Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 14	November 16 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect‎ to Solms-Wildenfels#Mediatized Counts of Solms-Wildenfels. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Friedrich Magnus VI, Count of Solms-Wildenfels[edit]

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

Royalty fancruft and speculative genealogy. I am unable to find any indication in online sources that "Friedrich Magnus VI" is an encyclopedically notable individual. Surtsicna (talk) 21:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Royalty and nobility, and Germany. Surtsicna (talk) 21:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merits further investigation. There are at least five book sources in English, German, French and Turkish that record details of this individual and his family that appear to line up with what is said in the article. However, I can't see the full entries online - someone would have to have access to the actual sources. Bermicourt (talk) 09:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Count of a county that no longer exists (and apparently hasn't since 1806)? That ~~isn't going to do it~~ doesn't count for anything. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or redirect to Solms-Wildenfels#Mediatized Counts of Solms-Wildenfels. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested. While it's not exactly "fancruft", it is poorly sourced. On the other hand, he has claims to heading several important deposed royal families, so deleting this will erase the coding for a potentially valid article. Bearian (talk) 00:25, 22 November 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!} 22:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

D2iQ, Inc.[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. References are routine business, startup and funding news scope_creep^Talk 09:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails WP:SOAP as well. Catalyzzt (talk) 13:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on this coverage, I think the company passes W:NCORP:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – DreamRimmer (talk) 12:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a case study there which usually means its notable. However the references are extremenly poor. The Forbes ref above is a contributor is an non-rs. The Information ref is speculation at best wouldn't pass WP:SIRS. The first block of references doesn't contain a single valid ref, that passes WP:SIRS. scope_creep^Talk 15:13, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by speculation? It is relatively significant coverage about the company itself, The Information is a reliable, secondary source, and the authors and source appear to be independent from the subject.

You're right about the second Forbes article, but the first one I linked to was written by a Forbes senior editor. Mooonswimmer 17:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It may be senior editor but its based on The Information article. It is not reliable nor independent. The Information article is not reliable as its speculation. scope_creep^Talk 18:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All the information here, every single bit of it is company generated. It is all PR. scope_creep^Talk 18:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have vague memories this company was covered by analysts (Gartner? Forrester?) but I'm unable to conduct a search due to limited access at present. Perhaps someone else can take a look? HighKing⁺⁺ 19:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find anything. Certainly they do seem to be liked by Gartner who reckon they follow recommedations in the container management using Kubernetes market segment and they are mentioned in aa Gartner report is which likely an ideal secondary source, but they're not in a Gartner magic quadrant report or any Forrester analyst reports. The references that comes close, is the case study in the article, which likely make combined with the Gartner coverage which is significant. In saying that Globaldata has a report on them. scope_creep^Talk 20:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with the nominator and other users. The company pretends to be notable but really good independent sources are not found. Javierel (talk) 14:27, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could evaluate the sources I've provided above. Mooonswimmer 16:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. The sources presented need further evaluation anda. consensus to be established about whether they qualify for GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:55, 15 November 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!} 22:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchic Adjustment[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP: no significant coverage available. Article has been tagged as needing additional citations since 2007 and it seems that's because there simply aren't sources available. A WP:BEFORE revealed this article, but it's an interview with one of the founders so isn't independent. The existing sources in the article appear to be trivial mentions or unrelated. Uhai (talk) 23:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, Japan, United States of America, and California. Uhai (talk) 23:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It appears both the listed founders may have edited the article over the years using the accounts Imaginarynick and Vast Ozone III. See the article talk page for linking the latter account with Alan Brown. Uhai (talk) 23:58, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Philip. Uhai (talk) 05:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete. If this was Big in Japan, would there not be better sources? Bearian (talk) 00:28, 22 November 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!} 22:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mid Valley Shopping Centre[edit]

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

Marked for notability concerns 6 years ago. I could find no indepth coverage to meet WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 23:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Australia. LibStar (talk) 23:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. I could not find any reliable sources, noting that the current references also include Facebook. Cabrils (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. It's a shopping centre and it's not notable. TarnishedPath^talk 02:24, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above discussion, terrible sources, and as a run of the mill shopping center, one of thousands in the First World. Bearian (talk) 00:29, 22 November 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. Pretty much per the last relist comment. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:50, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Hanlon[edit]

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

Declined PROD under assertion that subject passes WP:NACTOR, however the required WP:SIGCOV cannot be found in historic publications to assert subject as being sufficiently notable for an article. Initial discussion occurred on the talk page without a clear consensus. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, and Theatre. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find anything beyond confirmation he was in the films (in various ads for them). Tried Gbooks and a newspaper search from 1916-1922, nothing extensive turns up. Oaktree b (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I deproDed the page; and obviously still think Hanlon passes WP:NACTOR for the at least 2 verifiable significant roles he had in 2 notable films, the guideline stating, "The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions".-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: An actor with starring role in a particularly significant film, I think he passes muster. I suspect there are more sources out there that just aren't on the radar. The early motion picture trades are voluminous but hard to search.Justinkrivers (talk) 15:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Justinkrivers, not that i'm challenging the accuracy of your statement, but which film are you asserting to have been "particularly significant", and what evidence are you citing to backup the claim the subject's involvement was "starring", or significant in any way? From my own searching, I have yet to find anything to suggest this individual was particularly noteworthy, else i'd have gladly developed the article myself. If we're making claims he had "significant roles", this needs backing up with something. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is reasonable to argue that Pr Aronnax's character in 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea might be considered not significant. As for Bill Carson in The Great Problem, all right, let me quote the synopsis verbatim for you.

"After her father Bill Carson is imprisoned and her mother Mary dies, Peggy becomes a pickpocket. When she is caught, a reform-minded district attorney, George Devereaux, decides to take her in as his ward and "civilize" her. George's experiment is a success, and Peggy is soon engaged to one of his friends. At the wedding, however, she realizes that she really loves George, so she runs away and becomes a thief once again. Meanwhile, Bill has been released, and he is determined to kill George, who had him convicted. When Peggy, who secretly has been watching George, sees Bill pull a gun on him, she jumps between the two men and lets the bullet hit her. Bill forgets all about vengeance after wounding his daughter, and then, when Peggy recovers, George marries her."

It is even more significant when you know the topic and message of the film, again, let me quote AFI for you, verbatim: "According to news items, this film embodied the theories of American penologist Thomas Mott Osborne, the chairman of the New York State Commission for Prison Reform (1913) and warden of Sing Sing prison in New York State (1914-16). Osborne assumed a false name and secretly served a week at Auburn prison to learn of conditions there. At the time of this film's release, Osborne was vindicated in court of one set of charges, and awaiting trial on further indictments. "

You could also watch the films. So 2 significant roles in 2 notable films. QED. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did indeed recently watch the 1916 version of 20,000 Leagues, at a theatre with an original live score by a band. I specialize in silent film, and although I can't say I love this version, it certainly is a cinema landmark. Would have loved to see Stephin Merritt's score in San Francisco. There are numerous markers of its significance...programmed regularly, received a restoration from national archive, is preserved in notable collections, programmed for international festivals, written about a lot. The professor is one of the main characters. This is true across the other five adaptations of the novel that I have watched (and the novel itself). I mean, he's really the lead character except that Nemo is the juiciest role and usually gets top billing. Justinkrivers (talk) 17:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maliner (talk) 20:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in the article are not WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth and BEFORE showed database records. Nothing above is sourced or are based in guidelines/policy, they are unambiguous ILIKEITT votes. // Timothy :: talk 17:37, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NACTOR is a guideline and the source is clearly named (American Film Institute). Please refrain from commenting other people's !votes if the only thing you have to say about them is inaccurate, thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense Jack, no sources, just opinions. // Timothy :: talk 19:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can only repeat my 1st reply: "WP:NACTOR is a guideline and the source is clearly named (American Film Institute). Please refrain from commenting other people's !votes if the only thing you have to say about them is inaccurate, thank you." Just read the guideline, read our !votes carefully and check the source. Given the tone of your reply, I have no further comments. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: @Mushy Yank: WP:NACTOR applies (its part of NBIO) and it says clearly, "Such a person may be considered notable". You have a bad habit of twisting guidelines to substitute your opinions on notability and it needs to stop. When a guidelines says may be notable it does not mean always is notable. Do not present it otherwise. // Timothy :: talk 21:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My comments are both sourced and well informed. The text of a blockbuster movie is certainly a source and is relevant in this context. I don't have any personal interest in this article. I just think it meets the criteria for notability. I also wouldn't mind if you assumed some good faith. I also see newspaper articles that show him touring in theatre productions across the country, working for Edward Albee's grandfather as a stage manager in Rhode Island, managing the Lafayette Players... the New York Dramatic Mirror reports that he did at least two seasons with Ben Hur in 1907 (this show was the Cats of its day), he also directed theatre in Chicago, Washington, New York, Albany...there's a picture of him in The Knickerbocker News in 1947 giving a Gannett reporter stage makeup (probably for a feature that I haven't found) and there's a letter to the editor he wrote to the New York Sun in 1927 referencing an article he wrote in The Evening Sun...seems like he got lots of coverage in sources that require a little more effort to search. I'm an experienced editor and a very good researcher and I stand by my comments completely.Justinkrivers (talk) 01:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note on the reply by TimothyBlue above. Since they pinged me, and considering the content and tone of their latest reply, I find it necessary to add a note, although I had expressed no willingness to do so: You have a bad habit of twisting guidelines to substitute your opinions on notability and it needs to stop. When a guidelines says may be notable it does not mean always is notable. Do not present it otherwise. does not seem to be an appropriate comment, neither in tone nor content. If someone really thinks this rather serious accusation is supported by something, then, by all means, let them raise the issue at the appropriate forum. As for me having presented the WP:NACTOR guideline in a misleading light during the course of this particular discussion, it is very easy to verify that it is not true. Should anyone indeed think that something, whatever it is, needs to stop, I am, again, inviting them to raise the issue at a more appropriate forum, as this is not what we are discussing here. Thank you.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More than likely passes the notability bar, but the lack of sources is what's holding us back here, if that helps explain the situation. That's why I !delete voted this. Oaktree b (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (but weak keep) -- clearly notable because of his roles but need sources with which to build an article. See the discussion at Talk:Dan Hanlon#Notability.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This should be kept for now, but it’s quite possible it won’t stand the test of time if new roles don’t develop over time. Go4thProsper (talk) 17:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I respect the expressions offered by A. B. and Go4thProsper, however do note that they appear to suggest that WP:SOURCESEXIST without explicitly knowing that to be the case; this is a position that should be avoided in a deletion discussion. The text on that link says it fairly straight: "We keep articles because we know they have sources, not because we assume they have". My position is that I struggled to find sufficient sourcing to justify an article for the individual. I appreciate not every historic publication has been digitalised, but by late 2023, many have and the lack of WP:SIGCOV in what has been digialised is apparent. As I noted in previous comments, i'd have welcomed the opportunity to develop this article if I could find sufficient sources. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In one of my previous comments I suggested a number of avenues for further searching as well as other sources I found that indicate further inquiry would be fruitful. This subject isn't of interest to me personally so I'm not going to spend a lot of time on it, but I think this article is a great example of one of the unfortunate biases that we deal with here on a regular basis: the bias towards digital as opposed to analog sources. A successful and notable theatre career would not be covered in digitized sources, in a similar way that a successful and notable theatre career of even the 1970s or 80s is often not covered in digitized sources. I've run into that a lot. Justinkrivers (talk) 23:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Justinkrivers, while I accept that there may well be "unfortunate bias" when it comes to actors published in historic sources, that doesn't extend to all editors, nor does it mean that someone who had some form of career historically is automatically notable without being able to demonstrate that as being the case. Further up, you mention you found some interesting material but failed to further reference its whereabouts or clippings, which would have assisted (I found sources relating to a different person by the same time, during that time also, which I was mindful not to conflate with our subject).

In contrast, I had no issues writing similar articles (from scratch) on the likes of Allene Crater, Gisela Werbezirk and Daisy Belmore, all of who acted on stage and/or film during the late 19th/early 20th century; I trust this also shows a committent from myself in establishing such articles. I am sure there is much more material on those yet to be digialised also, but enough was there to demonstrate notability. I struggled to find WP:SIGCOV on Dan Hanlon; maybe it's very deeply hidden, maybe not, but we could always revisit an article further down the line, as there is WP:NORUSH. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned the Evening Sun, the New York Dramatic Mirror and the Knickerbocker News specifically. Only a few of those are digitized and sometimes are accessible via Fulton Newspapers. Knickerbocker is only digitized for a couple of years in late 1980s, the rest is on microfilm only, so you'd have to go to Albany. Some of the motion picture trades are searchable via Lantern. His name is Daniel E. Hanlon and can be found as Daniel E. or as Dan E. sometimes.Justinkrivers (talk) 14:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. There is clearly a desire to retain this article on the part of several participants but a lack of adequate SIGCOV to justify it. I'm going for a final relist to ask if this relatively newly created article could be draftified, merged or redirected? You all are the subject matter experts, I just wanted to raise the question of ATD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NBASIC. People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Hanlon does not satisfy those guidelines, even though he may be notable due to his roles, NACTOR is part of NBIO as TimothyBlue states above. I can't find NBASIC-noteworthy sources either on ProQuest, Google Books, and the Wikipedia Library. Justinkrivers, does the sources you mentioned above (The Dramatic Mirror, The Knickerbocker News, The Evening Sun, etc.) have significant coverage of the subject, and is independent and secondary? Tails Wx 02:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Independent and secondary, yes. Significant, not sure. I see short items that mention his career to the public as if it were worthy of reporting on but I don't see any long profiles of him. There's a mention as well to a column or article series he wrote in the Evening Sun but that paper is not fully digitize. The photo in the Knick appears to be a lead in to a larger story but the rest of that issue is not digitized. What I have found indicates that he did those few films and then went back to a long national career in theatre, which suggests further avenues of inquiry. He appears as an author or co-author of plays in the copyright registers so there are a bunch of play titles and collaborators to calibrate a search as well. My point continues to be that the places where it makes sense to look are not the places where people are looking. A half-hearted attempt on my part came up with a whole bunch of things I could follow up on. But I don't really have the time. I don't love the idea that an article might be deleted because I was too lazy to check, but that's the system we have. The vast majority of newspapers are not simply digitized. Google books is a great resource, but it skews us all because the number of their digitized papers seems like a lot but is really a fraction of what's out there. That's why I like Fulton, it's a chaos grabbag.Justinkrivers (talk) 14:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-sourced, and had a stage career aside from those few roles anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:11, 19 November 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. ✗plicit 03:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Buckwald[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. Could not find anything near a GNG coverage. Previously deleted and then again proded. Some concern that the creator has 144 lifetime edits and starting with edit #1 was an expert at creating articles for living people who could benefit from having an article.

Has some recognition, with the top one their being listed in Forbes top 30 under 30 but IMO that is not enough to override GNG type coverage requirement. North8000 (talk) 23:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Technology, California, Florida, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - very likely WP:UPE spam. I've blocked the author. MER-C 19:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - WP:UPE applies and written in a promotional tone. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 22:25, 19 November 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mashallah News[edit]

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

Seems to be an attempt to disguise an advertisement as an article: all of the cited sources trace back to the company itself (barring one which seems to be a dead link; I'm not sure where or what that was). I couldn't find anything at all in a WP:BEFORE independent of the subject, let alone that would pass WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV or any other relevant guideline. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Africa, Middle East, Iran, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Aintabli (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All are paid or self made articles to promote the news outlet which comes under COI, not passing WP:GNG and WP:PROMO is witnessed, I agree with OP, delete per nom.--JanAminK (talk) 09:26, 17 November 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. after improvements to article to address nomination statement. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Christiano (researcher)[edit]

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

Little evidence that Christiano passes WP:NBIO, WP:NSCIENTIST/WP:NACADEMIC or any other Wikipedia notability criterion. There are two RSes, one of which is an interview with a personal friend and the other is from a single press tour in July which supplied almost all the RS coverage I could find in a WP:BEFORE. Neither is a biographical piece. The article has many other references, but they're all primary. Request for better sourcing to address the issue on the talk page for two weeks, no response; PROD removed without addressing the sourcing deficiencies. What are the three best independent third-party RSes supplying significant biographical coverage to the requirements of WP:BLP? - David Gerard (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and United States of America. David Gerard (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, California, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hi David, I didn't see the message you put up on the talk page. I think Paul Christiano meets the following criterion from WP:NACADEMIC: "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." He's first author of "Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences" and co-author many other RLHF-related papers, which are extremely highly cited and a core technique used in training large language models like ChatGPT. See his Google Scholar here. Additionally, he is featured in an article in Time's list of 100 most influential people in AI. Enervation (talk) 08:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG as evidenced by recognition on cover of TIME magazine (one of 28 faces) and feature article in corresponding issue about the TIME 100 Most Influential People in AI (TIME 100/AI), as well as the Fortune magazine article which nominator agreed counted toward notability on the article Talk page. In addition, the 2017 New York Times article "Teaching AI systems to behave themselves" did feature Christiano alongside another colleague at OpenAI. These have all been added to the article now. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely now meets GNG with the additional material added during the afd. Thriley (talk) 20:31, 22 November 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 rogue security software. The target article is just a list so I don't think Merge would be appropriate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Internet Security 2011[edit]

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

Might not be notable enough malware. A Google search mostly brings up trivial mentions, and very few year-numbered fake antiviruses have their own page. This could be merged into List of rogue security software which mentions many more rogue antiviruses. Xeroctic (talk) 18:35, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Xeroctic (talk) 18:35, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Owen× ☎ 15:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of rogue security software, largely per nom. I'm not exactly sure what content there is to merge given the list format, but having this title point to that list seems reasonable. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:21, 22 November 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar Coleman[edit]

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

I don't think this person meets the criteria for WP:NMG or WP:BIO. The article was created circa 2006 and it doesn't look like there have ever been any references. I've searched for references and all I can find is a mirror of the article. Knitsey (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While trying to add to this article, Knitsey is maliciously deleting and adding nominations for deletion. It is obviously for personal reasons. Please stop and let people add important imformation to this article with references. 76.129.157.62 (talk) 18:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Share the sources here, that's the point of AfD, discussion. Oaktree b (talk) 19:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ip, I would like to see a diff of the content I deleted maliciously. Please do not make uncivil comments. Knitsey (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We are not making uncivil comment. As soon as I was placing information the "Red Box of Death" hits me as I am working. Are you always this disrespectful? BTW - I know you real names besides your alias. I have worked my tail off for many years for the organization. Show respect and you will get it back. CindyHolly1234 (talk) 20:01, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You beat me to it Knitsey. I found passing mentions in a few articles about other musicians, but the only sources that discuss Coleman in depth were entirely lifted from our article. Squeakachu (talk) 18:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Zero references found for this pianist. Unsourced since 2006? Wow. Oaktree b (talk) 19:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Red Box of death was place while I was editing. I would think that was malicious and rude. Has anyone done that to you? I did not appreciate it. The subject is a great pianist, polymath and won many awards and taught by many great people. You would do yourself a dishonor to delete him. I have gotten plenty of information from historical and ref will be done. CindyHolly1234 (talk) 19:53, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So please provide these sources, saying so doesn't change the fact. We need something to be sourced. Oaktree b (talk) 02:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Knitsey - I had a friend from Historical and both of us was going to insert references for Edgar Coleman when you began vandalising his wiki article while information was being corrected as well as ref insertions. If someone of Coleman's calibre becomes deleted than most everything else on wiki should be. Take the red box and deletion off and give someone a chance to at least finish this man's bio, etc. Very aggressive. CindyHolly1234 (talk) 19:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At no point has Knitsey vandalized the article. The person who reverted the recent edits was me, and I did so because those edits were not supported by any sources and contained promotional wording. This deletion discussion does not prevent continued editing of the article, so if you are aware of sources that support Coleman's notability you can add them. If you're not sure how to do so correctly you can share them here and we can help you. Squeakachu (talk) 19:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What about distraction while I tried to work. Do you not have anything better to do than delete other people's work? CindyHolly1234 (talk) 20:03, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's no way for one editor to know if another editor is in the middle of an edit of their own, so sometimes they conflict. I'm sorry you apparently lost your work. Squeakachu (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep it civil folks, we aren't here to attack one another... If you have sources, share them here! Oaktree b (talk) 19:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I share sources, they should go into the article. This is not a Miss America Contest that I have to rely on your "approval." CindyHolly1234 (talk) 20:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, but if you can't be civil, you can and will be banned. We're here to play nice, people. Oaktree b (talk) 02:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please remain civil. Nominating an article for deletion because it has never had any references is not vandalism. Nobody has added any references recently. Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:VAND. Knitsey (talk) 19:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the middle of writing and fixing the articles and your were already placing red-box banners on the top the the page. Could not wait, could you? Petty person. CindyHolly1234 (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have days of ref. to add to many articles. I don't appreciate being rushed. For example: On Ozan Marsh's article, Richard Ozanne added his name to his father with a ref to his playing! What kind of reference is that? Mr. Redbox needs to go over there and delete it immediately. CindyHolly1234 (talk) 20:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the nominator - there are zero references in this article, the "references" that were starting to be added were all promotional and not RS.--VViking_TalkEdits 20:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Coleman has been included in the "possibly living category" for a long time. As someone who regularly goes through that category to try and add details to anyone included, I find it very difficult to locate any decent references. Skycloud86 (talk) 20:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per nom and others Dazzling4 (talk) 21:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If people like myself, etc are trying to add links, then it should not be deleted. A lawsuit is the next step. You all seem to want to delete Coleman. An attorney will trace this down. Such a coincidink that you all played gang up as soon as I was adding refs - and even more so suspicious since the Read Box while attempting. Most people on here wiki don't have sufficient refs. Hypocrites - enjoy Karma. 76.129.157.62 (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're more than welcome to add reliable references to the article, it's still possible to do so. Skycloud86 (talk) 23:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we are going to get anywhere with this. Given the rhetoric it is very likely that this is the same person as CindyHolly1234 evading bans. Dazzling4 (talk) 01:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both experienced and inexperienced editors need to be civil. If you have suspicions of socking, go to SPI or ANI, don't bring up accusations here. Focus on the article, not the contributors. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In just a small amount of time I have found many links and info on Edgar Coleman. Thanks to t********r, I made contact with his former manager and another manager who was setting up Warner Brother deal that Coleman was singing lead vocals with guitarist great, now deceased Shawn Lane. All of these people have given sworn depostions (most videoptaped) due to Coleman injury years ago, but documented. I need more time to put these together. Do I get more than 7 days and if so, may I get a time extension? This will take longer than I thought it would. I say this because the beginning of Coleman's articles says he is multi- talented and would like to break categores, I would appreciate more time. Coleman taught many award winning students at Conservatory with one winning major competiition as well as judge for numerous other competions as wll as the Competion that gives the financial awards for winners of the Van Cliburn competition. Most are in newspaper clipping links -Coleman who is now a painter, film producer i did not talk but manager(s) were very helpful. May I get a time xtension or does it go away it 7 days. I took this task after the original wiki editor passed. Please advise. 76.129.157.62 (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC) 76.129.157.62 (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, please do so. We're here to discuss sources, what is the lawyer going to exactly? Do what you must. Oaktree b (talk) 02:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment no sources found in Jstor, the Wikpedia library, the New York Times... Gsearch only has a president of the Georgia Dental Association with this name, nothing in Gbooks, Gsearch brings up wiki mirrors, then nothing. I'm starting to have my doubts this is even a real person at this point; I mean, there is NOTHING about a pianist with this name. No sources added in the last 20 years either, give or take a few years, something is fishy here. Oaktree b (talk) 02:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also can find no sources. I can't find any trace of the alleged Harold Schonberg quote outside of wikipedia mirrors (though perhaps someone who is better at wrangling the NYT digital archive can do better?) and the only evidence I can come up with for a pianist called Edgar Coleman at all is this youtube video which could have been taken anywhere. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is not impossible for CindyHolly to edit an article when someone else is working on it; just copy your text and paste it back a minute later. So those promised sources won't be coming. I have a subscription to New York Times and more search capabilities through my university library, and neither Coleman nor the text that H. Schonberg supposedly wrote about him can be found in the NYT archives for 1960-1980 when Schonberg was their classical music critic. I can find nothing else reliable online, including pre-Internet sources in Google Books. I too question whether Coleman even existed, and if he did he was so non-notable that I also question why someone is so dead-set about forcing info about him into Wikipedia. That is not the attitude of someone interested in encyclopedic knowledge. Nice try with the lawyer threat though, as if one would touch this case with a ten-foot pole. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Earlier verisons of the article in the history talk aobut him being a student of Ozan Marsh, that's the only link to any sort of notability. Ozan has an article here, but nothing about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 02:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ozan. Also In just a small amount of time I have found many links and info on Edgar Coleman. Thanks to t********r, I made contact with his former manager and another manager who was setting up Warner Brother deal that Coleman was singing lead vocals with guitarist great, now deceased Shawn Lane. All of these people have given sworn depostions (most videoptaped) due to Coleman injury years ago, but documented. I need more time to put these together. Do I get more than 7 days and if so, may I get a time extension? This will take longer than I thought it would. I say this because the beginning of Coleman's articles says he is multi- talented and would like to break categores, I would appreciate more time. Coleman taught many award winning students at Conservatory with one winning major competiition as well as judge for numerous other competions as wll as the Competion that gives the financial awards for winners of the Van Cliburn competition. Most are in newspaper clipping links -Coleman who is now a painter, film producer i did not talk but manager(s) were very helpful. May I get a time xtension or does it go away it 7 days. I took this task after the original wiki editor passed. Please advise. 76.129.157.62 (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC) 76.129.157.62 (talk) 21:36, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom and above, unreferenced for almost two decades dxneo (talk) 12:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In just a small amount of time I have found many links and info on Edgar Coleman. Thanks to t********r, I made contact with his former manager and another manager who was setting up Warner Brother deal that Coleman was singing lead vocals with guitarist great, now deceased Shawn Lane. All of these people have given sworn depostions (most videoptaped) due to Coleman injury years ago, but documented. I need more time to put these together. Do I get more than 7 days and if so, may I get a time extension? This will take longer than I thought it would. I say this because the beginning of Coleman's articles says he is multi- talented and would like to break categores, I would appreciate more time. Coleman taught many award winning students at Conservatory with one winning major competiition as well as judge for numerous other competions as wll as the Competion that gives the financial awards for winners of the Van Cliburn competition. Most are in newspaper clipping links -Coleman who is now a painter, film producer i did not talk but manager(s) were very helpful. May I get a time xtension or does it go away it 7 days. I took this task after the original wiki editor passed. Please advise. 76.129.157.62 (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consider the Wikipedia:Drafts process. Reading through that page might be a little more fulfilling than threatening to sue us. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

:Delete - zero indication of importance despite the above claims of IP editors and others. Kazamzam (talk) 17:43, 22 November 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jeannette Sagna[edit]

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

The subject, a Senegalese women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found was passing mentions in squad lists and match reports. JTtheOG (talk) 18:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Senegal. JTtheOG (talk) 18:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak, Keep Found few mentions of her such as thishttps://www.sofascore.com/player/jeannette-sagna/1470746--JanAminK (talk) 09:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Databases are not sufficient coverage. JTtheOG (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - when we're offering database sources as the best example of coverage, we really are looking at a serious GNG failure. I found some squad list mentions like SeneNews and Sport News Africa but such coverage is far from decent. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:18, 18 November 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!} 23:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maty Cissokho[edit]

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

The subject, a Senegalese women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found was passing mentions like 1, 2 and 3. JTtheOG (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Senegal. JTtheOG (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:08, 16 November 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alden, Colorado[edit]

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

No evidence of a community. Maps show a cluster of farm buildings next to former train tracks which suggests this was some sort of railway point. –dlthewave ☎ 17:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Colorado. –dlthewave ☎ 17:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~●Keep-~~ ●Delete- There are probably many offline sources for this place(doubt we are going to find anyone with access to any), So far I have found this which gives the impression that it is notable.(Not significant coverage). The reason it gives the impression that the place is notable is this statement from the link:
"Alden became a sugar beet dump and siding on the Crow Creek Branch of the Union Pacific Railroad in 1910. It remained active as a siding and beet dump until 1965." 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not sure why a sugar beet dump and siding would be a notable place. That's not significant coverage or establishment that it was a community. Reywas92^Talk 19:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reason it could be notable is not the fact that is was what it was, but who/what it was for: The Union Pacific Railroad 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 02:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A sugar beet dumping place/railroad siding... This is not notable. Could be a brief mention in the Weld County article. Oaktree b (talk) 19:53, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So we're proposing to source this to the unreliable GNIS, hometownlocator and roadsidethoughts which are two of those machine-generated-facts-for-every-GNIS-record WWW sites and just as unreliable as what they are relying upon, and a PDF file that contains 2 sentences. This is a largely undocumented stop on the Union Pacific railroad, used by some farmers for goods if the 2 sentence PDF is to be believed. It's not in Gannett's 1906 Gazetteer of Colorado at all. I can find it listed as "freight services only" in a table in a 1964 Official Guide of the Railways and Steam Navigation Lines of the United States, Porto Rico, Canada, Mexico and Cuba, and that's it. There's no history, no in-depth documentation of any kind, here. Uncle G (talk) 02:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree about Roadside Thoughts and Hometown Locator. Can we get them blacklisted? –dlthewave ☎ 02:59, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Both Hometown Locator & Roadside Thoughts provide a list of references for every listing they have. See here for Hometown Locator, & Roadside Thoughts listings have them on the listing page. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 04:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - It has been pointed out many times in many discussions over the years that they and many other WWW sites like them are mechanical regurgitators of GNIS database information, that will yield all sorts of ridiculous stuff such as (indeed) weather reports and hotel listings (sometimes quite far away) for the "towns" of freight railway stations. Lax Wikipedia editorial standards such as believing these WWW sites has only compounded the problem of all sorts of places on the WWW making convincing-seeming representations that there are all of these "unincorporated communities" in the world that are in fact anything from survey corner trees through railway stations to (in one case) a cave. See Project:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 357#RfC: GNIS, User talk:Marcusmax/Archive 9#Why does King Arthur Court keep getting created?, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stockton, Arizona, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullfrog, Utah, User:BhamBoi/sandbox/CH Sources, and many others.
      This very encyclopaedia has been a major part of an echo chamber of planetary scale, repeating and bolstering the falsehoods of other GNIS scrapers, whilst editors here have scraped bad GNIS data (see GNIS#Populated places and Project:Reliability of GNIS data and the whole mass deletion of Carlossuarez46 stubs) by the hundreds of thousands of "unincorporated community" substubs containing outright falsehoods. We have a Wikipedia:WikiProject California/GNIS cleanup task force project that is going to take years to undo the harm to human knowledge that we the editorship of Wikipedia have done, and that's just California. And as you can see we aren't the only WWW site with this problem.
      Please break that cycle. Wikipedia has always been here to do better than the sort of rubbish that the WWW mainly contains. If memory serves, there's even a Jimmy Wales quote to that effect.
      Uncle G (talk) 07:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that it was ever anything but a RR siding. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:00, 21 November 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alma Junction, Colorado[edit]

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

Railroad junction with no significant coverage to establish notability on its own. At best this could be covered by a single sentence in Alma, Colorado. –dlthewave ☎ 17:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Colorado. –dlthewave ☎ 17:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A single sentence doesn't cut it, as this one is in the history books. If only editors had consulted them instead of stupid fact-free entertainment news articles about South Park. Uncle G (talk) 01:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per rewrite performed by Uncle G (WP:HEY) and WP:GEOLAND. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per excellent upgrade that establishes notability. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: coverage which establishes notability has been added to the article. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 15:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good job.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 00:31, 22 November 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Americus, Colorado[edit]

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

No evidence of a community at this location. Maps show a railroad siding with no connection to nearby roads. –dlthewave ☎ 17:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Colorado. –dlthewave ☎ 17:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing found. Looks like another low-effort "article" based on an entry in GNIS, which does not establish notability. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:32, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Various books on railways confirm that it is indeed a station on the Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad the next station along from Buena Vista, and is not a community, incorporated or otherwise. All of the categories and half of the (two) sentences in this article are falsehoods. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 00:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on cursory search of Newspapers.com, which mainly returns coverage of Americus, Georgia even when you try to restrict results to Colorado. However, there was an Americus mining company that operated in Colorado in the early 1900s, and hence several references to Americus mines. But that isn't this article. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW and my own long-used standards. Bearian (talk) 00:33, 22 November 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. Consensus is for deletion; I will salt the title. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raybak Melk Abdesselem[edit]

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

This page was deleted 4 times and AFD deleted too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Raybak_Abdesselem since then only 1-2 articles were added. He won only junior championships which doesn't show notability, 3 articles in Wikipedia are paid PR and blacklisted by Wikipedia. Calling @Rosguill who AFD'ed previously. The person who created this article has changed the name from Raybak Abdesselem to Raybak Melk Abdesselm and it was created by sock puppets who are banned. The Athlete doesn't pass the notability Wprep (talk) 17:04, 15 November 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 November 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, while this doesn't meet G4 as the article text and sources are different from the past revision, it does meet G5 as a creation by IntelisMust, a blocked sockpuppet, with only cosmetic edits (and a reverted addition by an IP) since then. I'll let another admin swing the axe as I am nominally involved by way of the past AfD. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and France. Shellwood (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt per reasons listed in both this, and previous AFDs. Youth and regional titles don't demonstrate notability. Nswix (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable athlete with no independent coverage found and upon checking I have seen sock-puppets were involved in making his page which was deleted and another sock puppet recreated this to divert attention of Wiki editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.190.110.20 (talk) 20:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign of notability all are mentions as he won junior championships, I agree with OP, delete per nom. I found 3 websites on Google with paid disclosure about Raybak which he has paid to write for himself. --JanAminK (talk) 09:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Junior martial arts events do not show WP notability. I see no success as an adult that would support a claim of notability. My search did not find examples of significant independent coverage that would meet WP:GNG. Results, databases, and passing mentions are not enough. Papaursa (talk) 02:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt as per Nswix. Lethweimaster (talk) 14:00, 20 November 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Garric Simonsen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

An article on an artist created by an WP:SPA that, judging by the fact that the username is the same as the artist's official website, is likely connected to the subject. The subject does not appear to pass the WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST. While several references are included here, these either do not mention this individual at all, or merely list them as one of the artists included in a gallery. Searches did not turn up much else - image galleries and mentions of participating in an exhibit, but nothing that could be actual significant coverage. The closest that it comes is articles in college newspapers for colleges that he was a faculty member of, which I don't believe would be sufficient for actually passing the WP:GNG. It looks like this article went through an AFD back in 2015, but was closed as No Consensus due to minimal participation, and so has been languishing here, poorly sourced, ever since. Rorshacma (talk) 17:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and Washington. Rorshacma (talk) 17:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not covered in the Getty ULAN, some limited coverage here [1] and here [2] (second one is a limited view based in my IP so I can't pull most of it up). I don't think these are enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am not finding RS for the biographical information presented in the article. Previous request for deletion was closed as "no consensus", but the article was only defended by the creator. Subject fails WP:ARTIST. WP:TOO SOON, no substantial coverage and not in any notable collections. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 19:37, 17 November 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Birney[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous article was deleted per AfD due to lack of notability. The only difference in this version is that her daughter was recently criticized for tearing down "missing persons" posters related to the Israel-Gaza situation. This does not, in my view, confer notability on the parent. ... discospinster _talk 16:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Washington. ... discospinster _talk 16:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Coverage is all local from the Seattle Times, either about her time as a candidate or doing mayoral things (budgets, commission workings etc). Nothing we'd use for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 19:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't satisfy GNG. MaskedSinger (talk) 10:45, 20 November 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!} 23:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reputation Poll International[edit]

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

An article about a reputation management company.I am bringing this to AfD as some might regard the large number of references as making PROD unsafe, but these refs are PR coverage of names included in their various polls, which would fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. Searches are not finding evidence that this firm has attained notability in its own right. AllyD (talk) 11:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I saw you first reviewed the page, i dont know why you then tagged for deletation. However, i think Reputation Poll has decent coverage if you can search it and it has been featured on key platforms.Nenerue (talk) 10:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article was marked as reviewed by Twinkle when this AfD discussion was opened. It would be helpful for this discussion if you can point to substantial coverage about the company? AllyD (talk) 12:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – DreamRimmer (talk) 12:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A PR organization doing PR stuff [3], [4]. Nothing we can use for GNG. We need things ABOUT the company, not lists BY the company. Oaktree b (talk) 19:58, 15 November 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) Let'srun (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Jago[edit]

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

A women's cricket player who played 2 games and received no other significant coverage - clearly fails WP:GNG. Dazzling4 (talk) 16:16, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I agree there are a lack of sources - almost all are brief mentions of attending the same school as other England cricketers, the best I could find was this: https://bergmanosterbergunion.org.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/BOU-Magazine-2018-pp65-83.pdf (page 81), mostly trivial information and not enough for GNG - EdwardUK (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Cricket, and England. Shellwood (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I've used the source shown above, and also found https://thisnzlife.co.nz/moa-bones-limestone-caves-and-velvet-worms-explore-the-prehistoric-treasures-on-and-below-a-familys-waitomo-farm/ which is a profile of her and her family, and expanded the article from that. PamD 09:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting: the wording "Ann Jago visited New Zealand after her tour as a member of the English Women’s Cricket team" (from the NZLife source) suggests that she played in NZ for England, but that isn't shown in the article. PamD 09:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD: - That is an interesting one - England didn't tour New Zealand after the South Africa tour until 1969, and nowhere includes Jago as part of that tour (pretty sure she had finished playing by then). The visit to New Zealand before that was in 1957, again can't find any evidence of her being on that tour. CricketArchive doesn't have her playing any matches in New Zealand, hence why it isn't included in her article. Perhaps she simply visited New Zealand for fun after the South Africa tour? The wording of that sentence could imply that. Mpk662 (talk) 11:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: International cricketer, and looks like she passes GNG given the excellent work of PamD above. Played more than just two matches as well, and have updated her infobox to reflect that. Mpk662 (talk) 11:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks to be enough GNG coverage in the article now, after update, for a GNG pass. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. International Women's Test cricketer, now expanded, but a keep eitherway. StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now a clear keep. There may be more stuff on Kent sources - there’s been a big push on awarding women’s county caps recently and as an international she may be covered in that stuff. I’ll check annuals at some point Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Done more than enough for me to satisfy WP:GNG. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:31, 20 November 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. ✗plicit 23:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitri Boylan[edit]

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

Unremarkable CEO. I'm unable to locate any coverage that indicates that WP:BIO is met. The reliable sources that are included in the article only contain brief very mentions e.g. [5] [6] or are transcripts of interviews [7] [8], neither of which are of use for demonstrating notability. SmartSE (talk) 16:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 16:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: being a CEO with no other notable qualities does not satisfy WP:GNG Dazzling4 (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Economics, Internet, Illinois, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:27, 15 November 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Existentialist anarchism[edit]

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

For years this article has existed as what amounts to an argumentative essay, attempting to demonstrate links between existentialism and anarchism. None of the cited sources ever appeared to describe an "existentialist anarchism", nor does it appear this term has significant coverage in reliable sources.

Google Scholar only turns up 13 hits, none of which go into the term in any real depth.[9] Only three of these sources predate the article, and none use it as anything more than a throwaway term. The only source that appears to go into it in any depth (Wahl 2018) explicitly mentions that he is attempting to develop it into a "philosophy of the future", declaring it to be "all-too-neglected" by both present-day philosophers and anarchists. I don't see anything in these sources that would bring the article to a length much longer than a stub.

Given that this article appears to fail to meet our general notability guidelines, I propose it be deleted. There's nothing in the text that's really salvageable, and the only redirect locations I can think of are only tangentially related. Grnrchst (talk) 16:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Politics. Grnrchst (talk) 16:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the nom that the page reads like an essay and there do not seem to be many sources which describe the idea in depth. The other sources whch use the term (or "anarco-existentialism") appear to be using it in different ways so it is difficult to use them to write a sourced coherent page. JMWt (talk) 06:30, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In an earlier discussion on the article talk page I suggested it might be notable, but I'm convinced otherwise by Grnrchst's evidence. Maybe worth writing up a little bit about the Wahl article on Existentialism? -- asilvering (talk) 02:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the talk page discussion: unclear scope, only loose affiliation between existentialism and anarchism in available sources, potential citogenesis fluffing this concept this concept beyond its actual influence, article written as an essay, insufficient coverage for a dedicated article and no good candidates for merge targets. czar 12:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- There is nothing worthwhile here to Redir or Merge. Fails WP:GNG completely for lack of clear reference in WP:RS. Generously, I'd call it WP:SYNTH; more likely WP:OR and WP:NOTESSAY. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 20:39, 20 November 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 Big Creek (Perry, Kentucky). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whitaker, Kentucky[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPLACE. Nagol0929 (talk) 15:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Nagol0929 (talk) 15:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unremarkable unincorporated community. Dazzling4 (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:27, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are a couple of cemeteries there, but I was not able to locate any source to support this was ever a populated place. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Rennick has one passing reference to a creek named Whitaker Fork. There was a mine here, which is consistent with the topographic maps. I don't know that even the Whitaker Coal Co. would be notable by our standards, so I think it's best to delete here. Hog Farm _Talk 00:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking for now; I haven't had a chance to review what Hodge has to say about this and I'm about to be mostly inactive for over a week. Hog Farm _Talk 03:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per Rennick and Hodge this might be supportable standalone, as Hodge gives it a fair amount of information, but probably should redirect to Big Creek (Perry, Kentucky) which is definitely supportable standalone. Uncle G (talk) 11:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- It's Whittaker with two "t"s in Hodge, by the way. Uncle G (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Big Creek (Perry, Kentucky) per Uncle G. Looks to be a real place and not an error so worth a redirect. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:05, 21 November 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Little Beech, Kentucky[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPLACE. Nagol0929 (talk) 15:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Nagol0929 (talk) 15:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:27, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: several things don't add up. The article says the town was destroyed by mountaintop removal mining. If I use the coordinates from the article, it definitely shows a reclaimed surface mine in this spot. It's on a hilltop away from a main road - not a natural place for a community to sprout up. Except for possibly a company coal town, these little East Kentucky town are always down in valleys along roads. So maybe was this a coal town? Coal towns were built to house families of miner who worked in underground coal mines, which were labor intensive (unlike surface mines). They were near the mine's tipple and the main entrance to the mine. The tipple, in turn, was on a railroad line. There'd be settling ponds nearby. I don't see railroad tracks or settling ponds which would still be visible.

Maybe the article's coordinates are wrong?

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link to United States Geological Survey topographic maps going back many decades for these coordinates (37°14′28″N 83°18′5″W / 37.24111°N 83.30139°W).

They don't show anything there, either.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:53, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for some backstory here, a significant cleanup of these Kentucky geostubs was conducted by me and Uncle G a few years ago. The GNIS entry here is sourced to Rennick, but no reference to Little Beech in Rennick's Perry County document or his "Place Names Beginning in L" document. Nothing on topographic maps. I can turn up a creek by this name in another part of this state in the newspaper sources, but nothing for a community. Rennick's annotated topo map is apparently where this comes from, as it has LITTLE BEECH N. written in as marginalia with an arrow pointing to a point with nothing there. I don't know what this is. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brows Defeat, Kentucky for a similar case. In almost every instance of GNIS pointing back to Rennick and the place not being noted in Rennick's main county documentation, the location has been almost impossible to even verify. Hog Farm _Talk 00:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Hog Farm. This is our past experience, and this is what little we have to go on in Rennick, and it's an exactly analogous situation to that prior discussion. I've just double-checked the manuscripts, including "B" just in case it was filed under "Beech". It isn't. And it isn't in the book. Or in Rennick's post offices of Perry county mnauscript.
I can only add that in many cases Kentucky is best discussed, as Rennick does xyrself (and as Hodge 1918 does too), in terms of its river system and all of the post offices and whatnot along it. I did this for one county, Rennick and other sources in hand, where we have articles following the river system and the post offices that were dotted along them in various places over the years. Witness Goose Creek (Oneida, Kentucky), for one example. Perry County needs all of this GNIS mess refactoring in the same way.
Little Beech Fork of the Big Beech Fork of the Willard Fork of the North Fork of the Kentucky river was the site of coal mines by Elijah and Abijah Hoskins (Hodge 1918, p. 229). That is what the mining was. I don't have the time to refactor this now, but I'd be looking to refactor this somehow into the Willard Fork, or perhaps even as finely grained as Big Beech Fork, depending from what reading Rennick and stuff like Hodge made the most sense, if I were doing it.
Uncle G (talk) 09:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Hodge, James Michael (1918). "Coals of the North Fork of Kentucky River in Perry and Portions of Breathitt and Knott Counties". Reports of the Kentucky Geological Survey 1912–1918. 4. 3. Frankfort, Kentucky. (Coals of the North Fork of Kentucky River in Perry and Portions of Breathitt and Knott Counties at the Internet Archive)
Delete if I am understanding the references from Uncle G this is the name of a watercourse by which there was a coal mine and not, as far as anyone can tell, a populated place. Therefore the article on a populated place should be deleted, without prejudice to recreation as an article about the water feature or coal mine at a later date. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I've left this until last because I think that this one involves going as high up the hierarchy as an outright North Fork Kentucky River article, which we actually had in 2004, and working down from there with sub-articles as necessary. We might get an actual Willard Creek out of it, to which this should redirect if that is the case, but I'm not sure yet. Otherwise this should redirect to North Fork Kentucky River which is where the minor tributaries that don't get standalone articles will be. Rennick doesn't seem to have enough for a standalone Willard Creek, now that I've gone over Big Creek (Perry, Kentucky) and Lotts Creek (Perry, Kentucky) and Trace Fork (AfD discussion), although from the number of tributaries alone Troublesome Creek (North Fork Kentucky River) is definitely standalone. Uncle G (talk) 01:44, 22 November 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 Samuel Edward Konkin III. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agorism[edit]

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

This article has limped on for a decade and a half, without ever managing to pull together many independent, reliable sources. Almost all of the cited sources in the article are directly associated with the subject, largely citing the person that coined the term. And except for the Routledge Companion, none of the sources strike me as particularly good-quality either.

Having tried to research this in the sources I have available to me, I haven't been able to find any evidence that this meets the general notability guidelines. In both the Routledge Handbook of Anarchy and Anarchist Thought and the Routledge Companion to Social and Political Philosophy, it only gets a single passing mention as a term coined by Konkin. This is a far cry from significant coverage.

As such, I don't think this topic is notable in and of itself. This article could probably be merged with/redirected to Samuel Edward Konkin III without much issue. Grnrchst (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Economics. Grnrchst (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Libertarianism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Samuel Edward Konkin III as suggested, merging in some of the content as applicable. That bio article could really stand to be improved, and it seems to me that the topic is better dealt with there than separately even if it is an independently notable topic. -- asilvering (talk) 02:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Samuel Edward Konkin III. After removing the unreliable blog posts and Konkin's own sources, there plainly isn't enough material to support a dedicated article. Konkin's neologism can easily be covered in the appropriate section of his biography article as part of understanding his philosophy and split out summary style as needed. czar 12:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per rationale by Czar. Kazamzam (talk) 17:37, 22 November 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) Let'srun (talk) 16:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

American Pregnancy Association[edit]

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

Pregnancy information site run by anti-abortion advocates, fails WP:ORG. I had boldly redirected to list of anti-abortion organizations, but it was reverted on the basis of the encyclopedia listing. I'd encourage folks to actually look that entry up -- it's a few paragraphs of promotion that sounds like it's directly from the organization. e.g. it starts with As an organization committed to promoting healthy pregnancies and to reproductive issues, the American Pregnancy Association pursues its goals through education, research, advocacy, and serving the public interest. APA is headquartered at 1424 Greenway Drive, Suite 440, Irving, Texas. and goes on along the lines of Each day, approximately 5,479 couples experience fertility issues, and APA is concerned with providing information and support for them.. Should be re-redirected. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Medicine. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom, if the red link noted above was actually List of anti-abortion organizations in the United States#Texas, per the page's history. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 17:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as in-depth coverage exists. We need at least two in-depth articles to prove the notability, and there are more than that if someone conducts a proper WP:BEFORE. We shouldn't be biased just because it advocates for "anti-abortion practices". It's a significant non-profit organization, having attracted coverage from The New York Times, Dallas Morning News, and Associated Press when known as America's Pregnancy Helpline (read the quoted excerpt below). Most of the in-depth media coverage pertains to its time as a pregnancy helpline. Now, it's involved in many more activities. Sage Publishing's book has covered it in detail, including a two-page coverage accessible on Google Books. Sage Publishing is a reputable academic publisher, and its reliability can't be doubted by cherry-picking some lines. The two-page coverage includes excerpts like the ones below, demonstrating it is well-written:

APA was founded in 1995 in response to the me-dia attention that followed the decision of an in¬fertile couple, Mike and Annie Shaeffer, to use two billboards in the city of Dallas to announce their desire to adopt. After the Dallas Morning News and the Associated Press covered the story, the national media became interested in the couple. As a result of the national coverage, the Shaeffers received more than 1,000 calls from individuals and couples who needed advice and information on pregnancy and reproduction. This led to the decision to establish America's Pregnancy Helpline, which generated 212 referrals in its first year, and to begin broadcasting public service announcements. Over the next nine years, the helpline provided information and referrals to 147,000 women and families from 75 coun¬tries and the United States. In 2003 the helpline was expanded into the APA.

Additional in-depth articles just about the APA is given below:

Butler, Kiera (22 April 2022). "The Disinformation Campaign Behind a Top Pregnancy Website". Mother Jones.
Corinna, Heather (8 August 2008). "Exposed: American Pregnancy Association Hides Links to CPCs".

There is a lot more "According to..." because it is regularly featured in media, so this makes it difficult to find in-depth coverage hidden between these hundreds of articles. 64.135.238.133 (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

at least two in-depth articles - sometimes two. sometimes more. WP:ORG is usually a higher bar than WP:GNG.

We shouldn't be biased just because it advocates for "anti-abortion practices" - Nobody is doing this.

Sage Publishing is a reputable academic publisher, and its reliability can't be doubted by cherry-picking some lines - Sage is generally reputable, but the article it's self-evidently promotional fluff, and anyone basing a !vote on it should look at it in full.

Most of the in-depth coverage is critical, so an article about the subject would need to be primarily about that. In general, if it's a borderline notability case and nearly all of the coverage that does exist is negative, personally I prefer to omit it from the encyclopedia rather than have a short, negative article. YMMV. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:THREE is an essay, not a guideline and since this is a non-profit, so WP:NONPROFIT is applicable, not WP:NORG. If you still think otherwise, seek a consensus to change the guideline. However, please avoid using a conservative non-profit as a test case. APA meets WP:NONPROFIT because its activities are national in scale (#1) and has received coverage (both negative and positive coverage, not just negative) in independent reliable sources (#2), so we can write a balanced article that will be helpful to readers searching for information about this organization and its activities. WP:NONPROFIT/WP:NGO quoted below, thanks.

1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.
2. The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization.

64.135.238.133 (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:THREE is an essay Nobody mentioned this.

WP:NONPROFIT is applicable, not WP:NORG - When I redirect, you said CORPDEPTH doesn't apply. Now you're saying NORG doesn't apply. WP:NONPROFIT is subsection of WP:NORG and CORPDEPTH is the same section as ORGDEPTH.

avoid using a conservative non-profit as a test case ??? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 64.135.238.133. Notable. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:36, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. I was asked on my talk page to look for the Associated Press and The Dallas Morning News articles mentioned in the Sage Publishing book. I found those sources and have listed them below, alongside other sources I found.
1. Butler, Kiera (2022-04-22). "The Disinformation Campaign Behind a Top Pregnancy Website". Mother Jones. Archived from the original on 2023-11-21. Retrieved 2023-11-21.
  The article notes: "Here’s another thing it doesn’t mention: The American Pregnancy Association isn’t the dispassionate medical authority it might appear to be. Rather, it’s the brainchild of a Texas-based pro-life activist named Brad Imler, and it’s rife with medically inaccurate information—on both abortion and other reproductive health topics. The site hawks unproven blood tests, infertility treatments, and products purported to support the pregnant person and developing fetus. The American Pregnancy Association presents all of its information and products as evidence-based and medically accurate—but nowhere can one find its activist foundations or learn that it doesn’t have a single medical professional listed on its staff of a handful of people."
2. Purdy, Elizabeth R. (2008). "American Pregnancy Association". In Zhang, Yawei (ed.). Encyclopedia of Global Health. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. pp. 110–111. ISBN 978-1-4129-4186-0. Retrieved 2023-11-21 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "APA was founded in 1995 in response to the media attention that followed the decision of an infertile couple, Mike and Annie Shaeffer, to use two billboards in the city of Dallas to announce their desire to adopt. After the Dallas Morning News and the Associated Press covered the story, the national media became interested in the couple. As a result of the national coverage, the Shaeffers received more than 1,000 calls from individuals and couples who needed advice and information on pregnancy and reproduction. This led to the decision to establish America's Pregnancy Helpline, which generated 212 referrals in its first year, and to begin broadcasting public service announcements. Over the next nine years, the helpline provided information and referrals to 147,000 women and families from 75 countries and the United States. In 2003 the helpline was expanded into the APA."
3. Goode, Keisha L.; Rothman, Barbara Katz (2021). Pregnancy and Birth: A Reference Handbook. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-Clio. ISBN 978-1-4408-6921-1. Retrieved 2023-11-21 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "1995 The American Pregnancy Association, formerly known as America's Crisis Pregnancy Helpline, is established by Mike and Anne Sheaffer, who initially set up a hotline to support pregnant people seeking an adoptive couple for their babies. After receiving over 1,000 calls from people facing unplanned pregnancies with nowhere else to turn, the couple recognized this unfulfilled need in society and wanted to set up a confidential crisis line to allow people to receive the help they needed. In 2003, the helpline became the American Pregnancy Association, which became a foundation of health services for anyone in need, including education, research, advocacy, public policy and community awareness as well as a leading organization for reproductive and pregnancy health information."
4. Atterberry, Tara E., ed. (2012). Encyclopedia of Associations: An Associations Unlimited Reference. Vol. 1 (52 ed.). Farmington Hills, Michigan: Gale. p. 1915. ISBN 978-1-4144-6872-3. ISSN 0071-0202. Retrieved 2023-11-21 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "Founded: 1995. National. Description: Promotes reproductive and pregnancy wellness through education, research, advocacy and community awareness. Aims to support women and families by lobbying the legislature, businesses and insurance providers to promote pregnancy and family health issues. Increases public awareness of the reproductive and pregnancy needs, concerns and resources necessary to address these needs. Publications: Week-by-Week, weekly. Newsletter. Price: free. Advertising: not accepted. Alternate Formats: online."
5. "Pregnancy association launches Web site - Prenancy; Confidential service aids those experiencing reproductive problems and concerns". The Salina Journal. 2004-12-05. Archived from the original on 2023-11-21. Retrieved 2023-11-21.
  The article notes: "A product of consumer need, the APA is a national health organization that began as America's Pregnancy Helpline in 1995. The agency provides reproductive and women's wellness resources for thousands of women and families through education, research, advocacy and community awareness. Nineteen of the nation's top obstetricians and gynecologists make up the APA Medical Advisory Board, which directs educational content for the association."
6. Fox, Thomas C. (1997). Catholicism on the Web. New York: Henry Holt and Company. pp. 311–312. ISBN 1-55828-516-4. Retrieved 2023-11-21 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "The America's Crisis Pregnancy Helpline Web site is a Dallas-based nonprofit organization designed to provide facts about the many services and resources available across the United States for women experiencing unplanned pregnancies. It is the stated goal of the Crisis Pregnancy Helpline to provide each woman with a sense of empowerment and hope and to connect her with services in her geographic area. It wants women to know there are positive options as well as people and organizations willing to assist her as she makes informed decisions about her future."
7. Blow, Steve (1996-07-17). "Couple seeking children adopt mothers' cause". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on 2023-11-21. Retrieved 2023-11-21.
  The article notes: "I remember the billboard. It said: "Mike and Anne Want to Adopt. We Are State Approved." And it gave a phone number. Maybe you remember a feature story we wrote about the unusual adoption strategy. There was a photo of Mike and Anne Sheaffer standing beneath the billboard. The story ran on New Year's Day last year. ... Mike enlisted some trusted employees in his company to help take the calls. He vowed that every caller would find a sympathetic listener and, where possible, help in meeting their immediate needs. ... Today, Mike oversees a full-fledged nonprofit agency - America's Crisis Pregnancy Helpline (1-800-67-BABY-6). It's a free, confidential referral service for women facing an unplanned pregnancy. And there are 10,000 such pregnancies each day in this country, Mike said."
8. Articles that provide background material about America's Pregnancy Helpline founders Mike and Annie Shaeffer but that do not mention the association so does not contribute to notability. I am listing them here so that they can be used to provide more background material about the founders. The sources:
  1. Aron, Jaime (1995-01-02). "Getting the word out: North Texas couple gets hopeful response after billboard plea for baby". Waco Tribune-Herald. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2023-11-21. Retrieved 2023-11-21 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes: "As their chances of adopting a child seemed to fade, Mike and Anne Sheaffer decided to take their search to the road. A week ago, two billboards went up announcing: "Mike and Anne want to adopt. We are state approved. (214) 675-BABY." ... Since the ads went up in Dallas - one on a highway, the other on a main road - hundreds of people have called from across the country to offer the names of adoption agencies, stories and encouragement."
  2. Macias, Anna (1995-01-01). "Signs of Faith and Hope - Couple Employ Billboards in Effort to Adopt". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on 2023-11-21. Retrieved 2023-11-21.
    The article notes: "Anne and Mike Sheaffer are passionate about their desire to have a baby. The evidence is there for anyone driving past two billboards they have rented on busy thoroughfares. The signs, on the Dallas North Tollway and Lower Greenville Avenue, read: "Mike and Anne want to adopt. We're state approved. Call 675-BABY." The couple have spent more than six years of marriage praying for a baby. But nature has not cooperated, and they are determined to adopt."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the American Pregnancy Association to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:14, 21 November 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. Daniel (talk) 02:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center[edit]

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

I don't see any in-depth coverage of this organization whatsoever - only trivial mentions and attributions, and nothing that satisfies WP:NCORP. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Israel. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep - It looks like a topic that is likely to expand on the near future, so keep for now pending that. Irtapil (talk) 15:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- comment WP:CRYSTALBALL
Industrial Insect (talk) 18:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Merge~~ From some quick research the ITIC is part of three loosely related entities with its parent the IICC, and an American "friends of" group the AFIICC. The meaning of the letters don’t really matter at the moment. What does is that the three form a quasi-private quasi-military intelligence organization with large resources of money and research and the ability to extend the military intelligence capabilities significantly. They get overlooked because they’re private, but this means there’s no oversight either. A Standalone article should be based on the IICC, showing how the other two support it and military intelligence. The three together have more RS including info critical of them which allows more NPOV. Short of someone volunteering to take on that article (I can’t) the info here should be merged into one of the Other Israeli intelligence org articles so that the info is there for an enlarged article later. Ayenaee (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with GidonB. I’ve changed my vote from "merge" to "keep" to avoid confusion from the way I expressed myself. My waffle 😊 basically meant "keep" so it can be merged into IICC future article. I have added the new article to my to-do - it just won’t be done quickly. So any who has more time is welcome to steal 😀 it from me. Ayenaee (talk) 05:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Terrorism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:32, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to ITIC. ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 09:51, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes GNG per sources already in article. // Timothy :: talk 02:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes the GNG. Sorry, I do not understand the merge opinions. ITIC is just another name for Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center. That's not a merge. Also, we CANNOT merge our article into an article that we do not carry. Yes, the article should absolutely be renamed and rewritten as an IICC article but all that is beyond the scope of AfDs. Someone should want to actually engage in that. That person CAN and is encouraged to be bold and just move the article at that time! Until then, this unit is also notable so keep is the way forward! gidonb (talk) 05:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soft keep given notability but some of these references are dodgy. Have cleaned up what I could but a lot of the mentions in cited sources are passing mentions, but multiple mentions so. 50/50. Kazamzam (talk) 17:36, 22 November 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 Characters of the Kirby series. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meta Knight[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Sources at reception sec doesn't really talk about the character. The only usable sources were about him being banned at Smash Bros, nothing else. Also, I'm more concerned that most people cared about the GAR situation (another guy at the talk page, like can we end this?) at the past unlike its notability, hence I decided to afd the page. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 13:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Characters of the Kirby series. I think some of the most decent sources include This and this and there is also a mention here, but it doesn't strike me as a character who is known very well outside of being banned in Smash. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above...as much as one would think Meta Knight would be notable, it does make sense he's not: what can really be said about the character? The Smash Bros. stuff only goes so far, and even in the original AfD, there was great difficulty in finding sources with most asserting "there had to be some" for a character that was already 15 years old at that point.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Characters of the Kirby series. The current sources do not demonstrate notability of the character and a Google search yields no significant coverage as far as I can see. Fieryninja (talk) 14:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all. Coverage doesn't pass the WP:SIGCOV needed for a separate article, but there is a good target to WP:PRESERVE some of the content. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has a good bit of coverage mainly for being banned in tournaments. KatoKungLee (talk) 15:59, 20 November 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. ✗plicit 14:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sahla Parveen[edit]

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

Not notable Motivational speaker, fails meeting WP:GNG -- Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 12:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, India, and Kerala. Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 12:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Exactly two hits in Gnews, the ones used in the article from the Indian Express. One is by the Lifestyle Desk, so very much a PR piece. No suitable sourcing we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 14:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I understand your rationale behind nominating this particular article for deletion. It may fail WP:GNG and let's wait for others opinions on this issue. Abishe (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Most of the article discussing information that is not notable aside from the authorship of her first book, "The Beauty Purpose in Life," which would need further evidence to prove notability. Dazzling4 (talk) 16:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, and Businesspeople. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:34, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Abishe did an excellent job by writing this article. But I must say that we can't keep it for now. As I am from Kerala, I did some research about her and tried to discover sources. As a matter of fact, she is a well-known motivational speaker. But we all know that popularity has little to do with establishing notability. I did a google search about her in Malayalam (സഹല പർവീൻ, സഹ്‌ല പർവീൻ). The outcome was disappointing because I was only able to obtain one source, which is an interview. Because of that, for the time being, she does not meets our GNG standards. Thilsebatti (talk) 08:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:05, 17 November 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. Daniel (talk) 02:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cariuma[edit]

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

Looks not-notable, with no reliable independent, in-depth sources BoraVoro (talk) 09:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Brazil. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I created the page because the brand is very popular among skaters and it's also a major vegan shoe brand just like Allbirds and Veja. I have already created pages for shoes and saw that this was deleted because the company had tried to create their own page but I didn't remake it because they told me to. I'll work to improve it and add more sources but none of the sources I used come from the company at all. LeDroider (talk) 04:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, covered in Barron's,[10] USA Today,[11] and Insider,[12][13] although I'm not sure how much "affiliate commission" comes into play. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 21:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To assess sources presented against our RS guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found dozens of news articles using Google News. I have not had time to evaluate them.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - agree with A.B. about the plethora of news articles from Google News. The line between promotion, review, and "objective" information is fuzzy but the notability is not in question. Kazamzam (talk) 17:26, 22 November 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. Daniel (talk) 02:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Awaz Sayeed[edit]

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, Theatre, Telangana, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Could the nominator comment on why they believe there is a "Lack of notability" because honestly it isn't very helpful. Has a local language search been performed to check for reviews of their seven books? Generally authors who have been translated are notable, as are authors who have theses written about them. This article has been around since 2007. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only 2 sources located in any language of wikipedia are both Permenent Dead Links PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 00:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

●Keep- per A.B 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 19:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is about all I could find [14], but I'm unsure if it's the same individual. The lack of sourcing/inline citations in the article doesn't help and the external links are not RS. Oaktree b (talk) 03:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Alternate transliteration is ʻIvaz̤ Saʻīd —siro χ o 03:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. Rekhta, the online encyclopedia of Urdu literature, has an e-book about Sayeed available for download. Rekhta transliterates Sayeed's name as "Ewaz Saeed".

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A. B. Can you prove that these are the same person 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same question so I compared pictures of Sayeed over the decades. It’s the same guy.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ok 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 19:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while adding a bunch of maintenance tags and clearing out a lot of the unreferenced bio. Might also be worthwhile to move from Awaz Sayeed to Ewaz Saeed per A.B. above. Kazamzam (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:57, 15 November 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. This boils down to whether the sources meet our standards for reliable sourcing. There are split views below and not enough participation to see one 'side' reach a consensus on this issue over the other viewpoint. Daniel (talk) 02:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Preslaysa Williams[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Preslaysa Edwards

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO and WP:NACTOR. Of all the twelve sources, only the Columbia College school paper mentions more than one piece of information about her; all the other sources are nothing more than single mentions of this person. No source seems to exist that gives an overall biography or other similar information, as needed for WP:NBIO.

Sourcing to qualify for WP:NACTOR does not seem to have changed/increased since the last deletion discussion for this article/individual (2020-11-26): WP:Articles for deletion/Preslaysa Edwards ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 05:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Journalism, and New Jersey. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's arguments. Kazamzam (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She qualifies under WP:AUTHOR, hence the new content that prompted me to resurrect the article. The OP here is ignoring the prominent book reviews she has received, which are sourced in the new article. natemup (talk) 18:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She isn't just an actor, as the page clearly notes. Meet notability guidelines for being a notable author. natemup (talk) 01:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your WP:COI in having close relations to her should be noted in this discussion. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 22:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you've noted it. We have collaborated online and met once in real life. natemup (talk) 23:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You also didn't address what I said here. It invalidates your deletion request. natemup (talk) 18:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming that you think she qualifies under number 3 of "Creative professionals". I think that is really a stretch: "..a significant or well-known work.." I guess it depends on what defines a work as being "well-known." ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 01:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found two reviews of her work in Publishers Weekly (link 1 and 2), one review in Kirkus (it's not a paid review so it's valid for notability), two reviews in Library Journal (link 1 and 2), and additional reviews in Booklist and AudioFile Magazine that can be accessed through the Wikipedia Library. In addition, Booklist selected one of her novels for their Editors' Choice 2021 of the best books of the year. I agree that Williams didn't meet notability guidelines for an actor when the previous AfD was decided in 2020. However, since then she has released two well-reviewed books through HarperCollins, so per WP:Author she now meets notability guidelines.--SouthernNights (talk) 15:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To review SouthernNights' sources and argument as proposed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 18:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Publisher's Weekly ones are synopsis articles, they don't really review the books, Kirkus is about the same. I can't find the other two (Booklist, AudioFile Magazine)... It's still a !delete for me. Oaktree b (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those are standard reviews in Publishers Weekly and Kirkus. You can find the others in Wikipedia Library. SouthernNights (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. natemup (talk) 18:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm really trying to find things in RS. This interview in Writer's Digest [15] and the tiniest of mentions on NPR [16] are about all I can find. Still not seeing AUTHOR notability. Probably TOOSOON, her books only came out in 2021 and 2022. Not much chance to gain critical attention in two years I suppose. This book mentions her in passing [17]. Oaktree b (talk) 19:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are several reliable sources already cited. Not sure what you're talking about. natemup (talk) 21:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not meeting notability under actors or writers/authors. Sourcing is scant. Books have not gained much critical notice. Oaktree b (talk) 20:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:57, 15 November 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 The Supremes#Filmography. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Supremes In The Orient[edit]

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

Sole source on page is from Motown, the Supremes' record label, and I found no further coverage, reliable or otherwise. Should be redirected, but I didn’t see it mentioned on the Supremes' page so I'm not sure where the most appropriate target is. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 09:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Music. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 09:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Supremes#Filmography.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Supremes#Filmography (with the history preserved under the redirect), where the short documentary film, is already mentioned, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future.
Cunard (talk) 12:15, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Supremes#Filmography per Cunard above. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:16, 21 November 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!} 07:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bunmi Famosaya, Mni[edit]

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

The article, as stands right now, is almost without any sources. Apart from that, with a quick online research, there is no WP:SIGCOV with multiple, reliable, and independent sources with depth of coverage for this government officer. The article has been primarily edited by users with a potential issue of WP:NPOV. Although there are some sources with coverage, like this [18] and this [19], these are heavily promoted as personal advertisement without enough secondary coverage. Chiserc (talk) 09:16, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. Chiserc (talk) 09:16, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a chair of a minor body in a small region, not notable globally. Thmymerc (talk) 11:34, 15 November 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!} 07:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lexical balancing[edit]

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

Totally unsourced text dump, possible WP:OR no indication of notability. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 11:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Dazzling4 (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don’t see any sources to support this and wonder if it is based on a misunderstanding. Mccapra (talk) 19:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of significant coverage found (t · c) buidhe 09:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Given the edit history of the editor who created the article, this is most likely a hoax. --McSly (talk) 02:11, 19 November 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!} 06:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Niharika Acharya[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a journalist, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for journalists. As always, the notability test for a journalist is not passed just by offering technical verification that she exists, and requires external validation of her significance (noteworthy journalism awards, significant coverage and analysis about her and her work, etc.) in sources other than her own employer -- but this literally just states that she exists, and sources her existence to one 31-word blurb announcing her hiring for a job and a transcript of a piece of her own journalism. But we're looking for sources where she's the subject, not the creator, of the content, so the transcript isn't support for notability at all, and the blurb would be fine for use if she had more WP:GNG-worthy sourcing alongside it, but isn't substantive enough to get her over GNG all by itself if it's the only valid source in play. Bearcat (talk) 16:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 16:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, India, and Himachal Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nomination pretty much covers it, doesn't pass WP:GNG, WP:BEFORE yields nothing out there. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:03, 15 November 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. I'd be open to restoring this article to Draft space where you could continue to work on it or you could make a request at WP:REFUND and another admin can address your request. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

World Humanitarian Drive[edit]

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

Newly established NGO fails WP:GNG. LKBT (talk) 09:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Arab Emirates. LKBT (talk) 09:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear LKBT, before considering the deletion request, I invite you to explore the article's edit history. The World Humanitarian Drive entry has been meticulously crafted in accordance with Wikipedia's rigorous policies and guidelines, incorporating verifiable information from multiple independent, third-party reliable sources such as WP:IS,WP:INDY,WP:INDEPENDENT. It diligently adheres to WP:GNG without any shortcomings. I am open to engaging in constructive discourse and refining the content rather than just flagging deletion for the sake of deletion. I respectfully request a comprehensive evaluation of the deletion request by any availbale experienced editor or administrator, recognising the conscientious edits contributed by individuals like User:Egeymi and the recent review conducted by User:Hey man im josh. Your thoughtful consideration of this matter is genuinely appreciated. Additionally, I would like to highlight that, in my belief, LKBT may not have thoroughly examined the authenticity of numerous articles worldwide guaranteing authenticity of World Humanitarian Drive.Rainylights (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainylights (talk • contribs) 14:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable. Low quality sources. Organization appears to mostly give out awards. For instance our Raghavan Seetharaman article states:
- "Honoured with ‘Best CEO of the Century for Peace and Humanity’ award by World Humanitarian Drive WHD London"

See the Raghavan Seetharaman article's page history; it's been the subject of repeated sockpuppetry and COI editing.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not seeing SIGCOV from reliable sources, just a ton of press releases and WP:NEWSORGINDIA paid placement. Freedom of the City of London is not particularly difficult to obtain (unless it's Honorary Freedom of the City of London, which is quite rare and newsworthy), so the gushing press releases about it being a hugely prestigious award for Abdul Basit Syed are of no use to us in determining notability of his organisation. Most of the remaining non-PR sources simply confirm that the group exists. Wikishovel (talk) 20:12, 15 November 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. I see a rough consensus that this article should be moved to Draft space. Editors interested in working on improving it can find it there. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeji (singer)[edit]

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

No significant individual notability as a singer or actress outside of her group - suggest redirect per WP:BANDMEMBER Evaders99 (talk) 06:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Evaders99 (talk) 06:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Dance, and South Korea. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there seems to be significant coverage for individual notability here. Coalah (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where Coalah? Care to link the sources? dxneo (talk) 11:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the sources already present in the article, if those aren't considered significant coverage by most editors then I see the case for deleting. Coalah (talk) 11:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coalah, remember it was AfD'd with those sources present. The English sources cover the ensemble other than that one of "The Universe". Subject fails WP:MUSICBIO and does not seem to pass notability outside the works of their ensemble. Since I cannot review the non-English (green) sources, I am leaning towards delete. dxneo (talk) 17:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe its better to move the article into a draft instead of deleting it. Lililolol (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lililolol, you do realise that you voted "keep" although your statement supports "draftify/userfy" right? dxneo (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I moved the article back into mainspace because according to WP:ATD-I the article should not have been draftified. Lightoil (talk) 17:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. She simply doesn't meet WP:SINGER/WP:BANDMEMBER at this point of time with no SIGCOV for individual activities other than passing mentions from Itzy's related activities. I'm not going to debate why the AfC was even accepted given that the acceptor was CU blocked however I'm happy to support dratification (or re-dratify ... the bold dratify looks fine to me) with its history moved along to draftspace. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:58, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: The article needs more improvements which can be done by moving it to a draft K-Pop contributor (✍️•📚) 13:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sourcing seems more than adequate; most are in RS (green per source tool) and I've used most of them writing other Korean bios for Wiki Loves Asia myself. Oaktree b (talk) 15:16, 15 November 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 Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy B. Rosen[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to pass WP:NPOL or WP:GNG as a failed judicial nominee. Perhaps redirect to Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies? Let'srun (talk) 06:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and California. Let'srun (talk) 06:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, New Hampshire, New York, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failed federal nominee does not qualify as WP:BLP or WP:GNG. Easy call to delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 17:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note previous AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathleen Marie Sweet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:31, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Agree on easy call - fails WP:NPOL and there it is. However, we have Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies as a redirect target and AtD... Best

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 Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Bailey Jongbloed[edit]

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

Subject does not meet either WP:JUDGE or WP:GNG as a failed judicial nominee and local judge. Perhaps redirect to Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies, where her WP:BLP1E is listed? Let'srun (talk) 06:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Law, and Connecticut. Let'srun (talk) 06:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: New York, Washington, D.C., and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on redirecting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per my vote over at Jeremy B. Rosen - we have a suitable target in Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:10, 15 November 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. ✗plicit 06:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apex Sun[edit]

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

No notability, lacking sources and citations. Citations do not meet WP:OGCRIT, and aren't exactly independent Comintell (talk) 05:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Comintell (talk) 05:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, no WP:SIGCOV out there at all and nothing in the article. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am a new author here and try to figure which area I am able to contribute. I cannot see a violation of any kind but would like to have more information where I can find the notability guidelines referring to sports teams, so I can make my article better. Greetings --Puppygray (talk) 15:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(WP:Notability (sports)) Industrial Insect (talk) 18:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:GNG. See also the corresponding micro-stub Apex Moon. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No where near satisfying WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 11:52, 20 November 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Treasure Island (1999 film)[edit]

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

Article fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:SIGCOV. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE and found one review from the Edmonton Journal via Newspapers.com. It needs one more reliable and suitable review per NFO, NFSOURCES and WP:NEXIST. The Film Creator (talk) 04:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 04:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, one more reliable review: Variety [20] DonaldD23 talk to me 11:53, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I speedy withdraw this nomination. Excellent work, Donaldd23. The Film Creator (talk) 12:05, 15 November 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, nomination withdrawn. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Charade (1953 film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes] and only passing mentions on Newspapers.com. I continued my WP:BEFORE and found a capsule review from Leonard Maltin via Google Books, and capsule reviews are considered “insufficient to fully establish notability” per NFSOURCES. The Film Creator (talk) 03:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 03:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well there's all of the stuff about this film in Hirschhorn 1977, pp. 26, 108–110 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHirschhorn1977 (help) to start with. And maybe Morley 1989, p. 89 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMorley1989 (help) has something about this. Craddock 2000, p. 195 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFCraddock2000 (help) has an entry. Then there are detail sources like Barlow 2004, p. 83 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBarlow2004 (help). Uncle G (talk) 10:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Hirschhorn, Clive (1977). The Films of James Mason. Citadel Press. ISBN 9780806505848.
- Morley, Sheridan (1989). James Mason: Odd Man Out. Orion Publishing Group. ISBN 9780297793236.
- Craddock, Jim (2000). "Charade". Video Hounds Golden Movie Retrievee: The Complete Guide to Movies on Videocassette, DVD and Laserdisc. Visible Ink Press. ISBN 9781578591206.
- Barlow, Aaron (2004). The DVD Revolution: Movies, Culture, and Technology. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. ISBN 9780313024535.
To which one can at least add

So obviously Keep! -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would be shocked if we're getting rid of any part of James Mason's filmography. Kazamzam (talk) 15:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:NFIC: "The film features significant involvement [...] by a notable person and is a major part of their career." James Mason played one of the leads in all three segments and was also producer and writer. --Bensin (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw per consensus. The Film Creator (talk) 10:01, 20 November 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 (nomination withdrawn). Eluchil404 (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Little Miss Millions[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE and only found passing mentions here and here via Newspapers.com. The Film Creator (talk) 03:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 03:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, first leading role for Jennifer Love Hewitt, and so meets inclusionary criterion for WP:NFIC#2. It likely meets WP:GNG–it's covered in a few biographies: [21][22][23], given the year of release, and the fact that it was played at holiday seasons, it should also have further paper sources not necessarily available online. —siro χ o 08:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agree...first leading role for JLH. Also, found this at newspapers.com [24] DonaldD23 talk to me 12:01, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agreeing with Donaldd23 and Siroxo, who provided convincing sources. Thank you.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per sources above, and the nominator has been advised of doing a deep WP:BEFORE so many times already. Absolutely know that every possible source has been exhausted before considering either PROD or AfD. Nate • (chatter) 19:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw per consensus. The Film Creator (talk) 10:02, 20 November 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. Nomination withdrawn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liane, Jungle Goddess[edit]

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

Unsourced. No showing of notability or SIGCOV. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 03:01, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, and Germany. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 03:01, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: At this point, I feel sufficient sources have been found to prove up at least GNG and likely NFILM. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it doesn't have to be unsourced. The German Wikipedia article has sources. It was a very successful film that also raised some controversies, pushing frontiers in what was then acceptable (near-naked woman!). Given that it was released in 1956, we have to have some understanding that everything written about it at the time, and for decades after its production, will be on paper. Its current availability and internet presence demonstrates that it has lasting cultural value. Elemimele (talk) 06:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in some form. It's very likely both the film and book are notable [25]. Other helpful bits of SIGCOV that should help get us to GNG for the film itself:[26][27][28][29] —siro χ o 08:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added some sources to the page. Clearly notable, as a basic internet search can show. Keep.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was about to withdraw the nomination, but "withdrew the withdraw" after taking a closer look at some of the sources offered by Siroxo, most of which appear to be passing/trivial mentions, where this film is offered as one item in a list of examples. I'm not yet convinced there's enough here to make this film stand on its own as independently notable. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 18:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now convinced and will withdraw. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I that case there is no need for me to also vote keep. The German article has three references and lists three books as sources. Did you do WP:BEFORE? --Bensin (talk) 23:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did, but this film isn't that well known in the English-speaking world and so there was a dearth of sources. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 00:03, 16 November 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 Terrorism in the United States. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1984 Midwest pipe bombings[edit]

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

I am typically loathe to delete articles, but there is simply nothing to be said on this. If I was to expand this article with all the information available on it, I could get maybe one or two more paragraphs. I wish there was more coverage, as the little information we do have is deeply bizarre, but there isn't.

Here is what a WP:BEFORE check turned up:

a mention in a lulu.com published book about weed (??)
two brief mentions in department of treasury legal documents
1 sentence in a book by a reliable (?) author
numerous news articles, but all date from the immediate aftermath or him being sentenced - no further (or any) analysis, remarks about the general situation, or any sort of commentary beyond dry facts. if he died in prison or was released it was never remarked upon so the story cannot be "completed"

And even besides the dubious notability there is simply not enough information to write a full article. An insane man placed a bunch of bombs and then got put in prison. I'd suggest what little information exists be merged somewhere but there's really nowhere to put it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Gnewspapers basically has what's already stated here; the guy made 20 pipe bombs, they looked for him, found him, put him on trial and was found guilty. [30]. I suppose we could flesh out the article a bit more, but it doesn't seem to have had much lasting notice. Coverage is only from 1984 and into 1985 that I can see. Just a guy doing nasty stuff that people seem to have forgotten about. Oaktree b (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Terrorism in the United States#Left-wing and anti-government extremism per WP:ATD-R. I added a mention of the bombings there. A sub-obtimal choice would be to keep and rename this Earl Steven Karr, since more sources exist about him outside of the bombings, but the bombings themselves seem more notable in the long run. StonyBrook _babble 05:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea to merge and then redirect better than the proposal to delete. BTW the article was actually originally made (not by me, by an IP editor) as an article on Karr. My bad for not finding the thing on ProQuest - I assumed whatever I could have found on him would have turned up when I searched on the Wikipedia library but I guess not :/ PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the guy Karr tried to murder has an article. I still don't think this is enough for notability but, huh. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder what Drewmutt, the editor who moved the title, would say about the prison source (he seems to be away). In any case, the prison info could theoretically be added to Christopher John Boyce even if Earl Steven Karr's content is redirected to the Terrorism article. In any case, per WP:MERGEREASON #3, this article seems a bit too short (as it stands now) to stand alone. But I am still willing to consider renaming as a second option. StonyBrook _babble 06:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a good idea. A prison attack is already mentioned in the article (though I am unsure if it is the same one?) so a short sentence elaborating would not be out of place. The article's content being redirected to the terror article is a satisfactory solution. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Active discussion about merging or renaming without consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment !redirect as mentioned is ok too if we decide to go that way. Oaktree b (talk) 15:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect per StonyBrook - agree no enduring notability. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Terrorism in the United States. As terrible as this was, and there have been many around the world, this one is small-time compared to incidents like Oklahoma City bombing or Boston Marathon bombing. — Maile (talk) 14:26, 15 November 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. List of largest libraries is a much shorter article and I think a Merge of this article to that one would be disproportionate and cause a focus on the U.S. on an article that has a global focus. I think the arguments that this be retained as a standalone article are persuasive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest libraries in the United States[edit]

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

This seems to be a content fork of List of largest libraries. I think the same information can be used in that article. It is also the only article of its type tailored to a specific country. Interstellarity (talk) 02:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Out of date statistics: List of largest libraries data back to 2009, and List of largest libraries in the United States as old as 2016. The internet has had significant impact on libraries and their holdings. — Maile (talk) 03:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Lists, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Not a content fork, but an article with a focus on a specific nation, one that happens to be one of the larger English speaking countries in the world. Out of date statistics are fine here and seem to be clearly labeled at this time. (And considering Maile's point above about the impact of the internet, there may even be value in keeping statistics for various time periods.) Meets the general criterion of WP:NLIST, for example: [31][32][33]. —siro χ o 09:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as a United States stand-alone list. Different criteria from Largest libraries in the world. i.e. - there is no way to quantify how many people visit the US libraries. — Maile (talk) 15:23, 15 November 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. ✗plicit 00:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Siņutkina[edit]

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

The subject, a Latvian women's footballer, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found was passing mentions like 1 and 2. JTtheOG (talk) 01:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Latvia. JTtheOG (talk) 01:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — subject fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage. Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As nom. Toadette ^{(let's chat together)} 18:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:07, 16 November 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!} 00:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of armed conflicts involving the United States[edit]

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

This is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of List of wars involving the United States. Although yes, there is technically a difference between an "armed conflict" and a "war", the line between the two is blurry and often politically charged. Rather than making a difficult and controversial decision on how to classify every conflict, it seems like the consensus has been to list them all as wars (see the pages in Category:Lists of wars by country).

Some of the content here might be worth merging with List of wars involving the United States, but a lot of it gives WP:WIKIVOICE to specific historical viewpoints and would need to be revised heavily first. SilverStar54 (talk) 01:11, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and United States of America. SilverStar54 (talk) 01:11, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:16, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The opening reads And lastly, as violence between the white people grew, so too did the revolutionary fervor of the African slaves in their quest for freedom through armed insurrection. What the hell? Not exactly how it happened. Anyway, 1776 was when the United States of American came into existence, so listing things all the way back to 1521 makes no sense at all. Dream Focus 01:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There weren't even colonies in that part of the continent yet. Heck Cartier had barely sailed into the St. Lawrence by that point... Quebec City was founded in 1608. Just no, this is... just no. Oaktree b (talk) 15:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Besides this article, there is a bit of redundant over-kill on the subject matter. I refer to the three navboxes at the bottom of the page. "American conflicts", "US military" and "Lists of wars involving North American countries". — Maile (talk) 02:32, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Dazzling4 (talk) 03:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: In addition the points brought up above, the purpose of this list appears to list pre-1776 defeats of European colonists for political purposes.
Delete: Subject appears to have severe POV issues and is a content fork as noted by other users. Let'srun (talk) 14:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There wasn't a Spanish conquistador from the United States of America in the 1500s. There wasn't even a United States until 200 yrs later. Some mishmash of OR and wishful thinking. Just wrong all over the place. Oaktree b (talk) 15:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AryKun (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As nom stated, some of its content on the article can be moved to the target article stated. Toadette ^{(let's chat together)} 18:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:57, 16 November 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!} 00:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Brumby[edit]

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

My WP:BEFORE search found only routine coverage of results. There are quite a few matches in the British Newspaper Archive, but none of the ones I saw provided significant coverage. I also checked the issue of Snooker Scene that reported on Brumby turning professional, and that contains only a passing mention (and the results of his play-off match). BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cue sports, and England. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons stated above Montgomery15 (talk) 19:07, 21 November 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.