. Sergecross73 msg me 05:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Soulslike. The bonfire is one of the defining features of the microgenre. It makes zero sense to spin it out separately. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Soulslike per above. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 04:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources make me want to !vote keep, but I can also very much imagine this article being beautifully merged into soulslike, and I hope that will work out well. With the bonfire as one of "the defining features of the microgenre," the article can go in-depth about how this checkpoint/warping system affects games in the genre, without it constituting undue weight. If such a merge doesn't work out, however, I do think this article stands alright on its own, and I do want to praise how nicely it is written. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The sources provided demonstrate the mechanic is a notable element of the Souls games; they do not demonstrate independent notability to the point you can write a decent article (what's there is a hodge-podge of tidbits gussied up into something that's trying to appear more notable than it is.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as suggested above. Soulslike is the perfect context to cover this. People really need to get over the notion that having a separate article is some kind of badge of merit. Material should be covered where it makes the most sense for the reader, not where it can rack up the most single page views. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per others. My stance on this hasn't changed since the original consensus. No reason this should be split from the series article once you trim the cruft from the article. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Dark Souls as I don't find a save point in a a specific game to be worthy enough of being its own article. I don't think it should be merged to Soulslike as most of the information in the article is specific to Dark Souls. RteeeeKed💬📖 23:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: I have scoured the internet to try and find more sources for this. I've pulled a number of incredibly interesting scholarly sources, including one in particular that has basically a whole chapter analyzing the literature historicity of bonfires as compared to the elements in the game but... I'm just not getting anything else outside of the sources that are already there generally. ([1], [2], [3] -- passing mention). I think that the above suggestion to Soulslike is best. Nomader (talk) 03:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    These sources do make me more comfortable with having a separate article on the bonfire. They also make me wonder if there's opportunities for an article like "Bonfires in fiction" or such. Either way, these are good finds! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But again, in the framework of the idea that "bonfires are what make DS/soulslike unique", these sources strongly support discussing bonfires in light of DS/soulslike and those other gameplay features (like the always-online factor). Even moreso, one has to ask how much concept of bonfires can be discussed without setting it up in the DS framework? Because right now, there's very little else (as a unique feature of DS/soulslike) that doesn't also require the connection to DS/soulslike to be explained, meaning having two articles would be excessively duplicated. Masem (t) 13:32, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to soulslike or Dark Souls was my initial reaction to seeing this, and articulated by Masem. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Masem. Arguably, there are many details of many games that have been covered by multiple reliable sources. But that coverage usually isn't separate from the game itself. (Or the series, the genre, or the developer known for deploying it.) It's often a good idea to cover these types of details in the context of another article. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:45, 1 March 2023 (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. Randykitty (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Meechan[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Article is really lacking, did he not play any games for Burnley, Sheffield Wednesday or Scunthorpe? There are zero results found on the Burnley, Sheff, Scunthorpe websites for this name. Played before internet was a thing, so this really delves into offline sources and newspapers. Govvy (talk) 12:12, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, he never played a first team game for any of those clubs -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:57, 1 March 2023 (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. Randykitty (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim Davydov[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG Nswix (talk) 23:10, 27 February 2023 (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. Randykitty (talk) 23:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shamil Mamedov[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Nswix (talk) 23:02, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP - He won gold at the Junior Wrestling World Championships - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_World_Junior_Wrestling_Championships. The event is significant enough to be included in the wrestling template - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Wrestling. The media in the US does not cover amateur wrestling on a mainstream scale minus the Olympics and never covers foreign amateur wrestling.KatoKungLee (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Junior accomplishments don't satisfy WP:MANOTE Nswix (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't think it clears the independent RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth test. BLPs need to be completely based on clearly independent unbiased RS about the subject.  // Timothy :: talk  03:00, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A junior championship is not sufficient to show WP notability and he's had no success at a major competition as an adult, at least not yet. I checked all the sources, except for one that my computer flagged as suspicious, and they consist of interviews, results, and a database entry. There are no examples of the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 14:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't see anything demonstrating GNG has been met. Agreed with Papaursa's assessment of current sources. JoelleJay (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2023 (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. Randykitty (talk) 22:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tower Hotel (Niagara Falls)[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years and I can't find anything significant which would meet the GNG. It's a 4-star hotel. JMWt (talk) 14:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Canada. JMWt (talk) 14:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you're looking for details on the hotel you'll be disappointed, but the focus of the article is on the observation tower overlooking Niagara Falls, of which it's detailed appropriately. Nate • (chatter) 00:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It includes history of previous towers, and could be reworked and renamed to be, say, "Towers at Niagara Falls", or something like that. But there is substance here, on the phenomenon of observation towers at Niagara Falls (I always sort of wondered why go up a tower there, as it may not give better view of the falls, unlike the observation tower on Wellesley Island which provides useful view of The Thousand Islands, at the other end of Lake Erie from Niagara Falls). And sources really surely do exist on some or all of the towers. I believe the deletion nominator that they're not finding great sourcing specifically about this "Tower Hotel" (but maybe that's hard because there are numerous others of that or similar name), but there would exist coverage when it was built and first promoted (probably promoted internationally), and there would exist coverage of other towers that are mentioned, and perhaps this one tower under other names. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 21:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This seemed familiar, and I just found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Niagara Falls Marriott Fallsview Hotel & Spa, about another hotel right there. This hotel shows in picture used at Niagara Falls Marriott Fallsview Hotel & Spa. I wouldn't be surprised if sources found in that AFD cover this one as well. And the reasoning for "Keep" in that AFD, given by User:Hannes Röst, User:Heartmusic678, User:Jackattack1597 may well apply here (that there is international coverage, etc.). Along with nominator there, User:A2013a, all participants there have now been pinged. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 02:32, 4 March 2023 (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 per WP:CSK (withdrawn nomination). Satisfies WP:NPOL. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 12:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saboto Caesar[edit]

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

This page is about a politician in Saint Vincent that doesn't seem to pass WP:POLITICIAN. Sources that can be found (and that are in the article) are just primary sources (that has been repeatedly added by one editor) to the agriculture.gov.vc website and caribbeanelections.com. A WP:BEFORE check did not turn up any significant third party sources (other than local news). Mike Allen 22:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:IslandScholar has removed the AFD notice twice even after being warned not to. I have not restored again because I do not want to edit war over it. They are being very disruptive. They have also reverted the AFD bot. Mike Allen 22:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported the user to WP:AN3. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 23:26, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How does holding the position of Minister Of Agriculture for St. Vincent And The Grenadines not pass WP:POLITICIAN? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: WP:SK#3 as basically completely erroneous. Did the nominator even read the article? It's literally in the 2nd sentence: He is an elected member of parliament and minister of agriculture for Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Curbon7 (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw and close. I didn’t realize being a politician with only primary sources satisfied WP:GNG. My bad. Mike Allen 00:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the article does need ref improvement, but WP:NPOL is one of the most clear-cut bars to pass, in that the offices that are considered presumptively notable are very clearly defined. This leans on WP:NEXIST, in that as long as it is sourced that a subject has held an WP:NPOL-qualifying office (in this case, an MP), it is sufficient. Curbon7 (talk) 01:01, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't difficult to find secondary sources referring to Caesar as Minister of Agriculture. [4][5][6] and more... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:07, 28 February 2023 (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 Miley Cyrus & Her Dead Petz. Any material for a merge is available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lighter (Miley Cyrus song)[edit]

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

Not a notable release, fails WP:NSONG . Sricsi (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Miley Cyrus & Her Dead Petz: I did find a ton of coverage of the music video ([7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]). Few of them are saying much unique but there's gotta be at least enough here to write a section about the video in the album article. And whatever else is already here should be merged assuming it's not there already. QuietHere (talk) 00:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've not completed a notability assessment, but IF editors deem a standalone article unnecessary, then I would also prefer a merge/redirect over deleting the page altogether. The redirect serves a purpose and the article history should be preserved. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:01, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Battlestar Galactica characters. Randykitty (talk) 21:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anastasia Dualla[edit]

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

Fails GNG, Wikipedia:Notability and fiction and NBIO. Searching the fictional character up shows no reliable results. Although there is 2 reliable sources in this article, the article still needs cleanup.`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 21:28, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete: Doesn't meet GNG (SIGCOV directly and indepth), fancrufty  // Timothy :: talk  07:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC) [reply]

  • Keep: Since it is about a character and not a real person, I feel the current coverage suffices for notability.Pershkoviski (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Battlestar Galactica characters. A short article with an obvious redirect/merge target doesn’t need to exist even if notable. Dronebogus (talk) 07:38, 6 March 2023 (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! 07:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Live Radio[edit]

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

It appears from their social that this radio station is defunct, and I'm only able to find press releases from the parent company during its window of operation. Star Mississippi 14:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Joyous! | Talk 20:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources found for the defunct station. It's been gone for over a decade, unlikely to find anything extra about it. Oaktree b (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2023 (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SQL problems requiring cursors[edit]

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

Seems to be purely instructional content (WP:TEXTBOOK); anything here is more appropriate for Cursor (databases), but this seems too thin of non-guide content to merge. Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Technology, and Computing. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 22:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pretty straightforward WP:NOTHOWTO case, and I don't see WP:N being met in any attempt to search for sources. What comes up is pretty much standard Q&A forum type things. The closest redirect I could find would be something like Cursor (databases), which wouldn't be specific enough for this article as a redirect, nor would this title be a likely search term on-wiki at least. KoA (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, this isn't an encyclopedia article. Cursors in SQL are definitely an encyclopedic topic, but we already have Cursor (databases). Hut 8.5 18:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not really much encyclopedic by itself. Potentially a bit could be merged/added to Cursor (databases) but I'm not sure there's much. Skynxnex (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with all of the other users that this isn't encyclopedic content, as is not a textbook or guidebook. Mucube (talk • contribs) 05:21, 3 March 2023 (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 Ministerial association. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ministerium[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years. Although there are many church websites that use the term, it appears to refer to different things, can't find anything that is a RS. WP: DICTIONARY JMWt (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Joyous! | Talk 20:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, and without prejudice to recreating based on a specific group/meaning, with sufficient sources to meet WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ministerial association for which this is a synonym in the current state of the article. See for example here[17]. Eventually, we could also have an article on the Lutheran church body of this name, see[18]. Jahaza (talk) 03:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ministerial association. Nothing in article to merge.  // Timothy :: talk  16:56, 6 March 2023 (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. Randykitty (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Gilberte[edit]

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

Unsourced stub about a living person. Doesn't meet WP:GNG nor WP:NACTOR. It's been repeatedly recreated in es.wp and ca.wp by single-purpose accounts. -sasha- (talk) 20:31, 27 February 2023 (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. Randykitty (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Oaks Fishery[edit]

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

Non-notable fishing place in Northern Ireland. Orphaned. The only source is a dead-link. Found nothing good via web search. Suitskvarts (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Northern Ireland. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: nothing notable here. Essentially unsourced and nothing found, even insubstantial, just sites that list it's existance. ww2censor (talk) 12:01, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing to indicate even a claim to notability, borderline A7 speedy delete candidate. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:GNG, WP:NPLACE and WP:NORG. As indicated by other contributors, a WP:BEFORE search returns web results (Facebook page, new company website(?), company registration, phonebook entries, holiday listings, etc) which confirm that the subject exists. But nothing to indicate notability (no news coverage of any kind, no coverage in books/journals/academia - not even passing mentions). This is about as "black and white" as I've seen in a while... Guliolopez (talk) 14:19, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As per the above comments I am seeing nothing that would suggest it has notability and thus there does not seem to be any reason for it to have an article. Dunarc (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2023 (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 Spread of Islam. Anything worth merging is available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Islamization[edit]

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

The term Islamization is generally used to describe content already discussed in the Spread of Islam page. Islamization is most often used in an historical context to detail how Islam was introduced to new regions (e.g., Islamization of Albania (one exception to this is Islamization in Pakistan which describes a contemporary policy which uses the same word). However, this page previously discussed the contemporary spread of radical Islam, or contemporary conversion trends in a disjointed manner. The page was left in need of a major cleanup and cited few sources. After another user removed irrelevant content (as well as POV content), it was left pretty bare, since the Spread of Islam page already covers most of the content the would be relevant to this page. I believe it is best to delete this page and move unique content from this page to that one, as well as redirect Islamization to the Spread of Islam page. too_much curiosity (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Spread of Islam: There is in fact nothing unique on this page any more, since I already copied the 'lead' into the "terminology" section on Spread of Islam, as well as the part below, which has been copied to the "Modern" section. And the different 'By Region' sections on Spread of Islam already directed to all of the different "Islamization by X" pages before I did anything. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / Merge into Spread of Islam: For same reasons as mentioned above or cause it meets the notability requirements. — 216.49.130.8 (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Spread of Islam: Duplicate article, or at best an unneeded fork. All the useful content in the article is already in target (maybe one ref could be moved), so nothing to merge.  // Timothy :: talk  17:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Endrabcwizart (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Midnight Gang[edit]

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

No citation remove : no meet Wikipedia:GNG Endrabcwizart (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

    A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

    1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
    1. Reviews about the book:
      1. Bearn, Emily (2016-12-03). "The Midnight Gang proves David Walliams just keeps getting better – review". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2023-02-28. Retrieved 2023-02-28.

        The review notes: "Walliams has been compared to Roald Dahl, but despite using the same illustrators – Quentin Blake and Tony Ross – the similarities are largely superficial. Where Dahl stretched the outlandish and the grotesque to their limits, Walliams is more restrained. And although this book has plenty of imaginative twists, there are no dazzling, Dahl-like inventions. Rather, it is a simple and touching story of children overcoming adversity with make-believe."

      2. Eisenhart, Mary (2019-06-03). "The Midnight Gang. Book review by Mary Eisenhart, Common Sense Media". Common Sense Media. Archived from the original on 2023-02-27. Retrieved 2023-02-28.

        The review notes: "British author David Walliams is in top form with this imaginative, poignant, often crude, and frequently hilarious tale of kids stuck in a London hospital. Some of the antics -- drugging oppressive adults and having secret expeditions to walk-in freezers -- are definitely not suited to real life. But it's a heartstring-tugging, thought-provoking tale with unforgettable characters, relatable issues, and a determination to do better than the bad people in your life."

      3. Augusta, Caitlin (2017-12-01). "The Midnight Gang". School Library Journal. Archived from the original on 2023-02-28. Retrieved 2023-02-28.

        The review notes: "The Midnight Gang's final dream is tragic and boisterously youthful. Ross's numerous black-and-white illustrations mirror Walliams's lawless, uncontained revelry. The author creates a surreal world in which adults are remote and children set the stage with their wildest imaginings. ... Irreverent as Roald Dahl, Walliams is a unique author who's created a memorable world and cast of characters."

      4. "The Midnight Gang". Kirkus Reviews. 2017-11-13. Archived from the original on 2023-02-28. Retrieved 2023-02-28.

        The review notes: "Plucky, sometimes-mean children come together to defeat diabolical hospital administrators and evil headmasters. ... An eventual lesson about bigotry against ugly people is undercut by prose that delights in describing the porter as “pongy” and having “rotten and misshapen teeth.” An entertaining tale that will definitely find an audience, but fans of icky, vicious comedy deserve better."

    2. Reviews about the stage adaptations of the book:
      1. Wiegand, Chris (2020-05-04). "The Midnight Gang review – escape to Walliams' wonderland". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2023-02-28. Retrieved 2023-02-28.

        The review notes: "The standout number is a rollicking breakfast anthem performed by Lucy Vandi and there are Mission: Impossible-esque instrumentals full of intrigue. But a great musical should leave you singing or at least humming one song, and none of these melodies linger. ... Funny, touching and spirited, The Midnight Gang is particularly suited to lockdown viewing with kids."

      2. Pollard, Alexandra (2018-12-26). "The Midnight Gang review: David Walliams channels Roald Dahl's zany imagination in delightful children's tale". The Independent. Archived from the original on 2023-02-28. Retrieved 2023-02-28.

        The review notes: "Walliams has clearly had a riot writing Matron’s pernicious dialogue. ... It is cruel, heartless, and deliciously funny. ... It is a beautiful yet devastating scene – a fitting climax to a drama with a big heart."

      3. "David Walliams' The Midnight Gang rolls into Her Majesty's". The Courier. 2021-04-01. ProQuest 2511070672.

        The article notes: "On Thursday The Midnight Gang rides into town for two performances. The play, based on the best-selling novel by famed British children's author David Walliams, is on a regional tour throughout Victoria. It tells the story of Tom, 12, who finds himself lonely and lost in the children's ward of St Crook's Hospital, away from his family and at the mercy of an evil matron. Each night at midnight, Tom and his fellow patients The Midnight Gang go on a series of amazing journeys as they use their imaginations to turn the hospital into the places they've always wanted to go and make dreams come true."

      4. Fargnoli, Dave (2017-07-24). "The Midnight Gang: "Fun david walliams' adaptation"". The Stage. ProQuest 1927854761. Archived from the original on 2023-02-28. Retrieved 2023-02-28.

        The review notes: "The latest in a string of stage adaptations of David Walliams' children's books, The Midnight Gang is a pleasant, if somewhat shallow, family adventure. The simple plot follows the patients on a children's ward in an austere hospital, who escape the stringent rules and bed-bound boredom of their days with imaginative night-time escapades. Director Lou Stein takes a big, brash, and earnest approach to the material, which gives the production a tripping, cartoonish tone, but sacrifices some opportunities for deeper resonance."

      5. Todd, Bella (2018-10-24). "The Midnight Gang: "Wickedly funny"". The Stage. ProQuest 2131787428. Archived from the original on 2023-02-28. Retrieved 2023-02-28.

        The review notes: "It's hard not to compare villainous characters in children's theatre to Matilda's Miss Trunchbull. The marvellously mean and deliciously disgusting Matron in The Midnight Gang could give her a run for her money. Jennie Dale, known to children from CBeebies' Swashbuckle, and to Chichester audiences as the solicitor in Me and My Girl, relishes playing the scourge of the children's ward in this new David Walliams adaptation as much as her character enjoys licking the topping from a patient's iced bun."

      6. Maxwell, Dominic (2018-10-24). "Theatre review: The Midnight Gang at the Chichester Festival Theatre". The Times. Archived from the original on 2021-10-02. Retrieved 2023-02-28.

        The review notes: "If Matilda the Musical has set the bar impossibly high for this kind of jaunty but plangent childhood tale, then the half-terming under-tens should nonetheless find plenty to enjoy in this game theatrical adaptation of David Walliams’s book. The adaptor, Bryony Lavery, and the composer and songwriter, Joe Stilgoe, have to cleave to a storyline that, in all honesty, is one of Walliams’s thinner conceits."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Midnight Gang to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Cunard above. Clearly meets WP:GNG. No idea what "No citation remove" means. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:16, 1 March 2023 (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. Randykitty (talk) 18:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pasquale Sbarra[edit]

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

Previously kept due to playing an Intertoto Cup game rather than anything to do with WP:GNG. I have searched ProQuest, DDG and Google News and not found the multiple good sources required for WP:SPORTBASIC. I found Fupa.net, which contains a paragraph about him, but it's not enough on its own. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:26, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Endrabcwizart (talk) 18:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dhad (Buldhana Village)[edit]

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

No, citation remove : No meet Wikipedia:GNG Endrabcwizart (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • speedy keep a legally recognised census town/village per this official source, I added it to the article (on mobile so can't search in census PDF file). This news also confirms the existence of town. Passes WP:GEOLAND. I got these results easily on first search on mobile. I recommend nominator to perform WP:BEFORE, before nominating an article :-) —usernamekiran (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: article needs a little work, and needs to be renamed after AfD. I will do that once the AfD is closed. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:22, 28 February 2023 (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 Demoscene. There's consensus that a stand-alone article is not warranted. Redirecting appears to be a reasonable ATD. Randykitty (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Equinox (Atari demogroup)[edit]

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

Created by members of the group. Previous nomination, which was years ago, failed to achieve quorum. Hasn't been improved much since, so would probably be a target for subtle vandalism. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 17:44, 27 February 2023 (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. Randykitty (talk) 17:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sanzhar Mustafin[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Nswix (talk) 17:35, 27 February 2023 (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. Randykitty (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor Yelisseyev[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Nswix (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2023 (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. Randykitty (talk) 17:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Temchenko Maxim[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Nswix (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Career not verifiable, a seemingly self-published "How to get rich" book with zero sales on Amazon, page feels like it was written by the subject or a close family member MNewnham (talk) 02:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Russia. Nswix (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2023 (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. Randykitty (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maksim Manukyan[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG Nswix (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2023 (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. Randykitty (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aharon D'Angelo-Lozenko[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Nswix (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Martial arts, and Armenia. Nswix (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can't find any information about this guy even in his accomplishments listed. Even other wiki's have nothing on him.KatoKungLee (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- I tried looking for source on Google but couldn't find anything significant related to him.Epcc12345 (talk) 00:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My research found that Artur Shahinyan from Armenia was a bronze medalist at the 2018 world championships. Unless this individual had a radical name change, he didn't compete at the world championships. Actually, the claim of a bronze in the 84 kg division at the 2011 European championships also appears to have been won by Shahinyan. I didn't find Aharon D'Angelo-Lozenko anywhere at the UWW website, but I did find Shahinyan. Papaursa (talk) 03:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I did my own search and found nothing in the way of WP:SIGCOV by independent third party WP:RS that would satisfy WP:GNG. Shawn Teller (talk) 01:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I also searched and can't find enough to satify WP:GNG. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:56, 6 March 2023 (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. Randykitty (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rafayel Simonyan[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOX and WP:GNG Nswix (talk) 16:53, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Martial arts and Armenia. Nswix (talk) 16:53, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Boxing. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:12, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG since sources are databases, fight results, or interviews so none of them qualify as signficant independent coverage. I do not know what world championships the article's claim refer to, but they are not the usual AIBA (now IBA) ones. The article lists 3 world championship medals, from events in Armenia (2012), Russia (2013), and Russia (2015). The 2012 event was a youth event and therefore doesn't show WP notability. The AIBA adult titles are biennial in odd numbered years and were held in Kazakhstan (2013) and Qatar (2015). Papaursa (talk) 14:46, 4 March 2023 (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. Randykitty (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Abrahamyan[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG Nswix (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2023 (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. A redirect seems superfluous as anybody doing the (rather unlikely) search for "List of NCAA football teams with 900 wins" will easily find List of NCAA football teams by wins. Randykitty (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of NCAA football teams with 900 wins[edit]

List of NCAA football teams with 900 wins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NLIST and is simply a subset of the more comprehensive List of NCAA football teams by wins. Cbl62 (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is a reasonable ATD. Cbl62 (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I said above, no team has yet to crack the thousand-win mark, so 900 was appropriate at the time of creation in 2012 because several teams had reached that hallmark, and at the time we didn't have sortable tables which allowed the user to sort by any number they chose. There are plenty of these table articles around that should be merged into others now that sorting is much easier. Nate • (chatter) 23:31, 27 February 2023 (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 tending to "keep". Randykitty (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Age fabrication[edit]

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

This is a procedural nomination after a deprod. The nominator is the IP address User:2600:100C:A208:620D:A417:16B0:EA3B:F5CE. The original PROD reason is This article has a numerous lack of reliable sources and BLP violations, including Original research. I nominated this as it had been added to the AfD list without a nomination being created and because the IP had reverted the deprod. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from the AfD page creator: There is a broad-concept article here, IMO, but it's buried in being a list of entries. The topic seems notable, and we have several specialized articles and sections like Age fraud in association football—this can be an overview linking out to areas that cover it. Because of the nature of the topic, BLP is definitely a concern for anyone who wants to take this on. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:02, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable topic. If there are concerns about verification or the reliability of specific sources, tag them or improve them. Deletion is not cleanup. Jfire (talk) 03:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How it the topic notable? There's not a single reference in the entire introduction section.
    How can this article possibly meet the requirements of BLP? --Hipal (talk) 04:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hipal: It's not uncommon for a lead section to go without references if the contents are found elsewhere in the article. See MOS:LEADCITE. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But the contents do not appear to be elsewhere in the article. --Hipal (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The lede--and thus the article--is original research. There is no citation "Age fabrication is prevalent." Fifty-three examples is not the same as a foundation reference on the topic. Imagine if you saw a new article, "Popularity of red houses," supported by articles about a red house in Chicago, a red house in Hong Kong, and a red house in London, but no article about red houses in general. Rhadow (talk) 23:29, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's trivial to find sources that show this is a notable topic:
If there are some specific statements that are not supported by such sources, fine, tag or remove them. That doesn't invalidate the fact that there's a notable topic here, about which Wikipedia can survey and summarize what is said in reliable sources, as it does with every other article. Jfire (talk) 03:29, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Focusing on notability doesn't address the V, OR, and BLP problems. There may be evidence to have an article on a related topic, but I don't see how those refs help with this one. --Hipal (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Age fabrication is prevalent" doesn't appear anywhere in the page. I'm not sure what Rhadow is referring to by quoting that. What are the actual V, OR, and BLP problems you see here? The living persons listed in the article are Charo, Traci Lords, Kangana Ranaut, Katie Redford, Katharine Ross, Anastacia, Paloma Faith, Toni Tennille, and Gary Hart. At the time the article was nominated, all had citations with the exception of Gary Hart; I just added a citation for him. Are you questioning whether age fabrication exists at all, or whether it's an encylopedic topic? Do you believe that that statements like "[Age fabrication] is usually done intention to garner privileges or status that would not otherwise be available to that person" is OR? Sure, it could use a citation, but it doesn't strike me as SYNTH or OR, certainly not something that justifies wholesale deletion of the article. Jfire (talk) 05:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive338#Age_fabrication, and the many concerns on the article talk page.
Briefly, what type of "age fabrication" is this article about? I don't know because there are no refs in the introduction to this list. Yes, I'm treating this as a list article given it's history and state. In order to meet BLP criteria, I agree with the concern on the talk page that "If they are going to be included, there has to be sourcing specifically saying they fabricated their age, not that it was misreported."
I also agree that "Rather than enumerating the hundreds of examples of age fabrication, we should be documenting the reasons why people take the decision (the ageism of Hollywood, competing in youth sports tournaments, marrying before the age of consent etc)" --Hipal (talk) 18:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - good example of original research and WP:SYNTH. Artem.G (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draft for sourcing of the primary contention that age fabrication is itself a notable phenomenon, which it obviously is given the prevalence of fake IDs used to gain access to alcohol. BD2412 T 06:35, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm seeing three somewhat different discussions going on. One about whether intentional misstatements of your age is a notable concept overall, one about whether we need a list of allegations of individuals who have done so, and yet another about whether this version of the article is (and can be) anything other than original research.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 15:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - All of the objections so far fall squarely into WP:SOFIXIT. The sourcing (and even the most cursory searches) show it's obviously notable, and the issues aren't all-encompassing enough to TNT. Strongly oppose moving an 18-year-old article to draftspace. If someone here wants to improve it, go for it. Moving an old article to draftspace without someone committing to improve it is just a deferred deletion, and if someone's going to commit to improving it, you can just do it in mainspace, right? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:35, 1 March 2023 (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. Randykitty (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Music education in Wales[edit]

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

Article appears to be something that was started by never developed. It starts quite essay-like and remains unsourced after 13 years. There are no precedents for articles about music education in specific countries. The roles of the Davies sisters in promoting culture is already included in Gwendoline Davies, Margaret Davies and Gwyl Gregynog Festival. Time for it to go? Sionk (talk) 14:15, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-This article is both a stub and unsourced. If the majority of the information in it is contained in other pages, then the article should be deleted and the other pages expanded with its content. Criteria here also would include, IMO, WP:NOTABILITY Pseudo(Avicenna) (talk) 15:32, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, gives undue to "The Gregynog sisters", which can indeed be elsewhere. There is Music education in Uganda but that is the only other article, so indeed no precedent, all others usually redirect to either "Music of...#Education" or "Education of..." which neither Music of Wales or Education in Wales has a section to warrant a redirect or content to merge to. So therefore delete. DankJae 18:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article isn't about music education in Wales so it's unclear what it is supposed to be. It only has one example of music education, and that is unsourced. The Gregynog "sisters" and the music festival they started are covered in Gregynog Hall. If there is information about educational works by them it could be added there. Lamona (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2023 (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. Randykitty (talk) 13:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Len Wicks[edit]

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

The article doesn't demonstrate any outstanding achievement, essentially it boils down to one self-published novel and some previous aviation background with average awareness activism. Web search doesn't show anything meaningful about him either, primarily just book listings. Likely fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:AUTHOR. Brandmeistertalk 13:38, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Brandmeistertalk 13:38, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, Armenia, Australia, and New Zealand. Skynxnex (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I cannot find any reliable sources evidencing notability. There are a couple of passing mentions that are simply routine for his capacity in air traffic control; and an article he authored in a Lebanon newspaper. Fails GNG. Cabrils (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete coverage is not indepth to meet WP:BIO. The SBS interview may have been considered a good source but it's a dead link. LibStar (talk) 01:30, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dubious -- If kept his category Armenians from Ottoman Empire, as he was born in 1959, over 40 years too late to qualify: substitute an appropriate descent category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:12, 4 March 2023 (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. Randykitty (talk) 13:24, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Old Columbine, Arizona[edit]

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

So here I have a puzzle. This is just north of the Columbine Work Station and consists of a loose cluster of similar bungalows. The NRHP submission says:"The present administrative site contains nine other buildings which are located outside the historic property boundary. [...] There is little information on these buildings. They were moved to the site or constructed after the Depression era." Given the lack of an overall map, it is not entirely clear that this refers to any of the buildings in the Old Columbine group. The site is extremely isolated and lies west of the Mt. Graham observatories. I wasa unable to find anything at all about the name. Mangoe (talk) 13:17, 27 February 2023 (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. Randykitty (talk) 13:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Collins Kimbowa[edit]

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

Fails WP:NRU and can't find evidence of WP:GNG when searching "Collins Kimbowa" and "Collin Kimbowa". The article has The Sports Nation as the only decent source but it's just a brief quote with no independent analysis. The source tells us nothing about Kimbowa so we can't build a decent biography. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:07, 27 February 2023 (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. Randykitty (talk) 10:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Q Holdings Inc[edit]

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

Routine coverage doesn't constitute a "level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements" as required to meet WP:CORP. Uhooep (talk) 10:36, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who is 'we'? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NCORP - David Gerard (talk) 11:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    citations added. further are being added BeyondBasics (talk) 11:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - was going to support userifying to BeyondBasics' user page but since they've been blocked that seems unnecessary. For future reference, Moody's has quite constant coverage so if non-routine credit rating coverage becomes available, future editors seeking to create a page for this company will find that useful. However, as it stands I don't think there is enough coverage to satisfy WP:NCORP. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 12:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Article creator has been blocked for UPE. – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 17:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the sources meet NCORP/GNG criteria for establishing notability and I'm unable to locate anything that does. HighKing++ 15:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify. Randykitty (talk) 10:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Collins (American football player)[edit]

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

Non-notable former NFL player who played in 3 games in 1922. A WP:BEFORE yields no results. Therapyisgood (talk) 10:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify to give BeanieFan11 time to find sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Fails WP:GNG in its current form. Draftifying would be the top choice as BeanieFan11 has offered to search for sources. Redirecting per Cbl62 would be my second choice. Alvaldi (talk) 19:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: Needs improvements before it meets notability standards. Let BeanieFan11 have a chance to improve the article in the draft space. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:18, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. I acknowledge that there is a lot to be desired in the way of sources, however, article appears to have WP:POTENTIAL. Thus, I am proposing a unique solution here: to draftify rather than delete the article until such time as notability standards are met and demonstrated in the way of sources. Shawn Teller (talk) 01:40, 6 March 2023 (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 1925 Chicago Cardinals–Milwaukee Badgers scandal. Randykitty (talk) 10:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Richardson (American football)[edit]

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

non-notable NFL player who played in one NFL game in 1925. Therapyisgood (talk) 09:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. That's a more apt redirect. Cbl62 (talk) 15:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.Redirect to 1925 Chicago Cardinals–Milwaukee Badgers scandal, all the sources in the article (and that I can find) mention him in passing to the scandal. If any better sources are found please ping. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:43, 27 February 2023 (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. Randykitty (talk) 10:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Howie Slater[edit]

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

Non-notable former NFL player who played one season for a team in 1926. A WP:BEFORE on Newspapers.com reveals no real sources-- a mention in Washington state on a marriage, otherwise nothing. Therapyisgood (talk) 09:53, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

.Keep. Great work by Cbl62. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:39, 27 February 2023 (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. Randykitty (talk) 10:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Baldwin[edit]

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

Non-notable former NFL player who played in 3 games in 1920-1921. A WP:BEFORE yields no instances of WP:SIGCOV on Newspapers.com, Google Books, or Google itself. Therapyisgood (talk) 09:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

.Keep Thanks to the work of Cbl62. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:40, 27 February 2023 (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. Randykitty (talk) 10:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Laxmi Datt Sharma[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO and reads like an WP:ADMASQ. Refbombed; many references are from unreliable sources like digital marketing blogs, press releases and advertorials. The reliable sources only contain passing mentions of Sharma with no indication of WP:SIGCOV. Likely WP:ACPERM gaming too. Maduant (talk) 09:09, 27 February 2023 (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. Three relists later, we have a consensus. Courcelles (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Forum for Stable Currencies[edit]

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

I don't believe this political advocacy group meets WP:ORG or WP:ORGCRIT. The independent sources cited all appear to be passing mentions. The article's creator and primary contributor, Sabine McNeill, is the group's founder. Jfire (talk) 02:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Two hits in Wikipedia Library: one cites the Forum for Stable Currencies in a footnote, while the other is one sentence in the New Statesman article, which reads: The Forum for Stable Currencies has been meeting monthly in the House of Lords for two years now, attracting leading figures from the world of small business and across the political spectrum -- and presided over by the pipe-smoking Lord Sudeley, chairman of the Monday Club. The other sources currently cited in the article seem equally thin (or thinner). There isn't enough in-depth coverage to satisfy WP:GNG, let alone WP:ORG. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:27, 27 February 2023 (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! 04:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Collins v Wilcock[edit]

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

Notability: mentions in RS limited to subject (casebooks, study guides, etc.) Also, WP:NOT a law school. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United Kingdom. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This leading case satisfies GNG easily and by a wide margin. The precedent established by this judgment has received significant coverage in many books and periodical articles. Having an article on this case does not violate WP:NOT. In addition to being irrelevant, the claim that this case is only taught at (postgraduate) law schools is also not true. This case is so fundamental and important that it is actually included in books at all levels down to GCSE [21]; and Wikipedia is not a primary school for children under the age of 12. James500 (talk) 03:00, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The citation for the GCSE is paywalled (maybe bc I'm in the US), neither archive.org nor Gutenberg have that book, and I don't think WP:LIBRARY has that book. Out of WP:LIBRARY searches for the case, Oxford Law is 'temporarily unavailable', Cambridge Press turns up nothing, and Wiley turns up some possible mentions somewhere in the footnotes. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you provide citations for significant coverage in many books and periodicals? All coverage I've seen in my searches is brief and very subject-specific.
    RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG) says nothing about "subject-specific" sources. Significant coverage is significant no matter how "subject-specific" the source is.
It is not sufficient to search WP:LIBRARY alone. It is especially not sufficient to search the internal search engine on the Cambridge University Press site and Wiley alone. The internal search engine on the Cambridge University Press site appears to search metadata and not the text of sources. The internal search engine on the Oxford University Press site indicates coverage in 36 sources. According to Google there is coverage in 40+ sources on the Oxford University Press site; and 40+ sources on the Cambridge University Press site. The sources on the Wiley site are not particularly numerous, but include discussion of the case in a footnote; and footnotes that are citations to a discussion of the case in the body of the article. (It is not enough to read the footnote; you have to read the text in the body of the article that is cited to that footnote). It is always necessary to look at Google Books and Google Scholar. There is coverage in 170+ books (including some periodicals) in Google Books and in 480+ sources in Google Scholar. These include about 90+ sources from HeinOnline. GScholar does not appear to index the content (most of which is paywalled) on Lexis or Westlaw, both of which include journals, and both of which need to be searched. It is always necessary to look at the Internet Archive. There is coverage in 640+ sources in the Internet Archive. There are 40+ sources in BAILII: [22] [23]. These are not indexed in Google at all. There is also material on the CanLII (20+ sources [24] [25]), AustLII SAFLII, and CommonLII, sites, which does not seem to be indexed, or completely indexed, by GScholar. According to Google, the .ac.uk domain contains coverage in 130+ sources from Universities etc in the United Kingdom, which do not seem to be indexed, or completely indexed, by GScholar. Then there are the sources from Australian Universities etc in the .edu.au domain: [26] (60+ sources including AustLII). And the sources from the New Zealand Universities etc in the ac.nz domain: [27]. And the sources from Osgoode Hall, De Gruyter and JSTOR which do not seem to be indexed, or completely indexed, by GScholar. And the sites of the other Canadian, American and Irish universities.
So:
Are you actually going to read the several hundred plus sources yourself? And will you state exactly which, and exactly how many, of those several hundred plus sources you have actually read? Or would you like me to give you a blow by blow account of the significant coverage in the several hundred plus sources? James500 (talk) 09:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:36, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I don't have access to facilities such as Westlaw, but looking at Steele's "Tort Law" (Oxford, Third Edition, ISBN 9780198755920), the section on Battery: The Nature of the Required Contact leads with the Court of Appeal judgment in this case (detailed quotations on pages 47-48, then informing discussion on pages 59-61). This plus the sources indicated above appears sufficient to indicate notability. AllyD (talk) 08:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Due to the significant coverage in reliable sources as follows:
  1. Harvey, B., Marston, J. (2009). Cases and Commentary on Tort. United Kingdom: OUP Oxford.
  2. Matthews, M., Howarth, D., Hepple, B., Tofaris, S., Morgan, J., O'Sullivan, J. (2016). Hepple and Matthews' Tort Law: Cases and Materials. United Kingdom: Bloomsbury Publishing. (9 lines, so borderline, but I'm satisfied)
  3. Monaghan, N. (2016). Criminal Law Directions. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
  4. Rackley, E., Horsey, K. (2019). Kidner's Casebook on Torts. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. (8 lines, but important ones)
I consider that this article meets the threshold of WP:GNG CT55555(talk) 01:29, 5 March 2023 (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! 07:24, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sakuchia Badiuzzaman Dakhil Madrasah[edit]

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

Secondary school that does not meet WP:NHSCHOOL. Searches in English and Bengali found only government directory listings. It exists, but is not notable. Redirecting to the enclosing community, Manpura Upazila, is a possibility, but it feels like that would give undue weight to this particular school unless Wikipedia is going to list there the other dozen secondary schools in the area, notable or not. Worldbruce (talk) 07:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. A possible rename can be discussed on the talk page. Randykitty (talk) 08:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Subdivisions of the Nordic countries[edit]

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

WP:REDUNDANT Outdated listicle originally by long banished user. Better served by European Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics, although that needs updating, too.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:43, 20 February 2023 (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/2023 February 20. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 06:58, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't really see the problem (other than perhaps the name of the page, shouldn't it be a 'List of..'?). Seems to me it is fairly short, easily verifiable and potentially useful for navigation around WP. If it is outdated then I would think it could be easily updated. Origin with a banned user seems irrelevant in this case unless I'm missing something. JMWt (talk) 08:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:33, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete useless WP:CONTENTFORK that synths the various administrative divisions of these countries under a geographic (but not administrative) moniker. Unless the claim that "The administrative divisions of the Nordic countries are similar given the countries' shared culture and history" can be sourced and significantly beefed up this article does no good. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:CONTENTFORK. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 05:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Meets WP:AOAL. Agree the name needs to be changed, prefer "Outline of..." over list of because the order is topical and it could be easily expanded.  // Timothy :: talk  08:10, 3 March 2023 (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! 05:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sandro Shubladze[edit]

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

I can't find anything notable about the subject - they have written a few artciles in Forbes, but as a Forbes Technology Council member which is something that you pay to be on, and is self published. The other sources are their linkedin account; a business entry that mentions them as a subject; and a blog posts that quotes them being quoted in Forbes. I tried looking elsewhere, but I couldn't find anything sufficient to establish notability online. Bilby (talk) 05:42, 27 February 2023 (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. Joyous! Noise! 00:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Solvik[edit]

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

BLP previously kept at AfD in 2008, but does not seem to have accrued any more RIS in the fifteen years since then. Being CIO of Cisco seemed to clinch it back in 2008 but though the subject has held senior positions I can see nothing at all in depth about him. Mccapra (talk) 00:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America. Mccapra (talk) 00:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I was all set to say "wikipedia is not linkedin!" and !vote delete but this guy is probably more notable today than he was in 2008. I'd love an in-depth profile of his entire life, but there's definitely a lot about his business life to be found. I've done some reworking and adding to the article.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks those are improvements but I’m not sufficiently convinced of his notability to withdraw the nomination. Mccapra (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK, i only spent a little time on it. It can only (hopefully) get even better during this AfD discussion.--Milowent • hasspoken 21:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep in light of improvements. Easily satisfies WP:GNG. There is enough in the article now to justify keeping it, both in terms of sourcing and content, including a notability argument. Of course, there is still room for improvement and expansion; a Wikipedia Library quick search yields 132 hits, many of which look promising in terms of offering additional information which could be incorporated into the article. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The LA Times and WSJ articles are enough to establish notability. The interviews and shorter articles don't detract from that. Admittedly, there is very little biographical information so all we know about is his work. I think that's the nature of the tech world; if he were an artist, for example, some journalist would want to know more about him as a person. Lamona (talk) 16:38, 5 March 2023 (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. Joyous! Noise! 00:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Granville, Arizona[edit]

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

I find no evidence that, before it was replaced by a campground, it was more than a ranch/whatever or two. Mangoe (talk) 00:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Found a reference to it on an old 1956 map, but thats it PalauanReich (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~212030~5500188:Shell-Highway-Map-of-Arizona- PalauanReich (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Simply being a dot on a map is not good enough. There have been too many errors passed along that way. Mangoe (talk) 03:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V and WP:GEOLAND given the lack of reliable sources supporting the subject's existence as a populated place. The article relies on GNIS, which is unreliable for this designation. The other sources are either equally unreliable or only discuss it as a campground. If it is just a campground it would need to pass the GNG to be notable. A dot on a map does not mean it's a populated place, and GEOLAND says that merely being included on a map doesn't establish notability. Note there is a real community called Granville in Prescott Valley, Arizona. Hut 8.5 18:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found the “real” Granville mentioned by Hut 8.5 and this ain’t it. This is a non-notable WP:MILL campground. People searching for Granville, Prescott Valley AZ are likely to get confused by this useless article. Dronebogus (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not appear to have been a notable community. (Note to closer: Please also delete from lists and templates instead of just delinking.) –dlthewave ☎ 20:06, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_February_27&oldid=1143295182"