Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 18 February 20 >

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 merge‎ to List of Latin phrases (F). czar 18:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fex urbis lex orbis[edit]

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

Contested prod. Apparently non-notable Latin phrase used in passing in Les Misérables. A review of the first dozen or so pages of Google Books search yields primarily the book itself, with a couple of passing mentions in other books, and the name of an album by a heavy metal band; Google Scholar/News and Jstor are no better. It's also a near-orphan: the only article to link to it is the book in which it appears, and there it's relegated to the "See also" section without mention in the article body. Smdjcl (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Literature, and Law. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sourcing that I find is largely to Les Misersables; I don't think this phrase has been used much outside that context. Delete for non-notability, lack of sources. Oaktree b (talk) 01:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • So we've been taking the word of a work of fiction for 17 years, over all of the scholarship on Jerome which records no such thing. (The nearest that all of the books on Jerome going back centuries get is probably "Major est autoritas orbis quam urbis" which is a completely different thing.) This is unverifiable and almost certainly false. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 14:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with List of Latin phrases (F): I agree there's not enough here to write an individual article. However, it's notable enough that it should be merged to the List of Latin phrases. Other than sources that discuss the phrase in the context of the book, which are generally brief mentions, there's one source (p. 59) that applies the phrase to modern capitalism, but I wouldn't call that significant coverage of the phrase itself; rather, it's using the phrase to frame a discussion about another topic. Another source is a brief mention: "As the anonymous revolutionary so succiently expressed the concept of postmodern contingency, 'shit happens', or the Latin variant, 'Fex urbis, lex orbis' (Saint Jerome)." The final source I could find briefly discusses the phrase in the context of discussing Baudrillard: "Fex urbis, lex orbis (Saint Jerome)—The law of the world is made out of the feces of civilized life."). On page 46 of that source, there's also a section heading called "Fex urbis, lex sociologis", which is also about Baudrillard's work on the field of sociology. (Side note: I gave a brief listen to the metal album; it's meh.) voorts (talk/contributions) 20:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If search results "yield primarily the book itself", then the search engine is not being used properly. The simplest way to exclude the book, and quotes from it, is to look for results that don't include other parts of the text, such as excluding all results that contain the word "exaspérations" and translations of that word. Like this:
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Merge without prejudice. So, having run a real search of Google Books, I did find an article titled "Fex urbis, lex orbis: la boue dans Les Misérables" by Chelebourg: [1]. This source might have some relevance. I do not know whether it contains enough material to sustain an article at this page name. There are also a number of other sources that discuss the expression, and Hugo's use of it, such as: [2]. There are a number of books, apart from Hugo, that attribute this expression to Jerome, but I could not find it in Google Books in any book published before 1861. The ideal target for a redirect would be Les Misérables itself, or an article SPLIT from that one, since Hugo may have invented this expression. However, we would have actually add a discussion of Hugo's use of this expression first. Failing that, List of Latin phrases (F) will do, provided that the entry says "attributed to Saint Jerome by Victor Hugo", rather than the other way round. James500 (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC) I take the view that we should attribute the expression "fex urbis, lex orbis" directly to Les Misérables, and not mention Saint Jerome at all. It has become clear that any reference to Saint Jerome, without unequivocal proof that Jerome actually said this, is going to result in perpetual disruptive badgering behaviour, even if the reference makes it perfectly clear that we are not claiming that Jerome actually said this. James500 (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • You should crack open that book by Kathryn M. Grossman and actually read what your search turned up. Grossman attributes this to Cicero, not Jerome at all; and cites "ad Atticus I.xvi.11". Pulling out W. P. Grant's 1811 annotated Epistolarum ad Atticum yields no such thing said by Cicero, however. And Grossman is apparently alone, in a century and a half, in attributing this to Cicero instead of to Jerome as the novel itself says. So you haven't really turned up a good source, there. Worse, Grossman is one of the very few who has even tried to locate the original source that the novel claims. I've seen nothing else re Hugo that even attempts to verify that this was genuinely said by Jerome, let alone point to where it was said, and no writing on Jerome that has it. As I said, all this is almost certainly outright false. Uncle G (talk) 10:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • (1) There are a very large number of sources (including sources published long before Hugo) that attribute "fæx urbis" or "fæx romuli" or "fæx populi" or similar expressions to Cicero (and to Atticum in particular), eg [3] [4] [5]. He certainly does say "romuli faece", according to Tyrrell [6] and Pretor [7]. That is supposed to be the verbatim text. Likewise, he does actually say "faecem populi" [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. And he does actually say "sentinam urbis": [13] cf [14], including in Atticus: [15]. And he does actually say "faece urbis": [16]. And that seems almost identical to fex urbis. And, most importantly, he does actually say "[sordem] urbis et faecem" in Atticus, book 1, letter 16, section 11: [17] [18], exactly where Grossman claims he says something to the effect of "fex urbis". And "urbis et faecem" basically means the same thing as "fex urbis". Quad Erat Demonstrandum. I find "fæx urbis" attributed to Cicero in print at least as early as 1575: [19]. I find "urbis faece" in commentaries on Cicero in print at least as early as 1579:[20]. The point is that Cicero's literary output contains a lot of references to the excrement (or sewage, garbage or dregs etc) of the city, the cesspool of the city, the excrement of the population, the excrement of Romulus, etc, referring in all cases to the dregs of both the city and people (because the city and people are the same thing in this context) of Rome. Hugo has clearly not invented anything when he says "Fex urbis exclaims Cicero", which is clearly what Grossman is refering to. May I suggest that the source of confusion is that Hugo (and everyone else) may be paraphrasing Cicero instead of quoting Cicero verbatim. (2) In any event, the Grossman book would be prima facie reliable for her interpretation etc of the text of Hugo's novel, even if she misattributed Cicero. She is a professor of French, specialising in 19th century French literature [21], not a professor of Latin or Classics. James500 (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • So you don't have anything supporting either that Cicero said this as claimed by one person, or the article at hand saying that Jerome said this, too; your argument for Grossman is that Grossman isn't an expert in the necessary subject, unlike the many books written by scholars on the works of Cicero and Jerome who don't have any of this; and we should source to a novel. Uncle G (talk) 07:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't read you to be suggesting that we should merge the citations you've found to Les Misérables, but I just wanted to note that I think that adding literary scholars' interpretations of this one turn of phrase to Les Misérables would be unbalanced. Book articles should broadly summarize the literary criticism, not discuss individual aspects of the work at a deep level of detail. Unless there's enough significant coverage of this phrase in scholarly works to write a non-stub article, my !vote is still to merge. For attribution, my !vote is to combine everything as: "attributed to Saint Jerome by Victor Hugo in Les Misérables". voorts (talk/contributions) 19:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Les Misérables will need to be split sooner or later, due to the volume of coverage (including numerous entire books and a very large number of entire articles) that it has. The WP article is 72kB and more than 5,000 words long, and barely scratches the surface of the topic. It seems, for example, to contain little discussion of the themes and ideas of the book. Chapter 3 of Grossman's book is seventy pages of significant coverage of the topic of that chapter. The topic of that chapter is notable and should have at least one WP article. The phrase and concept of "fex urbis, lex orbis" can, and prima facie should, be included in that WP article, once it has been created. The same line of reasoning applies to the topic of the Chelebourg article. James500 (talk) 03:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with List of Latin phrases (F). Regardless of who first penned it, it's a pithy phrase and worth keeping for reference. If attribution uncertain, then "attributed to Saint Jerome by Victor Hugo" (or even just "Victor Hugo, Les Misérables" would probably do the trick). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with List of Latin Phrases (F). Ben Azura (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, pseudo latin phrase akin to nil illegitum carbordum and the like, hardly encyclopedic content. WCMemail 13:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: My original close was that while there wasn't consensus for a merger, a redirect with history was a viable ATD. A question came up on my Talk as to whether that was the best course of action, so I've vacated my close in hope of a consensus here vs. potentially prolonging this elsewhere.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Assuming that my bringing it to AfD is an implicit delete vote, I would change my vote to merge to the Latin phrases article (indeed, if I had known that article existed, I would have boldly done it myself and skipped AfD). The phrase is clearly used, and is grammatical Latin, it's just not discussed enough as a phrase to warrant a standalone article. There doesn't seem to be any requirement in the Latin phrases articles that the phrase be used by a classical author, so it wouldn't matter if Hugo made it up. Smdjcl (talk) 04:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Smdjcl. Mccapra (talk) 06:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Završje, Primorje-Gorski Kotar County[edit]

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

Do we really need an article about an uninhabited village because it was listed in a 2011 census? I fail to see how this could be considered notable. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have many articles about formerly inhabited places, sometimes known as ghost towns. Once notable, always notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a documented history of human habitation there, so this qualifies as a gazetteer entry under WP:5P1. If you click around the other language links, they have more information and graphs showing when the village was inhabited, so there's WP:POTENTIAL to expand this. It's not a lot, but it is conceivable that this would be of use to an average English reader who might stumble upon the location, like any other empty village. (Keep) --Joy (talk) 06:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete In spite of what people are saying, there's not enough reliable information here. A single census entry fails both ways: if it says it isn't populated, it doesn't say that it was, and if it says that it was populated, that's not a source for a lack of population now. Furthermore, the location given in the article (uncited and imprecise) does seem to go to a place that could be a tiny village, only GMaps assigns it a different name. Our experience sourcing articles entirely from census results has been poor, with a lot of misinterpretation. We do not need to be so desperate to keep every supposed dot on a map (which we do not have, I note) to keep this quite doubtful article. If someone comes up with better data it could be recreated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mangoe (talk • contribs) 14:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think this argument about verifiability is useful because this is in fact easily verifiable if you know where to look. The Croatian Bureau of Statistics has on their website the "PC Axis" database for their dataset called Naselja i stanovništvo Republike Hrvatske 1857.-2001. (lit. 'Settlements and population of the Republic of Croatia 1857-2001.') which lists this Završje under Brod Moravice in the somewhat complex forms at [22] and we can easily verify the table at the other language Wikipedia, confirming continuous habitation between the first census of 1857 and 1981. Likewise an even more trivial Završje search at the Croatian State Geodetic Administration Geoportal website https://geoportal.dgu.hr/ produces it at the top, and that website also has an option to generate a deep link like this. --Joy (talk) 19:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One thing I notice in the Geoportal map is that the former village itself is named "Završje", but so is a yellow outline of a number of surrounding villages with an uppercase form "ZAVRŠJE". I'm not sure what this layer with yellow outlines means, possibly a cadastral municipality or something? This probably adds some more value to continuing to document this toponym. --Joy (talk) 09:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You just have to look at the Croatian article to see that its population has been tracked through time and has only been uninhabited for the past 30 years or so, peaking at 83 people, making it eligible for an article. SportingFlyer T·C 23:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw - Clearly a keep. My bad. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SportingFlyer. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

La Salle High School (Union Gap, Washington)[edit]

La Salle High School (Union Gap, Washington) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable private high school. Has been tagged with citations needed template since 2012; all the sources are either not independent or not significant (e.g. database entries). I can find some news coverage of the school but all of it is routine daily reporting in the local paper, nothing that establishes this school as anything more than WP:MILL. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. But I'm just "weirdly annoyed" with the nomination. ;) Not going to work on the article at this point. EagleFan (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the nominator notes, it's actually got quite a bit of coverage in the Yakima Press-Herald, more than I expected actually. It's the only Roman Catholic high school in the diocese, which is somewhat unusual, and it's mentioned in a biography of Cardinal Francis George[23], because of the role he played in founding it.--Jahaza (talk) 04:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I see issues with the article (I tagged and ran away), but there's nothing wrong with the article that can't be fixed with regular editing. Bearian (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2024 (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! 23:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Novostroika[edit]

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

Delete and salt Recreating of wildly ignorant article: there is no such architectural term "novostroika". The word simply means new construction (building, site, district) in Russian. I speedied and prodded it with clear explanation, but wikiformalists want to waste the community time in AfD, so let it be. - Altenmann >talk 22:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Russia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete DICDEF. Salt as needed. I can't even find the term being used many places. Oaktree b (talk) 23:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can find no evidence that the word "novostroika" is in common use in English, and of those uses that I have found, none of them has the meaning attributed to it in this article. JBW (talk) 12:56, 21 February 2024 (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! 05:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WordLift[edit]

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

Requested by an IP editor who cannot create this page. I expect they will fill in their deletion rationale here. I am neutral as nominator unless I comment otherwise below. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I‘ll repeat the arguments I put on Talk:WordLift#Proposed deletion:
The company doesn’t seem to meet WP:CORP since it is not the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. The provided sources are often press releases published in minor publications, blogs or can‘t be attributed to the company like the price in 2011 or the book from 2013 when the company was founded in 2017.
Googling for current sources results in the same type of sources as currently in the article: self generated content, no independent reliable sources I could find.
213.55.221.7 (talk) 18:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, created by one-purpose account, only notable due to PR, and reeks of paid editing. ''Flux55'' (talk) 07:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Just another WP:NN mid-tier software company MNewnham (talk) 03:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An article on a company making the WordPress plugin of the same name. Startup coverage and announcements of the company's partnerships and grants are not intrinsically notable, and I am not seeing the coverage needed to demonstrate notability as a company or for the software. AllyD (talk) 12:46, 21 February 2024 (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! 23:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Maina Macharia[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. While there are a few sources, they only give a passing mention of the subject, and I'm not even sure if they're reliable. Thus, the article doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. GSS 💬 18:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:42, 19 February 2024 (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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enfant terrible[edit]

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

Pure WP:DICDEF with no hope of expansion (and no success in doing so since its last AfD nomination nearly 20 years ago). Graham (talk) 06:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of things have been tried, looking at the edit history, from soft redirects to discussions of video game characters. Looking for sourcing turns up nothing concrete to use, although the one thing that hasn't been thoroughly tried, I notice, is the cargo cult encyclopaedia writing way of grabbing every instance of anyone ever being called an enfant terrible and hoping that a discussion of a concept magically arises from the pile. Of course, that ranges from Marlon Brando to Peter Sellers, and wouldn't work. Uncle G (talk) 14:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Teenage girls are present in all of these media images of youth, but not in the same causal relationship with politics and history as their male counterparts. Within the peer group or the family as imagined by films, popular novels, feature articles, and news stories, bad girls were, instead, positioned as enfants terribles: in the Petit Robert dictionary, "personnes qui se signalent par une certaine turbulence, dans un groupe" [individuals who make themselves known in a group by virtue of a noticeable turbulence]-that group being alternately the age category "youth" and the gendered category of femininity. The best-known literary example is a brother and sister pair: Paul and Elisabeth in Jean Cocteau's Les Enfants terribles, a 1929 novel he adapted to film with director Jean-Pierre Melville in 1948.
Enfant terrible is also a mythological archetype in certain West African cultures; see Enfant terrible (folklore) and sources such as [25] and [26]. I am uncertain if there is a connection between that meaning and the French idiom. I suspect if there are sources that make this connection, or additional sources covering the origin and history of the expression, they will be in French. Jfire (talk) 05:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia articles don't describe words, they describe objects. The book and the journal article discussed above are examples of the use of the term, but they don't describe a thing that Wikipedia should name Enfant terrible. The journal article uses it to mean ringleader, and the book is a discussion of girlhood in French culture. Having an article on the enfant terrible is like having an article on the cool dude. It's clearly a dicdef. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 11:30, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, we do have an article for dude. Suriname0 (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And for enfant and El Terrible. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTDIC Mr Vili talk 06:39, 27 February 2024 (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! 23:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kayode Adegbulugbe[edit]

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

Not meeting GNG, BIO. No reliable sources. BoraVoro (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Not sure the award is notable, rest of this reads like a CV, with simply confirmation of employment. Oaktree b (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Engineering, and Nigeria. Skynxnex (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think "no reliable sources" is a fair description of the article. The notability claim is a bit buried in the article - he's known primarily as a philanthropist. See eg [27] (unfortunately no byline) and [28]. Those don't add up to a keep !vote, but I think we ought to do a more thorough look for sources before deleting this one. -- asilvering (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I don't agree with WP: BEFORE. Considering sources is not variably the reason to delete. There are sources to support certain claim. I will suggest rewriting. Otuọcha (talk) 06:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I see reprints of publications in different outlets. Aside from those reprints (which are obviously paid for), there are no articles to prove the notability of this subject. It also gives me the WP: PAID or WP:COI vibes. Reading Beans 13:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

High Brows[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. Searches found nothing. v/r - Seawolf35 T--C 14:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Cunard's once again excellent contribution. I didn't realise the Wikipedia Library could be quite so revelatory, and I will sign up. Sounds like this is a Futon bias case. My only other thought is WP:OLDBOOK seems to skirt the question of reviews, and might need fuller discussion by the community. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: 100 yr old book, I couldn't find much of anything about it. Only hits to various type of highbrow people. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Scotland. Skynxnex (talk) 16:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:NBOOK. A newspapers.com search showed nothing useful, though the title makes searching a bit annoying. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 17:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

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

    1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
    Sources
    1. "To-day's Novel". Liverpool Daily Post. 1929-05-28. Archived from the original on 2024-02-13. Retrieved 2024-02-13 – via Newspapers.com.

      The review notes: "To give his hero a point of view, Mr. Bruce Marshall, in "High Brows" (Jarrolds, 7s 6d net), makes him a poor man suddenly grown rich, who "gate crashes" his way into Society. Mr. Marshall calls his book an extravaganza and his publishers call it a satire. Between the two it is a lively piece of work that is the better for being read, quickly. The amusement to be had from reading of the Archdeacon whose duties seem to be not at all, in, the Parliamentary phrase, archidiaconal, but to consist of preaching in a London cathedral, calling his bishop "Freddy," drinking very much whisky, and writing any number of popular articles for the very popular Press; or from reading of the actress whose forte is undressing and sitting in a bath on the stage for ten minutes a night; or from Mr. Marshall's hero's curious and casual love affairs with one woman after another in the hectic circle; or from the faithful reproduction of the sophisticated chatter of superficially "advanced" circles interested in uplift"; all this amusement is not deep, but it tickles the mental palate agreeably and has a topicality that the au, or seems eager to disclaim in a foreword. If the persons in his book are drawn from the life, as they certainly seem to be, there is the question of good taste to consider, but Mr. Marshall half admits and haif denies that they are. We can take that equivocal word for it; and in the meantime we are able to enjoy a book that should have, to alter another now well-known phrase, a tendency to shock those whose minds are open to such shocking influences."

    2. "Our Modern Leaders". The Aberdeen Press and Journal. 1929-06-03. Retrieved 2024-02-13 – via British Newspaper Archive.

      The review notes: "High Brows. By Bruce Marshall. Jarrolds: 7s 6d. One thinks of this novel of contemporary life in adjectives, a whole string of them. Clever, acute, amusing, scathing, cynical—immoral if you like, but immoral with the purpose of an artistic morality. ... Mr Marshall has permitted himself to use exaggeration to drive home his satirical purpose. He has enjoyed writing this book, and the reader will enjoy reading it. It is like a Congreve comedy of manners, risky, downright upon occasion, but leaving behind it no ill-effects, and a rich sense of amusement. Into a framework of contemporary skits is set the story of Thomas Osgood, of Edinburgh, an unprincipled young rascal, who, by virtue of a Spanish lottery and gate-crashing, enters the upper strata of those who figure in the press, and finds his experiences more interesting than edifying. The dialogue is sparkling, unusually witty, and always rich in unexpectedness."

    3. Lloyd, J. A. T. (1929-05-28). "Recent Fiction". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2024-02-13. Retrieved 2024-02-13 – via Newspapers.com.

      The review notes: ""High Brows" follows the very latest recipe for fiction with a few pleasant variations. Osgood, the hero, backed by a prize in a Spanish lottery and several glasses of kümmel, crashes quite literally into London society as an uninvited guest at a house in Mount-street. Here Lady Tanis Tynecastle, the fantastically rich daughter of the house, falls in love with him at sight, but does not actually propose to him until the end of the book. Osgood talks in the "Wildean manner," the sort of manner that would make the author of "De Profundis " writhe in his grave. On the other hand, the musical comedy actress, Eve Stanton, is genuinely funny. "I always write my own bath salts testimonials and things," she confides to Osgood. The author is frequently handicapped by the process of applying satire to what is already caricature. Still, "High Brows" certainly contains excellent specimens of prize idiots in notoriety. The arch-deacon, for example, is a masterpiece in his way, with an incongruous hint of being rescued from the maelstrom of his own platitudes."

    4. Straus, Ralph (1929-05-29). "The High Brows' Charter". Bystander. Vol. 102, no. 1328. p. 488. ProQuest 1689127679. Retrieved 2024-02-13 – via British Newspaper Archive.

      The review notes: "Perhaps it is. Perhaps, too, Mr. Bruce Marshall is quite right to call his new novel just High Brows (Jarrolds: 7s. 6d.), for the queer folk at whom he is poking such excellent fun do, and are, most of these things. And, personally, I found his book quite unusually diverting—a wickedly satirical commentary on affairs as they are, or, rather, as certain of the newspapers would have us believe they are, today. There is exaggeration, of course, in its portraits and scenes the author himself calls the book an extravaganza—but there is also much that is shrewd, and, as he has not disdained to weave quite a nice and most up-to-date little story about these "distinguished" creatures who are not to be identified with real people, the novel ought to appeal to all sorts of brows."

    5. Underhill, Evelyn (1929-06-13). "A Lottery Winner". The Daily News. Retrieved 2024-02-13 – via British Newspaper Archive.

      The review notes: "High Brows." By Bruce Marshall, Jarrolds. 7s. 6d. Thomas Osgood, clerk in a provincial firm of sanitary engineers, wins £250,000 in the Pentecost Spanish Lottery, and straightway leaves his petty, humdrum existence and makes for the social and intellectual world of which he has always dreamed. He invests in a Rolls-Royce, scented baths and silk pyjamas, acquires as his mistresses the brightest particular stars of the musical comedy stage, and enters London's most exclusive set of Bright Young People, providing Mr. Bruce Marshall with an opportunity of painting a light-hearted caricature of contemporary society."

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

    Cunard (talk) 09:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to discuss the sourcing Cunard identified
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

McAdam High School[edit]

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

Fails to the critea layout in WP:GNG and also in WP:NSCHOOL has been with notability template since march 2021 also fails to meet WP:SIGCOV 1keyhole (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Canada. Skynxnex (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Available sourcing sufficient to meet WP:GNG, as with pretty much any other secondary school in the western world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, quick question, Why is this particular school notable and how does it meet WP:GNG? 1keyhole (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
● Delete - No Reliable Sources Found. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful if editors could show some sources, or explain where they looked when they found none.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I found significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources on ProQuest, and included quotes from the sources behind paywalls. I have not yet tracked down the exact time frame of the school's alternative title, McAdam Composite High School, but so far I found that name in use from the early 1950s through about 1984. At any rate, this tiny school does meet GNG. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 00:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Would be great if deletionists would make a cursory effort to find sources before nominating. There's plenty here.  — Chris Capoccia 💬 13:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't a vote you have to actually state reasons why you believe this article meets the requirements. 1keyhole (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "there's plenty here" is an argument. Nominating something for deletion without doing any cursory search for sources is just lazy and wasting people's time.  — Chris Capoccia 💬 23:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did make an effort and I stand by submitting this article for deletion. I think an experienced administrator will review the references and agree that most of these references are trivial and some are passing mentions. 1keyhole (talk) 23:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a high school in Canada that has been around awhile. Not surprisingly there turn out to be plenty of sources. 1keyhole, it's not the state of the article that determines if it is notable and should be kept, it's whether sources WP:NEXIST. — Grand'mere Eugene has done a great job of demonstrating that they do. 1keyhole, a quick Google search is often insufficient, especially with subjects that are old enough to predate the internet that have had some name changes. Sources do not have to be online, and even when they are online, they are often out of reach of the search engine. A good WP:BEFORE investigation can be hard, but not doing it thoroughly can waste a lot of time for a lot of people. Jacona (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It seems high schools in Canada almost always turn out to be notable because sources exist whether or not they've been added in the article. This article had been short of them, but hey!, they are in it now. A thorough before could have saved us all some time here. This article has the sustained significant coverage to pass WP:GNG and therefore should be kept. Jacona (talk) 22:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the recent WP:HEY effort. Scorpions1325 (talk) 06:59, 22 February 2024 (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! 23:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Achieng Akena[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BIO and is promotional.This article is essentially a CV/list of accomplishments sourced to sources that just document her activities. No sources from what I can see that discuss the significance of her or her work. Likely paid editing(at least recently, perhaps not initially). 331dot (talk) 09:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute! I found myself on Wikipedia and decided to fill in the blanks as it was sparse. Is there any particular reason why you feel I do not deserve to be mentioned. I have simply followed the template of my peers like Jackie Assimwe. It is not fair to delete the entry rather than simply suggest how I can remove any parts you find offensive. AfroUpdates (talk) 09:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that you are Achieng Akena? Please tell how you came to take this image of yourself. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not put myself in it. I just thought to update it and copy pasted from existing material. There are far too few African women on Wikipedia for you to suggest such a drastic measure instead of simply suggesting edits. Further, I was trying to cure the problem of "primary sources" that was on there which indicated that sources could be the person themselves, if I understood it correctly. I registered as AfroUpdates because the site warned me that my IP address could be seen. Before that I did the edits as myself as I had no ill intention as you seem to suggest. AfroUpdates (talk) 09:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, you must go to Commons and immediately request deletion of the image that you have falsely claimed is your own personal work. A video capture from an interview with you would belong to whomever filmed the interview. The other thing that you could do(which is much harder) is demonstrate that the video was released with a copyright permitting use for any purpose(including commerical) with attribution.
Next, please be aware of the autobiography policy. While not absolutely forbidden, editing about yourself is highly discouraged. Edits should be proposed as edit requests instead.
Regarding the article itself, it is a nice summary of your work- but that's not what we are looking for to establish that you are notable as Wikipedia defines the term. Any article about you should primarily summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about your work and its importance/significance/influence. Such souces cannot include basic profiles(especially from organizations you are associated with), interviews, annoucements, press releases, or the like, which seems to be what the sources in this article are. 331dot (talk) 09:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, let me begin by stating that it is my first day as a Wikipedia editor, so sorry if I am not familiar with all your policies. But as far as I can read, it is within your policies to encourage both women and African entries to reduce the obvious inequalities on your site. Secondly, let me emphasise that part of the reason for this inequality is because we do not have the luxury of "paid editors" - at least I have never personally met one and so many people do not get the recognition they deserve. Whoever it was that put my entry in (maybe check with them) obviously thought I was deserving of a mention, I just assumed they did not have sufficient information about me and took it upon myself to furnish details. Thirdly nothing that I have added is false, they are all facts about me.
The picture I posted is not from a video, it is a picture of me doing making a video that was captured by a friend. But I am happy to delete it if it so offends your sensibilities. AfroUpdates (talk) 10:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My sensibilities are not the issue- improper copyright is, as improper copyrights potentially put Wikipedia in legal jeopardy. If your friend took the image, you could have the friend re-upload it as the photographer, that would resolve the issue.
We do need more coverage of both women and Africans- but this coverage must be in keeping with our polices. As I state above, the sources currently are not appropriate for establishing that you meet our definition of notability. If you think it is possible that appropriate sources, that chose on their own to write about you and your significance, exist, I would be happy to relocate the article to Draft space where it can be worked on and submitted for a review with no time constraints(as long as the draft is actively being worked on, at least once every six months). 331dot (talk) 10:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have read you recommendation that "Any article about you should primarily summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about your work" and gone to look at the profile of Amina Mohamed, UN Deputy Secretary General, and it mostly provides references to her bio, and speeches she has made, etc. So it seems to me that your interpretation "our policies" has more to do with your feelings that I am undeserving of mention, rather than a genuine desire to maintain rules. AfroUpdates (talk) 10:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a volunteer project, where people do what they choose to do, when they choose to do it. This can result in inconsistency as to how policies are applied, but that cannot justify the addition of more inappropriate content, see other stuff exists. As such, each article or draft is considered on its own merits. We have millions of articles but only thousands of regular editors(of varying regularity).
I can't say as to if you are "undeserving" of a mention or not, I am only saying that what is present currently doesn't establish that you are, and there doesn't seem to be other sources that do, though I'm certainly not aware of every source on this planet. As I said, if you think proper sources exist, the article can be made a draft. You don't even need to provide them right now. 331dot (talk) 10:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, you have a conflict of interest and I'd advise you to avoid personal attacks if you're intending to fix the article. @331dot merely requested that the article be deleted, because, at the time, it was highly promotional of you. ''Flux55'' (talk) 13:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are only seeing half of the conversation. I do not know enough about this space to understand why the two conversations appear differently. I am not a regular editor. @331dot began by accusing me of impropriety when I was trying to update the article and provide the said references, and insisted I stop immediately. He accused me of being an "undisclosed paid contributor" and that is why he initially flagged the entry for deletion. AfroUpdates (talk) 08:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I first came across my entry it had the "This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it " and that is what I sought to do by adding additional references as appropriate. As I was working on it @331dot marked it for deletion and asked me to stop and not to edit anymore. Now you say the references are not sufficient. AfroUpdates (talk) 08:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel that article does not meet guidelines here, please nominate it for deletion. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Oaktree b (talk) 15:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Briefly quoted in several articles (including the Voice of America used in the article), this is also typical [29]. Nothing extensive found about this person. Decline for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: This article is severely WP:REFBOMBed but going through many of them I find the same as Oaktree. They are primary, his statements or brief mentions. None of them meet WP:GNG. S0091 (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC) S0091 (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. I am not going to !vote on this, but we need to address that the newbies of 2024 are very different from those of 2007. Everybody knows what Wikipedia is, and what you should not do. I'll leave it at that. Bearian (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TV's Naughtiest Blunders[edit]

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

Unable to find multiple non-trivial sources that show the significance of this television show, there is a small piece in the Scottish Daily Record & Sunday archived here and the rest is either routine television listings or brief mentions in articles about Steve Penk. pinktoebeans (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Lawson, Mark (2000-04-16). "Going live". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2024-02-13. Retrieved 2024-02-13.

      The review notes: "That the rudeness was an illusion on that occasion sadly renders it ineligible for TV'S Naughtiest Blunders (ITV, Wednesday, 10pm), which promises "a series of four-lettered utterances from a variety of famous faces". Presented by Steve Penk (pictured), it's an adult version of Dennis Norden's It'll Be All Right On The Night shows. Like most shows featuring out-takes, it uses too loose a definition of broadcasting embarrassment. ... On TV's Naughtiest Blunders, it's amusing when Martin Clunes gets sexually explicit on This Morning With Richard & Judy because the presenters look so terrified. But news reporters swearing when taped pieces to camera go wrong is no more interesting than other workplace cursing. The most intriguing aspect of the show is that the expletives aren't bleeped."

    2. Purnell, Tony (2000-12-13). "Last Night's View: ITV goes on the offensive". Daily Mirror. Archived from the original on 2024-02-13. Retrieved 2024-02-13.

      The review notes: "Proof if proof be needed that those in power don't give a monkey's for public opinion was there for all to see in TV's Naughtiest Blunders (ITV) which was put out in the old News At Ten slot. It was crammed full of four letter words even though that sort of thing tops the list of complaints in all viewer surveys. Stars caught effing and blinding included Frank Skinner, Caroline Quentin, Amanda Holden, Keith Barron, Brian Blessed and Jim Bowen. The only interesting thing to come out of the programme was that the women were worse than the men. The show looked as if cheeky schoolboys had compiled it. There were lots of shots of animals farting, fornicating and going to the toilet."

    3. "Nowhere to hide for TV stars - TV's Naughtiest Blunders ITV, 10.00pm". Daily Record. 2001-04-28. Archived from the original on 2024-02-13. Retrieved 2024-02-13.

      The review notes: "Uncensored and unbleeped, Steve unveils TV's Naughtiest Blunders showing the clips that television's favourite actors, presenters and news reporters would rather the viewers never saw. From GMTV to CiTV, London's Burning to Animal Magic, Steve shows us the stars of the small screen getting it wrong in a programme not for the faint-hearted. ... Steve brings to TV the cheekiest and most embarrassing foul-ups from some of the country's best known celebrities. ... Standby for Barbara Windsor, Mike Reid, Amanda Holden, Gary Myers, Neil Morrissey, Martin Clunes and Eamonn Holmes as they make their naughtiest blunders in full glare of TV cameras. There's nowhere to hide for the guilty celebrities."

    4. "Bleeper working overtime". Daily Record. 2000-12-09. Archived from the original on 2024-02-13. Retrieved 2024-02-13.

      The review notes: "It will be all right on the night, or perhaps not. It's time for more outrageous out-takes and unbleeped bloopers in TV's Naughtiest Blunders 2. ... With double entendres from Ainsley Harriot's Can't Cook Won't Cook, Freudian slips from sporting legend Dickie Davies and uncontrollable giggles from Geordie duo Ant and Dec, this is most definitely the show the censors didn't get their hands on."

    5. "Getting caught out being naughty". Bristol Post. 2000-04-19. Archived from the original on 2024-02-13. Retrieved 2024-02-13.

      The review notes: "Tonight Steve takes another big stride in his burgeoning screen career by presenting an hour of outrageous out-takes and unbleeped bloopers in TV's Naughtiest Blunders. The Capital Radio disc jockey, legendary for his own on-air set-ups, sets out to bring us some of the more embarrassing foul-ups from other famous faces and shows. They include a celebrity error on This Morning with Richard and Judy , to a male streak on a mass scale at a big rugby match. It's a one-off special and there's a chunk of never before seen or heard blunders which are definitely not for the faint-hearted viewer. These clips include ones featuring Kiss Me Kate stars Caroline Quentin and Amanda Holden, some chaos on The Generation Game with Jim Davidson, and some four-lettered utterances from some of the nation's famous faces."

    6. Johnson, Debra (2002-11-22). "Fox picks up Carlton clip show". Variety. Archived from the original on 2024-02-13. Retrieved 2024-02-13.

      The article notes: "Carlton Productions’ entertainment department has been commissioned to produce three special editions of its British clip show “TV’s Naughtiest Blunders” for Fox in the U.S. ... In the U.K., the sixth edition of “TV’s Naughtiest Blunders” is now in production for ITV, along with a further special “The Naughtiest of TV’s Naughtiest Blunders.”"

    7. "TV's Naughtiest Blunders". Sunday World. 2005-08-28. Retrieved 2024-02-13 – via British Newspaper Archive.

      The article notes: "Given a slightly later slot than other shows of its ilk, Neil Morrissey introduces a series of clips that claim to be too risque for young eyes. This edition's fall guys include Hollywood heartthrob George Clooney, as well as comedians Ardal O'Hanlon and Rik Mayall, singer Rod Stewart, and bloopers from the casts of Bad Girls and The League of Gentlemen."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow TV's Naughtiest Blunders to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 11:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Going through the sources I would not say any of these make up significant coverage - these all seem to be routine descriptions of the show describing when it would be airing. Source 4 is seven sentences long. Source 3 and 5 seem to be more about Steve Penk than the show itself. Source 2 is the only one I would describe as potentially being significant. pinktoebeans (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are not "routine descriptions of the show describing when it would be airing". The sources provide critical analysis of the television show. The fourth source, which provides 204 words of coverage about the show, says, "With double entendres from Ainsley Harriot's Can't Cook Won't Cook, Freudian slips from sporting legend Dickie Davies and uncontrollable giggles from Geordie duo Ant and Dec, this is most definitely the show the censors didn't get their hands on."

The second source provides critical analysis and commentary: "The only interesting thing to come out of the programme was that the women were worse than the men. The show looked as if cheeky schoolboys had compiled it. ... The funniest moment for me did not involve swearing, nudity or any kind of naughtiness, just Gary Mavers attempting to open a door and act at the same time." Cunard (talk) 11:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the sources identified by Cunard. Toughpigs (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For deeper discussion of the sources found by Cunard.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard's refs. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:40, 26 February 2024 (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. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nat Turner[edit]

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

Because the article is greater than 90 days old, I'm effectively testing whether there is community consensus to draftify per WP:DRAFTIFY.

Five years ago, the article was merged into Nat Turner's slave rebellion. Talk:Nat Turner preserves the history of the merge discussion, which was closed as "consensus to merge" when there was no such consensus. There is related subsequent discussion at Talk:Nat Turner's slave rebellion. Editor LouMichel is rewriting the biographical article, which I applaud, but it should be incubated in a draft space until it is ready for publication. Though I'm therefore recommending Draftify, I suspect some editors will also wish to use this AfD to revisit the merge discussion. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect in it's current form to Nat Turner's slave rebellion, but I am in support of a page for Nat Turner himself in the future. Jebiguess (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Split: I think there are enough separate facts about the individual responsible for the famous rebellion to give him his own page. For example here. I don't know if that source meets Wikipedia's standards to be reliable. This source looks reliable. There appears to be plenty of WP:RS on Google scholar. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC) and per LouMichel. I would support a speedy close of this discussion as Keep or Split per the arguments made by Central and Adams and regular editing between the two articles takes place. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [revised 00:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)][reply]
  • Keep -- No one will seriously argue that Nat Turner fails the GNG, so the only argument put forth by nom is that the present article is in lousy shape. AFD, as is well known, is not cleanup, so this is not a valid criterion for deletion. Central and Adams (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response: This issue is not whether Turner merits an article but that a community consensus was made three years ago to merge two articles, making Nat Turner's slave rebellion the primary article. As a result better biographical content already exists but is elsewhere. If a discussion to split the main article had been started, existing content could have been used to populate Nat Turner, resulting is a C class rather than a stub. This is about process, not the merit of the subject. Rublamb (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • That decision isn't binding on anyone now, and we're revisiting it. If the only question is whether it should still be merged that's a question for discussion on the talk page rather than at AFD. AFD is never about process. It's always about the notability (not merit) of the subject. Central and Adams (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good point. I honestly do think the merger is the issue, but here wer are. Rublamb (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I came here following WP:DRAFTIFY, which suggests AfD to establish community consensus for draftification. It is an odd AfD nomination, but not inappropriate. I don't expect anyone will seriously suggest deletion here. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • IgnatiusofLondon I apologize for not having read your initial reasoning in the post. I thought it so absurd to make any argument that Nat Turner isn't notable, I responded to what I had assumed was a proposal to delete (or redirect). That said, I would still rather the article stay live and the appropriate content split back to Nat Turner. Drafts are hard to find and track, often ending up in some editor's space, making it hard to know how a phrase or deletion came into being prior to the publication of the draft.
        • I think drafts are better for subjects that are only marginally notable, especially when there is really only one editor willing to work on the content. Then when it is published, we know all of it is from that one editor from that date. I very much doubt that is the case here. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's alright; don't worry! The reason why I initially stumbled across this minefield was through new page patrol. If it were a new article, I would draftify; it isn't, so the process is AfD. It seems like I've also, in doing so, rather spotlighted the debate between editors regarding reversing the 2019 merge that had already started. I'm hoping there's enough enthusiasm, especially amid Black History Month, to get this topic the attention it deserves.
            To be honest, if I were a gambling man, I would be willing to bet that article improvements will likely make the draftification question moot by the time the AfD closes, such that the discussion solely concerns keep versus redirect (revisiting the 2019 discussion and improper closure). IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 01:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nat Turner is an incredibly important figure in American History. He was rated one of the 100 greatest African Americans in Molefi Kete Asante's well-known book. He has had numerous articles, books, and movies made about him. In fact, any in-depth discussion of US slavery and resistance to slavery will almost certainly discuss him. There are numerous articles here on rebels, such as Pemulwuy, Emile Henry, Shields Green, and countless others. Many of them are less famous than Nat Turner. Even the Spartacus article starts with "Little is known about him beyond the events of the war, and surviving historical accounts are sometimes contradictory," so being mostly known for an uprising does not mean the biographical article should be deleted.
    Wikipedia's guidelines on Notability say: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role." No one would argue the rebellion was not significant, and it is obvious that Nat Turner played a significant role.
    Why should we have pages for biographical films about Nat Turner and not a page for the person himself? Pulitzer prize-winning books about Nat Turner have Wikipedia pages. Films that are "based on the story of Nat Turner" have pages.
    I have started this article again because there was never a proper consensus on merging it into the rebellion article (suggestions for a formal "request for comment" were apparently ignored, and few editors even new the merger was occurring or had a chance to respond). The "consensus" that did supposedly occur did not properly follow Wikipedia's notability guidelines and deleted this page for a very notable historical figure. I recommend that either the previous version of this article before the merger be restored, or we Draftify it and continue working on it to create a version that is distinct from the rebellion article. LouMichel (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The prior version of the Nat Turner article was merged in Nat Turner's slave rebellion and has been improved and expanded over three years by numerous editors. It would be a step backward to simply restore the former article, and would also result in unnecessary duplicate content in Wikipedia. A better solution is to move the appropriate section from Nat Turner's slave rebellion to here. Rublamb (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then do it. This is a matter for ordinary editing.Central and Adams (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Central and Adams. I am a fan of boldly go, but this is not an ordinary sitution because there was a merger discussion, resulting turninh this article into a redirect. As indicated above by another editor, we are now revisiting the issue. Rublamb (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Central and Adams How do we re-open the decision (is there a formal "unmerge" process, or is our discussion here enough)? Although I know it's not a deciding factor, it's Black History Month and deleting the page of a prominent Black historical figure (when this is often an underrepresented part of history) would be an unfortunate choice unless there's a very good reason. I was honestly shocked that Nat Turner didn't have a page. This seems like as good a time as any to revisit this. LouMichel (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree with this. I am not an experienced or skilled Wikipedia editor, so I kindly request that those with the capacity help make the required changes. And I thank @Rublamb and others for their diligent work over the years on the Rebellion article. LouMichel (talk) 23:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't want to prejudge the AfD or box people into discussing particular questions, but looking at the comments already offered, I think it could provide some help to separate the different questions here:
  1. Nobody is seriously suggesting the article be deleted. The subject clearly meets WP:GNG.
  2. One question is whether Nat Turner should be a separate article ("keep") or a redirect ("redirect"/"merge") to Nat Turner's slave rebellion. As evidenced on the talk pages, the 2019 merge discussion and improper closure have caused much confusion and unsettled debate on this question. There is evidently an appetite to revisit this question.
  3. If the article should be separate ("keep"), a follow-up question is whether it should be incubated from the article space ("draftify") while it is brought up to the necessary quality of a Wikipedia article. Per WP:DRAFTIFY and community consensus, articles that are too old should not be draftified without prior consensus at AfD. This is why I have dragged this article to AfD: not to propose its deletion, but to propose its draftification. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 01:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My opinion is that merging it with the other article does function as a kind of deletion. As I'm sure I've already made clear, I think there should be separate articles (Nat Turner is significant enough to justify it, and there are enough sources about him that we can have both this and one on the rebellion).
    Beyond that, I'm okay with "draftifying" it (as long as it doesn't get lost in limbo for an extended period of time). But I think if someone is willing to move the relevant section/ content from the Rebellion article over to this one, as @Rublamb mentions, that may be the best choice. Then we can simply conduct further edits and expand it as needed.
    Either way is fine by me; my main concern is keeping two separate articles. LouMichel (talk) 02:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I don't see any reason to draftify this. Everyone agrees that it meets the GNG, so is worthy of an article. The article's in bad shape now, but it's no different in this regard than tens of thousands of others. It can be fixed by ordinary editing and we absolutely have the power in this discussion to reverse the redirect and merge. Even an ordinary editor who was ready to write the article could do that. Central and Adams (talk) 02:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Test did not succeed. Improve it. Nat Turner's slave rebellion effectively gives a biography: so let's write it up properly. Keep. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve per Central and Adams, LouMichel, and Drmies. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 03:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per DUH, with a TROUTing to IgnatiusofLondon for good measure. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --BeLucky (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep (nominator !vote change): The article is in better shape, and the AfD discussion thusfar has suggested (i) no appetite for draftification and (ii) in my view, a perceptible consensus for a separate article ("keep" rather than "redirect"). I hope this outcome can encourage editors working on Nat Turner, and suffice to show community consensus to overturn the 2019–20 merge proposal and improper closure. Unless other editors wish to continue using this AfD to debate the 2019–20 history (which does not seem to be the way this AfD discussion has evolved), I think the AfD can be safely closed as keep. I am mindful too that it is Black History Month, and an AfD tag with no real prospect of deletion or draftification helps neither readers nor editors. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 00:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Carlo Cilli[edit]

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

None of the sources used are remotely WP:RELIABLE. TLA (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2024 (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! 23:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Dacre (knight)[edit]

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

Unsourced, and no indication of notability. This 2007 version shows 5 sources:

  1. A user-contributed genealogy website
  2. A site my browser security warns me away from
  3. The contributing editor's own research
  4. Looks good: but the Dacre mentioned was active in 1349-1350, wrong period
  5. Dead link

An added complication is that the article on his father, Thomas Dacre, 6th Baron Dacre (1387-1458), says that his eldest son, Thomas "was living in 1453 but predeceased his father" - but this Thomas is shown with a precise death date of 15 January 1448.

The article seems to have been created from unreliable family history sources, and should have no place in our encyclopedia unless someone can find more reliable evidence of his life and dates, and of something beyond his existence which makes him notable.

I'm not a historian, just someone working on the unreferenced Cumbria articles as part of the WP:FEB24 unreferenced articles backlog drive, so someone else may well be able to improve this article. Please do so. PamD 20:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete‎. That is a G5, and since it hasn't been declined I have no hesitation in closing it as such. Star Mississippi 23:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Green Entertainment[edit]

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

Duplicate material from Green Entertainment that fails WP:NLIST an appears to be a synthesis of collected original research. microbiologyMarcus (petri dish·growths) 20:11, 19 February 2024 (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! 23:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of villages in Potiskum[edit]

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

Poorly sourced and overly narrow list of debatable accuracy. This is stated as a list of villages in a specific area, but Potiskum's article describes it as a city, not a region, and cities normally contain neighbourhoods rather than "villages" -- and even if "villages" were actually the appropriate designation here, it would still be far from clear that we actually needed a standalone list of them, as a separate page from Potiskum's main article, instead of just naming them in Potiskum's main article.
The sole source here, further, is a generic postal code directory which serves only to confirm that all of the places listed here have the same postal code across the board, while utterly failing to clarify the matter of whether these are really "villages" or "neighbourhoods", and thus doesn't constitute proof that this article needs to stand separately from Potiskum as a whole. Apart from this, all other Category:Lists of villages in Nigeria are organized at the state level, with no other lists of "villages in specific city" existing at all. Bearcat (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero bluelinks, redundant to an entry in List of villages in Yobe State. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No notable entries. Ajf773 (talk) 09:14, 20 February 2024 (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! 23:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William Allegrezza[edit]

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

No coverage in reliable sources, no sign of any award that would make him notable as an author. Bolt and Thunder (talk) 18:37, 19 February 2024 (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 page's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yusif Mammadaliyev (disambiguation)[edit]

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

There are only 2 entries and there's a hatnote on Yusif Mammadaliyev linking to the village. Leschnei (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2024 (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! 23:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David N. Feldman[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Bolt and Thunder (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I haven't found anything more than generic author biographies or primary sources. Shaws username . talk . 19:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)m[reply]
  • Delete An author of specialist accounting books from a decade ago, but nothing since then. No secondaries at all MNewnham (talk) 00:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only one ref, which does not to even mention him. Appears to be a case of WP:NOTRESUME. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:05, 21 February 2024 (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! 23:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gas pipe clarinet[edit]

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

(declined prod) Real term, but without enough coverage to be expanded beyond a dictionary definition. Mach61 (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2024 (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! 23:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Filion[edit]

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

Please delete this per WP:BLPCRIME, a minor accused but not convicted and not known otherwise. Fram (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not make this article but I was going to make one on the same topic at Draft:Torswats, but alas I am extremely lazy and was beaten to the punch. Would that still be okay? I agree the one as is has problems. Shouldn't be focused on him, should be on the service PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW Torswats itself is 100% notable. Gotta be careful about the BLP stuff until he's convicted though. Also he was charged as an adult. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram any issue with an article on Torswats (the swatting service) and not Filion? PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there isn't an issue, I can write the Torswats article fast and then redirect his name into it without mentioning it until he's convicted. Relatively few of the sources name him anyway. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft: Would more than likely be notable once convicted, but until then, not really much for notability. Perhaps TOOSOON Oaktree b (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even then, from what the sources say he is not the only person behind "Torswats", he is the main one. It is implied he had affiliates. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    also I agree with draftify if my proposal above isn't accepted. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I agree. But I would consider @PARAKANYAA's request and redirect "Alan Filion" to Torswats if it is ever moved to articlespace.
    Best, Danzigmusicfan1 (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If an article is to be created about the pay-for-swatting incidents it should not be a BLP of a previously unknown minor with his mugshot before conviction. The current article raises ethical issues and it should not be a BLP. See WP:BLP1E. Per WP:BLPCRIME 'Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures...editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured."

AusLondonder (talk) 11:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the only sources we have for the subject being Torswats all fail BLPCRIME, and if the subject isn't Torswats they are a non-notable minor. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lucky Luke albums[edit]

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

Entirely plot summary, no indication of notability. microbiologyMarcus (petri dish·growths) 17:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC) Withdrawn microbiologyMarcus (petri dish·growths) 20:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Lucky Luke is plainly notable. Merging this into the main page would result in a huge amount of clutter. It needs editing, sourcing etc, etc but that's cleanup, not AfD. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; note that there's an omnibus merge in progress (see Talk:List of Lucky Luke albums#Created as per discussion at AfD), merging the even-worse individual articles to this page. I suggest a waiting until the merges are done (which should remove 20-or-so weak articles), consolidating what's there into one place where it can be improved. Note that the merge proposal itself arose from an AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Les Collines noires, so I think that it's best to let the consequence of that AfD play out first. Klbrain (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As a list page, this falls under WP:NLIST, which says, "a list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." Is the nominator's argument that there are no RS that discuss Lucky Luke as a whole? If that's the case, that seems trivial to establish. I agree with Klbrain that the merge should be completed, and then this article can be improved. Toughpigs (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep and close as too soon, I don't know how I missed the merge tag. microbiologyMarcus (petri dish·growths) 20:13, 19 February 2024 (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! 23:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sober & Lonely Institute for Contemporary Art[edit]

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

The organisation appears to be a hoax (or a conceptual art project). Nearly all of the references are either deadlinks or do not mention the subject. The "official" website leads to an online gambling site. Both of the individuals mentioned appear to be (non WP:N) artists. Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - has been tagged for notability for ten years. WP:NCORP, WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST fail. Netherzone (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wix site, a tumblr blog and not really much else for this "institute" found. Oaktree b (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The people mentioned in the article appear to be the artists Dr Robyn Cook and Lauren von Gogh. Whether either meets WP:BIO criteria in their own right (in any context and enough to merit a stand-alone article), I can't say, however, the Sober & Lonely Institute for Contemporary Art (abbreviated as S&L by Dr Cook in the above) does not appear to pass any WP:N criteria, and I stand by the AfD nomination. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the current domain is a site about online gambling that dates back to 2021. As recently as 2020, www.soberandlonely.org was a broken link. This article dates back to 2014. So in addition to notability concerns, this organization appears to be abandoned. Crystalholm (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2024 (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! 23:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elaine Nalee[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an actress, not properly sourced as passing WP:NACTOR. As always, actors are not automatically entitled to have articles just because the article lists acting roles, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage about them and their performances -- but this is referenced entirely to primary source directory entries that aren't support for notability at all, with no evidence whatsoever shown of any GNG-building media coverage about her career, and even the roles themselves are virtually all supporting or bit parts rather than "major" roles.
Further, she's so poorly sourceable that the article has bounced all over the place over its three years of existence, as editors have repeatedly disputed whether she's American, Canadian or South African by nationality without ever showing a shred of sourcing for any of those claims — even her birthplace has been editwarred between Durban ZA and Sheridan WY without ever properly sourcing either of those things, and while the article has never claimed that she was born in Canada there's been an unverified assumption that she must be Canadian because her earliest listed film and television roles were all in Canadian productions that would be profoundly unlikely to take on the expense of importing a foreign actress just for a tiny bit part. (That can happen for a leading role, but not for one five-minute scene as a waitress.)
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to get over GNG on her sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Davie Armour[edit]

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

Fails GNG with a lack of SIGCOV. Dougal18 (talk) 15:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Are you sure? something behind this paywall. picking up injury after injury...? Played in the Scottish League semi final, [35], A couple of hits in the Scottish press? Not sure, but it's possible there is enough for basic GNG with a newspaper search. I am willing to have faith on the amount of football he has played to be GNG worthy. Govvy (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In rangersreview he is briefly mentioned. The story about Neilston is a different Davie Armour. I looked in the archives and only found mentions in match reports. Dougal18 (talk) 11:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 03:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

F.C. Banjar Union[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of notability under GNG or SNG. A local football club. North8000 (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2024 (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 23:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Persiyali Yalimo[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. Local football club. No evidence of notability under GNG or SNG. North8000 (talk) 14:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:02, 20 February 2024 (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) IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 23:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goyang Happiness FC[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of notability under GNG or SNG. A defunct local football club that existed for about 1 year. North8000 (talk) 14:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, especially in light of its short duration. I don't speak Korean, so am not best positioned to find additional sources, but did not find significant coverage during my limited search. Also, the second source in the article is arguably a cursory mention. Arcendeight (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Keep, in light of sources later in the discussion. I would ask, though, that these sources be included in the article as appropriate, as its in a sorry state now. Arcendeight (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I may not fix up the article. To-do list is long (can see it on my user page) and this is very low impact topic. I did copy paste the links onto the article's talk page for future editors though toobigtokale (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources below, AGFing they show SIGCOV as suggested. GiantSnowman 21:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable coverage in the Korean language. [36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44] toobigtokale (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2024 (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. Consensus to keep per WP:NPLACE. Article has been significantly improved since it was nominated for deletion (WP:HEY). (non-admin closure) ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 02:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Villieria[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of notability under GNG or SNG. Clearly fails GNG. Regarding SNG, there is no evidence (including in a search I made) that it meets the SNG. Appears to be just a census tract and is actually Pretoria North8000 (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you said "is actually Pretoria", I think you meant to say "is actually a suburb of Pretoria". GeographicAccountant (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I could find anything that says that it is a suburb of Pretoria (I.E. is actually a village/town etc. ) I would not have nominated. I meant that it appears to be IN/ a part of Pretoria, not a suburb of it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A "suburb" is a section of a town/city here. It is not a town itself. Saying "it is a suburb of Pretoria" & "it is a part of Pretoria" is the same thing here. Sincerely, GeographicAccountant (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we are using different meanings of "suburb". I meant "suburb" in the typical USA context, which is a separate town/village with it's own government and which is not legally a part of the city which it is a suburb to. And to say that from the research I did, it appears that Villieria is not that....that it is legally a part of the city of Pretoria. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article Suburb#Australia, New_Zealand,_and South_Africa covers the meaning of the term in Australia, South Africa and New Zealand, and suburbs would generally meet the criteria in WP:NPLACE in each of those countries. Park3r (talk) 10:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete It's a neighborhood in NE Pretoria, if you believe GMaps (the coords in the article go to dead center Pretoria). I couldn't find anything except real estate ads and clickbait, or routine listings. Mangoe (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per WP:NPLACE. It is a a populated, legally recognized place, and a suburb of Pretoria as described in multiple WP:RS [45][46][47][48], with a population of 14,000 people in the 2011 census[49]. Lots of references on Google Books, it has a primary school called Laerskool Villieria (Villieria Primary School) [50]. It has a police station called the Villieria Police Station [51] [52] Google Maps clearly shows the place exists with defined boundaries, doesn't point to the "dead Centre Pretoria", and Google Street View shows the school in the suburb [53]. There are a numerous references to the place in legal (Government Gazette) and other publications in Google Books. I'm quite surprised that a WP:BEFORE didn't turn any of this up. Here's a street sign that shows the entrance to the suburb on Google Street View[54] Park3r (talk) 10:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - In South Africa, a "suburb" is a section of a town or city (it is not a town or city itself) & since this is a South African Article, this is the definition we use here, as stated in my above reply to the nominator. As Park3r has stated above, Villieria is indeed one of the many suburbs that make up the city of Pretoria & it is a legally recognized place. I see the article has also been improved a lot since this AFD was announced & taking that into account, I vote for it to stay on Wikipedia.
GeographicAccountant (talk) 10:23, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appears to have been significnatly WP:HEYed since this AfD was started, easily passes GNG, nice work by Uncle G. SportingFlyer T·C 19:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wow, what a lot of good work! With that amount of great sourced content, I'm in favor of keep whether it be via wp:IAR or practical edge case or GNG or ngeo or whatever. I'm not withdrawing the nomination, I would still like this to be decided. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't withdraw it since there's still a delete !vote, but why wouldn't you if you had the chance? SportingFlyer T·C 22:28, 24 February 2024 (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 Maesycwmmer. Liz Read! Talk! 06:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maesycwmmer F.C.[edit]

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

Non-notable football club. SlimyGecko7 (talk) 10:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect per above. The team is mentioned at the target page. Geschichte (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2024 (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. Star Mississippi 03:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shan Lie[edit]

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

I think this is a case of WP:BLP1E, as the subject would be not notable (just a province-level official, certainly fails WP:POLITICIAN) without the incident about his child.

Furthermore, in the article, we only have two sources about the strained relationship between the subject and his child. One is reported by RFA (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 333#RfC: Radio Free Asia (RFA), and another is from a news aggregator. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've noted your concerns regarding WP:BLP1E and the controversy surrounding the official's child. While he may not have a high profile in politics, serving as a provincial propaganda department head, it doesn't necessarily violate Wikipedia's notability standards. Perhaps we can delve deeper into his responsibilities and impact in the propaganda field to assess whether he meets the criteria.

Regarding the controversy, I acknowledge the limited sources, with one being from RFA. I will make it explicit in the article and indicate the sources of the reports for transparency. Additionally, I'll search for other reliable sources to supplement the information gap, enhancing the comprehensiveness and reliability of the article. Please elaborate further on your concerns about notability standards and provide any additional information so that I can better address your requests.Hzt0208042508415531 tw (talk) 23:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hzt0208042508415531 tw, thanks for your attention. I might be in the wrong here, as the official does have a province-wide office, and thus could be presumed to be notable by WP:POLITICIAN. I am not sure, as he only holds the position of the vice bureau head and an inspector, not the bureau head. More comments are welcome.
Moreover, satisfying WP:POLITICAN does not necessarily mean we could have an article about the subject. To quote from WP:Notability (people), meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. We should have a closer look at the WP:General Notability Guideline (GNG).
To quote from GNG, we need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Let's look at the sources in the article that talks about the subject's public office.
  1. "政務公開". 浙江省人民政府 – this is a primary source from the government of Zhejiang, not a secondary source
  2. "單烈". 浙江省廣播電視局. – trivial profile page that only says about the subject's gender, ethnicity, age, and education
  3. "浙江省拟提拔任用省管领导干部任前公示通告". 中國共產黨新聞網 – this is a WP:Routine coverage (publicizing candidates of public offices) with trivial mention
  4. "浙江任免华宣飞、陆伟利、姚昭晖、徐建刚、凌云、金伯中等职务". 中國經濟網 – one-line trivial mention
  5. 海外網 (2021-07-21). "浙江省庆祝建党百年国际传播大型融媒系列活动启动仪式在嘉兴举行". 新浪網 – mentions the subject's name only twice, and the subject is not the focus of the article
  6. "浙江广电局党组书记沈铭权：全力夺取广播电视网络视听工作高分报表". 鳳凰網浙江 – this only gives a trivial mention of the subject in the first paragraph only
  7. "浙江省人民政府关于章朝平等职务任免的通知". – a one-line mention from a primary, governmental source
I hope you understand my point that these sources do not meet Wikipedia's standards. I also did a little bit of searching and could not find any significant coverage. Without the controversy, I am afraid that the subject will not pass the general notability guideline. Even if you find reliable sources for the controversy, the situation would become like BLP1E and is still concerning. Many thanks. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RFA itself is not necessarily a bad source–but I am also wary if only RFA talks about the controversy, as RFA could have a bias on LGBT issues in mainland China. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 00:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your analysis, this article focuses on the biography of an official, even excluding controversial events, these sources are sufficient to prove the validity of the information, and the space itself is very small.What's more, if you take back of the word "certainly", it will be better.The article did not mention too many details of the dispute because I asked the party concerned and he could not produce direct evidence. But according to the media, it is certain that his eldest daughter was harmed. Hzt0208042508415531 tw (talk) 23:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, his controversy and influence are more than these, but limited by the biographical policy of the living, there is no reliable source, so he did not write it. Hzt0208042508415531 tw (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hzt0208042508415531 tw, I am happy to take back the word "certainly". In my second response I have acknowledged that I might be in the wrong here, as the official does have a province-wide office, and thus could be presumed to be notable by WP:POLITICIAN.
A few more things:
  • "I asked the party concerned and he could not produce direct evidence." The party concerned is an unpublished source and should not be used for sources. We should only limit the discussion to the published sources.
As a side note, do you have a WP:conflict of interest to the subject or anyone involved in this article, since you have contact with "the party concerned"? If yes, I encourage you to declare it.
  • "these sources are sufficient to prove the validity of the information". You are correct that these sources are true, and I don't doubt that. Validity is not the issue here, it's notability. I might have not stressed this point clearly in my previous response, and I am sorry if that causes any confusion.
We create a Wiki article if there is enough notability. Trivial, marginal mentions do not constitute notability. Simply being a province-level official also does not automatically constitute notability. I have analysed the sources in the article to show that these sources don't show significant coverage of the subject, and thus do not contribute to the notability.
Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's no use talking about attention with me. I just interviewed the client. Can you help modify the internal link?Good Luck. Hzt0208042508415531 tw (talk) 05:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hzt0208042508415531 tw, by using the word "client", are you saying you are a WP:paid editor? If so, you have a heavy conflict of interest and are discouraged from editing the article directly, until you disclose it and tell us what is your true relationship with anyone involved in this article, and whether you have received benefit from them. You also ought to create the article through the WP:articles for creation process.
Please, disclose your conflict of interest, preferably on your user page or talk page. Otherwise, I am afraid that I will need to raise it to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 09:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I mean. The client means the person to be interviewed.His daughter did not entrust me to edit it. Please note that the Chinese version had already those content before I edit it.I just made some slight edition.Good luck. Hzt0208042508415531 tw (talk) 09:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.
Logs: 2024-02 ✗ deleted
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 11:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete After reading the above, I think BLP1E applies, but I'd be more comfortable with !voting delete if I could read Chinese and do my own search for relevant sources. Pichpich (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2024 (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. Star Mississippi 03:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic user interface[edit]

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

Can find very little substantial coverage; there are barely any mentions of this term in books or journals and those that exist are invariably passing usages of the term to describe a specific kind of interface rather than WP:SIGCOV of the topic as a whole. It doesn't seem to be notable as opposed to individual topics that would fall under this definition such as Screen reader and Virtual assistant. ― novov (t c) 10:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability and Computing. ― novov (t c) 10:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added some references. The term also describes the "voicemail hell" offered by many call centres as a way of serving customers without getting a human involved. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The question is not whether a few sources which mention the term exist, but whether they are substantial enough to comprise significant coverage and support the content. Although the sources mention SUI they don't go into detail about the concept itself and none back up the definition given in the article. Two of them only include the term once. ― novov (t c) 22:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 19 February 2024 (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. RL0919 (talk) 05:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BS 7799[edit]

BS 7799 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't find sources to show it meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 10:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 19 February 2024 (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) Toadette (Let's discuss together!) 07:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Campism[edit]

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

I'm looking at the article here, and the longstanding one at third camp, and I can't come to the conclusion that the concept of "campism" is notable in a distinct way. The sourcing in the article is as follows:

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
New Politics (1) Yes Why not? Yes For sake of argument, why not? Yes Seems to be about the subject of campism ✔ Yes
New Politics (2) Yes Why not? Yes For sake of argument, why not? Yes Seems to be about the subject of campism ✔ Yes
Negation Magazine Yes Why not? ~ I'm somewhat skeptical; this looks more like a group blog than a magazine with editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking. No This discusses the third camp during the cold war. It doesn't discuss the term "campism" in a significant way. ✘ No
Democratic Socialists of America Yes Why not? No This is the blog of a political organization. It also appears to have the standard opinion piece disclaimer of "The views and opinions presented in Socialist Forum reflect those of the individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect those of DSA". No This does not discuss the term "campism" in a meaningful way, though it does go into the history of the Trotskyist third camp. ✘ No
Fidel Castro's speech to the U.N. ? Cannot tell, since the link is broken, and the archive doesn't actually point to the speech. No If this is merely a political speech to the United Nations by Castro, that isn't the sort of thing that makes a WP:RS. ? Source link is broken. ✘ No
Third World Quarterly Yes Why not? Yes Why not? No While this gives historical coverage of the concept of "third-worldism", it doesn't so much as mention the concept of "campism". ✘ No
Open Democracy Yes Why not? No Per WP:RSOPINION, Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces... are rarely reliable for statements of fact. ? Moot as clearly not reliable. ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

What this brings us is two sources from the same group publication (New Politics), but WP:SIGCOV notes that [m]ultiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. As such, we don't have multiple independent reliable sources based on the citations in the article itself. Outside of this, I was able to find some coverage of the term "campism", but it was entirely from unreliable sources like Counterpunch (RSP entry) and Paul Mason's substack (a blog), or from sources that had nothing to do with the descriptor as it pertains to third world theory (Hindustan Times).

In light of this, and the history of the term, I would advocate that the article be blanked-and-redirected to third camp, which seems to cover the relevant concept within third worldism. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Red-tailed hawk: Thank you for your notes! I've updated the article to use several more scholarly and WP:NEWSORG sources (and fixed the Castro link). I would strongly oppose deletion: I think the article's sources, at present, meet WP:GNG. SocDoneLeft (talk) 07:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SocDoneLeft and added references. AlexandraAVX (talk) 11:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Not only are the sources already in the article sufficient to meet the GNG, but there are other quality sources, just for instance: [62]. Central and Adams (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify — This article is poorly formatted and seemingly miscontextualizes sources to articulate this topic via an almost exclusively Trotskyist view. This topic itself is fairly notable, but many of the people who employ the term "campism" are not Trotskyists. SociusMono1976 (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Draftify is not a direct outcome of a deletion discussion. Per WP:Draftify the route from AfD to draftspace is that the article is deleted (because the subject is not notable) and then someone requests undeletion to draft space in order to try to improve it:

    Articles may be moved to become a draft as a result of a deletion discussion, indirectly following deletion and a request for undeletion.

    If the topic is notable, as you say that it is, it's not a candidate for deletion and therefore not for draftification via AfD. Central and Adams (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect to Draftify is not a direct outcome of a deletion discussion, it can be. The deletion policy is quite clear that Recently created articles that have potential, but that do not yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards, may be moved to the draft namespace ("draftified") for improvement. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:30, 21 February 2024 (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 11:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Garmers[edit]

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

Not yet notable per WP:NACTOR: only minor roles so far, and I can find no significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Wikishovel (talk) 10:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 11:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost boat investigation[edit]

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

source reliability, outdated information, tone/style issues, duplication Lea 4545 (talk) 09:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Source reliability isn't a reason for deletion as long as there are reliable sources, which there seems to be. The bad sources can simply be replaced and removed
- not a reason for deletion
- not a reason for deletion
- not a reason for deletion
All of these are fixable and it isn't TNT level bad. Keep. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. S5A-0043Talk 03:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Good references. Within WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sourcing is sufficient. AfD is not cleanup. AusLondonder (talk) 11:51, 25 February 2024 (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 presidents of the National Rifle Association. RL0919 (talk) 05:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John C. Sigler[edit]

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

The subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG/WP:BIO. A search turns up no novel citations. Subject was President of the NRAoA (not notable in itself unless he was involved in some major reform/event). Subject also unexpectedly resigned as Delaware GOP Chair (again, no prior notable work or achievements other than "Being Chair". Can't find a source for his appointment/election to that post!). He was not an elected politician/office holder per WP:NPOL. It is unclear how he is notable or that the article can be improved to meet GNG, unless some major achievement or scandal has been overlooked.

WP:PROD was posted and removed on basis that all NRA Presidents have an article, however the user was mistaken - they were looking at a list of NRA Presidents which only included those with a page(!) There appeared to be no other objections to deletion. Hemmers (talk) 09:24, 19 February 2024 (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 12:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cornelius Booth[edit]

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

no reliable sources for notability. only database entries/image entries online. Password (talk)(contribs) 08:38, 19 February 2024 (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) CptViraj (talk) 09:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Julien Boisselier[edit]

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

No good sourcing I could find. Only database entries and copies of Wikipedia. Password (talk)(contribs) 08:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please withdraw this. Press XfD on the wrong article. Password (talk)(contribs) 08:26, 19 February 2024 (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! 07:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rodeo Dental & Orthodontics[edit]

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

WP:CORP, not yet notable. In a WP:BEFORE search, the only coverage I could find in secondary sources was inclusion in a Fortune "Impact20" list [63], press releases, puff pieces on dentistrytoday.com (for which I can't find evidence of editorial oversight), and a "sponsored content" piece on a local FOX affiliate [64]. The inclusion on the Fortune list, along with the local magazine awards for "Top Dentist" in Fort Worth, is about it for reliable, independent, secondary coverage so far, and I don't think that alone brings it up to WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Wikishovel (talk) 08:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, and Texas. Wikishovel (talk) 08:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It's always a concern when the author creates an account for the sole purpose of adding a single article MNewnham (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with MNewnham, very strange for a new account to suddenly create a page in one go. As for the sourcing, it is limited with one reference directly from Rodeo & another that is a press release. Another two references only highlight awards/recognition. Not enough comprehensive coverage from third party references.--Porcinipal (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2024 (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 00:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rider deaths in British motorcycle racing series[edit]

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

Nominated for the case of WP:LC. We have the main list of those who died globally, so how necessary is a list like this? Since the last nomination in 2012, I doubt anything has been addressed. Many of those listed are from club championships. I cannot see this unnecessary WP:FANCRUFT list of mostly non-notable riders dying, appealing to those but to the most obsessive motorsport fans. Also, not notable enough to pass WP:LISTN. In short, Wikipedia is neither Motorsport Memorial (whom most are sourced from per WP:1R, albeit poorly) nor is WP:NOTDIRECTORY. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Driver deaths in British motorsport series[edit]

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

Nominated for the case of WP:LC. We have the main list of those who died globally so how necessary are a list like this? Since the last nomination in 2011, I doubt anything has been addressed. Many of those listed are from club championships. If this was narrowed down to bluelinked drivers as recommended in the last AfD, this would make just 3, meaning we have a list of non-notable drivers. I cannot see this unnecessary WP:FANCRUFT list appealing to those but to the most obsessive motorsport fans. Also, not notable enough to pass WP:LISTN. In short, Wikipedia is neither Motsport Memorial (whom most are sourced from per WP:1R, abeit poorly) nor is WP:NOTDIRECTORY. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: List of non-notable people that fails WP:LISTN; has not been discussed as a group in secondary sources. Let'srun (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per the rationale of the nominator EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 07:42, 22 February 2024 (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 Association for Information Systems as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 01:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AISINDO[edit]

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

The organization existed, but the organization is not notable enough per WP:NORG. Google searches showed multiple passing mentions - this organization conducted forums and meetings, but none has shown in-depth coverage. The parent organization Association for Information Systems is notable, but the organization in Indonesia isn't notable enough. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 06:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jaczemir[edit]

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

PROD removed. Fails WP:NNAME, WP:NOTDICT and WP:GNG. Has no WP:SIGCOV, as I cannot find any reliable sources outside of dictionaries and databases. The only person listed is an unnotable fictional character. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 06:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:10, 19 February 2024 (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 Machine to machine. If you disagree with this redirect target article, please start a talk page discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M2Mi Corporation[edit]

M2Mi Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All links on the page are dead. A WP:BEFORE found mentions but nothing that meets WP:ORGCRIT. Could possibly see this being a redirect to OASIS (organization). CNMall41 (talk) 04:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct about OASIS. I looked closer ant it appears M2Mi helped developed the OASIS standard MQTT. That could also possiblty be a target after adding a mention of the company. Either way is fine as long as this page is gone as I do not see it being independently notable.--CNMall41 (talk) 10:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am also fine with delete. S0091 (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. There are two different Redirect target articles being proposed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. IABOT was able to add archived versions of two of the article's references. When you are considering bringing an article with dead references to AfD, it is usually a good idea to run IABOT to try to salvage those references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Normally I'd opt for a redirect, but this company is not *connected* with either of the suggested redirect targets - it was a research company that participated in projects, but still an entirely separate company. There's also nothing to suggest it was influential in its field. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 14:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify A quick google search shows this article can eventually become notable, and there may be enough secondary sources to do so now. The way it currently is, it's not ready for mainspace. DarmaniLink (talk),
  • We need more information. What did you find in the Google search that showed the topic might/can eventually become notable?? As it is, this comment is an empty !vote with zero reasoning. HighKing++ 18:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[65]https://thesiliconreview.com/magazine/profile/machine-to-machine-intelligence-m2mi-corporation-the-most-advanced-and-secure-m2m-iot-platform-provider - from 2021
[66]https://appel.nasa.gov/2010/02/28/ao_2-4_f_ames-html/ - from 2010
Looking at their website, they also had some brief mentions in tech magazines for awards, AFAICT. Unless there's something I overlooked, this could become notable. DarmaniLink (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both of those references are nothing more than company marketing. Silicon Review is a "magazine" where company's boast about themselves and their offerings, not reliable. This article doesn't even have a journalist mentioned. The other reference is a joint Press Release. Both of those references miserably fail WP:NCORP criteria. We don't write article for companies that "could" become notable, the test is that they are notable now or have been in the past. HighKing++ 12:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with HighKing's assessment. The Silicon Review is a trade publication and the article is a "profile" which is essentially what the company says about itself. Same for APPEL; it's a press release and contains statements about what they say they will do or what could happen (published in 2007, though the link uses 2010). S0091 (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirect to Machine to machine, learn something new every day. Good to know. DarmaniLink (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christ the King Church (Trumbull, Connecticut)[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet relevant notability standards; run-of-the-mill parish church, no significant coverage I could find. — Moriwen (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This seems to be one of many RC churches in Connecticut created by the same contributor that have been tagged for deletion. Per IgnatiusofLondon, an entry in Connneticut#places of worship should suffice MNewnham (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2024 (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! 07:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mimsville, Georgia[edit]

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

unnotable ghost town. cited to databases. ltbdl (talk) 05:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Georgia (U.S. state). ltbdl (talk) 05:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet more GNIS-import fake ghost-townery. The contemporary USPS directory has this as a post office in Baker, and Brimley reporting things near to the post office in 1910, which I suspect people are going to use for the usual fallacious "near XYZ" argument, doesn't magically make it more than a post office. Furthermore if USGS Water-Supply Paper 339 supported this being a town or a village, it would actually say that as it does for Newton and Elmodel in Baker, rather than more "near Mimmsville". Uncle G (talk) 11:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What fresh hell is this? https://www.hometownapparel.com/towns/georgia/mimsville/mimsville-georgia-classic-established-mens-cotton-tshirt/black/915912/A1?path=29821_31227_127598&ink=WT Looks like GNIS gets printed on Tshirts now.James.folsom (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete after making sure the community is listed on county page I already know that rural Georgia is not sufficiently covered by newspapers. So I cannot rely on that source. The Atlanta paper mentions it as a community a few times. This is the best mention, https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-savannah-morning-news-mimsville/140827964/, it establishes the existence of a named community prior to the post office. This website lists it as a community. https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Baker_County%2C_Georgia. I feel like I've heard of it. But it doesn't have enough reliable sources to merit an article.James.folsom (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Baker County, Georgia. This appears to be another post village (but could be a poorly-attested town, per James.folsom), with some relevance to the history of the surrounding rural area (best described in the Baker County article), but there's no clear evidence for notability in its own right. Jbt89 (talk) 06:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm getting a lot of hits regarding different recorded specimens there. A list of Yale graduates said George King moved to a farm near there and began collecting reptiles, so perhaps that explains it. SportingFlyer T·C 00:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I see no reason to point this probably-just-a-post-office to the county article. It's not a notable place, and we don't have a definite character for it. Mangoe (talk) 02:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Mangoe. I really don't understand why people want to merge/redirect these stubs, when the merge target has no mention of the subject (or mentions it only as an item in a bulleted list, as is the case for Baker County, Georgia), nor any relevant section where the information would fit without being WP:UNDUE...particularly when all the information we have about this place is from trivial passing mentions in databases and gazetteer tables. That just introduces confusion and irrelevant clutter. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The merge redirect doesn't have to be that way. I was just for making sure that this vague community is listed on the county page and redirect the article there. I agree that GNIS crap should be dumped on the floor. I believe some editors also place value on all contributions no matter how useless they were. In those cases redirect at least preserves those. So, I think that's why you get that also. Another thing that's on my mind is many of these counties are not much more than stubs anyway, so if the even lesser known communities get listed there, then somebody could add a little info about each minor community. I've always thought it would be good to just list the unincorporated communities that actually exist but have few good sources on the county page with a little paragraph about. That just makes a better article in general, and I don't understand why so many editors prefer they have their own articles. James.folsom (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2024 (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 12:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St. Michael Technical School, Surakarta[edit]

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

The school existed, but the school didn't pass WP:NORG. There are some news articles concerning the school - their students won some competitions but that does not confer automatic notability, especially as the competition is not notable as well. None of the search results showed any coverage about the school in depth. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:08, 19 February 2024 (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 06:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican Federal Highway 28[edit]

Mexican Federal Highway 28 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another Mexican highway that I can't verify exists. There's no information about where it is in the article, the only source is to a general map of Mexico that doesn't seem to have a Highway 28, and I can't find any other sources to confirm it exists. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 05:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Mexico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fictional highway, as per Fandom: [67]. No, that's not a RS, but all other sources found are WP mirrors, meaning that we're creating misinformation by keeping this article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Never meant as a hoax (I kind of doubt @Dr. Blofeld: even remembers creating it sixteen years later), but created in bulk and in error when all the MFH articles were likely created (as we did in bulk for MFH shield images), but never assigned to an actual route; there is no matching article on es.wiki, which would have long been created by now. Nate • (chatter) 03:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I was reading off a list of red links, plus File:Carretera federal 28.svg exists. According to Bing maps there is a Carretera Federal 28 in Playa del Carmen, Quintana Roo, Mexico, but doesn't look like a national highway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nomination.
GeographicAccountant (talk) 13:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to failing WP:V. I looked for reliable sources that proved it exists and could not locate any. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2024 (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 12:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian-Polish conflict in Volhynia[edit]

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

WP:FORK of Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia. Any Polish-Ukrainian conflict in Volhynia was caused by the genocidal action of the OUN-UPA against the Polish population and took place in parallel. The "clashes" mentioned in the article were attempts by Polish villages to defend themselves against UPA units.

The article hardly quotes any sources. Some of the wording is misleading: "The Polish organised underground was re-established after the German occupation of Western Ukraine, but its armed formations, as a real force, emerged only in the first half of 1943. The organisation and activities of the Polish underground with their armed formations was one of the reasons for the creation of the UPA." In fact, the UPA partisans (which later transformed into the UPA) were formed as early as October 1942; they took up armed actions in early February 1943. At that point there were no Polish units in Volhynia; these were only formed as self-defence formations against UPA attacks.

He does not propose a merger, because everything of value in the article is already in the article on massacres. Marcelus (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article about the massacres doesn't mention the organisation of the Polish self defense or their battles with the UPA Olek Novy (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Searching "self-defence" or "self-defense" within the article gives 23 results, most in relation to their attempts to prevent OUN-UPA massacres (wouldn't call it "battles"). Marcelus (talk) 08:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does this. But doesen't mention all of their engagements with the UPA. The Article barely mentions the Blue Police Olek Novy (talk) 13:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would it mention Blue Police if there was no Blue Police in Volhynia? It was only limited to General Government in its 1939 borders. Marcelus (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There were auxiliary police units in Volhynia take example: Schutzmannschaft Battalion 202 Olek Novy (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I came into a conclusion that the article can be deleted. Overall i can just add some engagements to the article about the MAssacres on Poles. Olek Novy (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So please post your vote if you may Marcelus (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As written, POVFORK. Incorrect pl wiki which is about pl:Polska samoobrona na Wołyniu Polish self-defence structure (ditto for ru, uk and cs: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q11822456). That (Polish self-defence) is likely notable, but the focus is wrong with our article, as the nom correctly notes. Maybe this could be rewritten. Maybe @Dreamcatcher25 would like to comment? I am leaning delete now due to POVFORK issues. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice wrong interwiki before, removed it now, I think that's uncontroversial Marcelus (talk) 09:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have consensus here? Even author of the article agrees it should be deleted, I see no reason for further relists Marcelus (talk) 10:33, 26 February 2024 (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 Nipple stimulation. Liz Read! Talk! 07:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nipple play[edit]

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

Article contains no proper references or in-line citations and appears to utilize a large language model for the majority of the text. In its current state, the article should either be soft deleted, or moved to draft space. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 05:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not very familiar with the topic area, but this also may be suitable for a redirect to Nipple stimulation. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 05:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Nipple stimulation: as a content fork. Owen× ☎ 13:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Nipple stimulation: obvious content fork. Need a better section in that main article on erotic nipple techniques. Some of the content of this article could be used for that section. The mergeto article seems unbalanced and focuses more on LGBT/lesbian sexual contact rather than man/woman nipple stimulation based on the photos in the article. This present article seems more focused on generally man/woman sexual techniques. Need some images and content showing male/female contact in the mergeto article if merged. 24.21.161.89 (talk) 06:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources may hold some value, though none are directly cited, sadly. Because of this, not sure what could be merged. Out of personal opinion regarding the topic of general sexuality, I'll refrain from further comment on any new content added to Nipple stimulation. I leave that to editors interested in the topic. Phönedinger's jellyfish II (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will take a stab at merging some of this content into the other article. 24.21.161.89 (talk) 06:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merged what content was backed up by sources and seemed relevant to Nipple stimulation. This article can be redirected to the mergeto at afd close if consensus is to merge, which seems to be leaning that way. 24.21.161.89 (talk) 01:36, 22 February 2024 (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. BusterD (talk) 03:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1905 Bennett Medical football team[edit]

1905 Bennett Medical football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject lacks the necessary WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Of the current sources, they are either a passing mention (#1), databases (#2 and #5), and routine game previews/recaps (#3, #4, #6, and #7). Let'srun (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Illinois. Let'srun (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep To be honest this probably belongs in a list of Bennett Medical football team seasons instead of being a stand-alone page as it's barely a "season" but not only is this the only Bennett Medical football season currently on the web site I do think there's just enough sourcing there. SportingFlyer T·C 17:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What sources do you think meet the WP:GNG for this season specifically? If you or someone else wants to draftify this for a potential combined season article, be my guest (although I am somewhat skeptical). Let'srun (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The game recaps meet GNG to me since this is a season article and it's been shown their games generated coverage. It's also a contextual argument, it probably wouldn't be enough if the same articles were around in 2023, but that is good 1905-era coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 11:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This has some similarity to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1904 Toledo Athletic Association football team. Both were created as part of an ambitious campaign by User:Murphanian777 to create articles on every opponent of Notre Dame. While I appreciate Murphanian's desire to be thorough, notability is not inherited by virtue of having played a game against Notre Dame (particularly in early years when Notre Dame scheduled games against many small-school patsies). Accordingly, we need to see SIGCOV of the Bennett team in order to keep this. The best sources cited in the article are this and this which are very brief game summaries. Mostly we have game scores (e.g., this) or database entries (e.g., this). I end up leaning "delete" when I also consider that (a) Bennett Medical School was not a particularly notable institution or football program (no parent articles on either), (b) there was nothing particularly remarkable about the 1905 team which compiled a 1–1–2 record, and (c) the article is a sub-stub with one short sentence of narrative text. All that said, I have no objection to draftification if Murphanian or someone else steps forward indicating a desire to take time to work to improve the article in draft space. Cbl62 (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If not kept, request userfy - may eventually get to creating something to contain this season article. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No Monster Club[edit]

No Monster Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find enough significant sources about this project for it to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Most sources are either too short or mainly focus on another project by Bobby Aherne. pinktoebeans (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning Keep on this one - there are several independent citations referenced in the article to demonstrate compliance with WP:NMUSIC, including a staff bio with Allmusic, and a number of album reviews. ResonantDistortion 14:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If Bobby Aherne is not notable enough to warrant a page, then how can a side-project of said musician need one. If he is, then create one and merge this page into that. MNewnham (talk) 23:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what that means. A band can be notable even if individual members of the band aren't. Toughpigs (talk) 18:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed with @Toughpigs - this AfD is focused on whether the band No Monster Club meets notability guidelines, primarily through analysis of available independent coverage. If an editor considers Bobby Aherne as independently notable then they can create a separate page. ResonantDistortion 19:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This review from the Dublin Gazette and the reviews added by S0091 are decent coverage. Toughpigs (talk) 00:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in view of reliable sources coverage referenced in the article such as the Irish Times, Chicago Reader, Dublin Gazette, AllMusic and others so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2024 (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 Golf on NBC#Commentators. Star Mississippi 01:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NBC Sports golf commentators[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NLIST and is a case of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Let'srun (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Golf on NBC#Commentators per Conyo14's good idea. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 18:02, 26 February 2024 (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 Daystar Television Network stations as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 01:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KPCE-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. A 2019 AfD closed as no consensus, but that was under the old presumption that all licenced television stations are notable, which is no longer the case. Let'srun (talk) 15:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A little reply: Are we going to put AfD requests to (most) low-power stations? Because I don't really see a lot of AfD requests on Full-Power stations meaning I think that Wikipedia doesn't want Low-Power Stations anymore since a lot of them are often stubs. Just sayin'... mer764KCTV(Talk) 19:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The moment the 2021 NMEDIA RfC returned the result it did, this was the likely result. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It makes sense, but I'm seeing a lot of Low-Power Stations getting put with AfDs and its starting to confuse and slightly frighten me. mer764KCTV(Talk) 00:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:03, 19 February 2024 (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 06:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Beilke[edit]

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

Unnotable mayor of a relatively small city, fails WP:GNG, WP:NPOL and WP:NCRIME. This might be something but I don't believe it meets the threshold of notability. Previously nominated in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas, closed as procedural keep due to the bundle's size. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:20, 19 February 2024 (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 Industrial robot. Liz Read! Talk! 07:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ISO 8373[edit]

ISO 8373 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem to meet WP:GNG. BEFORE pulled up no sources. DrowssapSMM 04:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. DrowssapSMM 04:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and redirect to Industrial robot. As far as standards go this one is rather minor, I don't believe it warrants its own article. It just lists definitions of robots, their types, modes of movement, components, etc. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Industrial robot: where it is cited, but not yet mentioned. I agree with Ouro that this standard isn't notable enough to have its own page. Owen× ☎ 13:15, 19 February 2024 (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. SNOW delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Capo Geezy[edit]

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

Article reads like an advertisement. There's also this extremely long "Quotes of Capo Geezy" section. I also couldn't find many reliable sources for him. ‍ Relativity 03:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an advertisement. Capo Geezy is a artist who contributed to the state of Idaho in notoriety. He has 630,000 followers on Instagram and has collaborated with many famous rappers. Everything in the above stated is correct. 130.18.104.156 (talk) 03:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huge Capo fan. https://www.reddit.com/r/capogeezy/comments/ygczv4/rcapogeezy_lounge/
His lyrics are published all over Genius. Not advertising Capo. He is at massive risk for confusion, due to the multiple Capo's and a page should be written about him and his contributions. Iamcapobroquard (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article should stay up because it has potential to be founded and built upon over time, due to the fact he is early in his career and is known/famous worldwide. Although, he is not listened to much for his music besides a few songs.
https://www.instagram.com/capogeezy/?hl=en
He is a established figure on Instagram his main platform, due to the presence and success he has had and or to the risk of impersonation and the hundred or so fan pages of him. Iamcapobroquard (talk) 03:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He is known for posting long quotes on his Instagram Stories and Snapchat Stories @iamcapogeezy, that are worth of note when writing about him, life and outlook. Iamcapobroquard (talk) 03:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Iamcapobroquard Are you related in any way to this account? User:Iamcapogeezy ‍ Relativity 04:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No Sir. Iamcapobroquard (talk) 04:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe he tried to make a page about himself in the past, when he first became known in Europe based on what he posted in August of last year. At this point, I believe a article should stand about him, due to the relative nature of his achievements, contributions, with the mass amount of people knowing who he is and the potential for a longer and expanded page depending on what he does in the future. Iamcapobroquard (talk) 04:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I already fear what I may be getting myself into but here we go. The article is 100% promotional and a disaster and within minutes of its nomination, the AfD discussion is being bludgeoned by multiple accounts with a clear conflict of interest. No sources found to indicate notability and no sources listed in the article are worth anything in that regard. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bishonen has been contacted out my familiarity with them. Wow; full-blown brigading and likely sockpuppetry has now consumed this thread. Complete lack of understanding or care on the part of every IP address that has commented so far. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
● Retain/Preserve. Article is not self promotion, and most conflict of interest has been removed. Meeting the guidelines for a neutral perspective. Dantecolombo4 (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)(Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet)[reply]
The presence and activity of a dedicated following for Capo Geezy, as evidenced by edits and interactions on his Wikipedia page, serve as a tangible marker of his notability and relevance in the public domain. Capogeezy90 (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC) (Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet)[reply]
  • Delete - An WP:BEFORE search on this "influential figure in the music and entertainment industry, celebrated for his pioneering work" reveals his social media posts, music streaming upload sites like Soundcloud (34 followers), his YouTube channel (117 subscribers) and other user submitted content. The lengthly quote section in the article contains gems like "It’s a profound endeavor of mine to encapsulate depth, minimize verbosity, and evoke maximal impact." going on to later state "Within the zenith of cognitive eminence, the amalgamation of perspicacity and esoteric lexicon begets an intricate tapestry of ratiocination, where the labyrinthine profundities of ratiocinative acuity coalesce, elucidating an intellectual magnum opus that transcends the vicissitudes of linguistic and cerebrally rigorous terrains." I'm not sure what that means but it sounds important. This WP:AUTOBIO is a good example of WP:SPIP and WP:PROMO and fails to meet notability criteria for WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Netherzone (talk) 04:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As to alternatives to deletion, to quote the artiste themself, "Where deficiency persists, prowess must thrive in alternative domains." Netherzone (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Perhaps even speedy. G11 with a mix of hoax. Wanky self promotional twaddle lacking coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an overtly promotional article that makes broad claims of fame and influence that are entirely unsupported by factual evidence. Such evidence needs to be presented in the form of references to reliable published sources that are entirely independent of the performer and that also devote significant coverage to the performer. The closing administrator will disregard the ill-informed comments by IPs and new accounts in this discussion that show no understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cullen328 (talk) 07:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Love the quotes section though. Will use for next scrabble game. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. - User is stating biased perspective, about potentially stealing the author's quotes, from this deleted page, making him suitable, due to risk of it being stolen or impersonated by others as well.
    He is at massive risk for confusion, and needs a individual page highlighting what he is known for, for database and clarity. Dantecolombo4 (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)(Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet)[reply]
  • Delete: I found absolutely nothing in terms of secondary sources. Promotional content can be fixed, but without sources to show notability, there's no point. Owen× ☎ 13:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retain/Keep That is a untrue statement. There are Numerous secondary sources, analyzing and describing his music.
    https://oldtimemusic.com/w3/the-meaning-behind-the-song-too-fast-by-capo-geezy/
    https://oldtimemusic.com/w2/the-meaning-behind-the-song-demon-girl-by-capo-geezy/
    https://www.last.fm/music/Capo+Geezy/+wiki
    Example. Capogeezy90 (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)(Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet)[reply]
  • Delete: Does not meet notability requirements. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 15:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not notable at all per Wikipedia's criteria. I'm not even sure it's a serious article. ... discospinster talk 16:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retain.
    The deletion of the page dedicated to Capo Geezy would be an unwarranted action, disregarding the impact and recognition he has garnered within the music industry. Capo Geezy is not merely a public figure but a distinguished musical artist whose contributions have resonated widely, reaching audiences globally, particularly in the United States, and in certain regions of Europe and Africa. His appeal spans a broad age range, captivating listeners from 5 to 30 years old, attesting to his versatility and the universal appeal of his music.
    A critical point of contention, the SoundCloud page previously cited with only 34 followers, has been mistakenly linked to Capo Geezy. It is imperative to clarify that this page was, in fact, a fan-made account responsible for leaking his music, and not an official representation of his digital presence. Such an error underscores the importance of verifying the authenticity of sources when evaluating an artist's digital footprint.
    Furthermore, Capo Geezy's collaborations with notable figures in the music industry, such as Pooh Shiesty and Juice WRLD, among others, signify his standing and influence within the rap and hip-hop scenes. These collaborations are not merely casual affiliations but are indicative of his skills, creativity, and the respect he commands among his peers.
    The recognition of Capo Geezy's lyrics on platforms such as Genius and Old Time Music further cements his position in the music world. Genius, in particular, is renowned for its comprehensive and authoritative coverage of music lyrics and artist backgrounds, serving as a critical resource for fans and researchers alike. The presence of Capo Geezy's work on such a platform speaks volumes about his artistic merit and the impact of his music.
    In light of the aforementioned points, it is clear that Capo Geezy's contributions to the music industry and his wide-reaching influence are both significant and well-documented. Removing his page would not only overlook the factual evidence of his prominence but also diminish the resourcefulness of the platform for music enthusiasts seeking information about influential artists. Therefore, it is in the best interest of accuracy and completeness to retain the page dedicated to Capo Geezy, ensuring that his artistic legacy is appropriately recognized and preserved for current and future audiences. Capogeezy90 (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)(Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet)[reply]
    Keep. . It's continued presence on our platform is not just beneficial; it's essential for his fans in the states and europe to gather proper information about him for a multitude of reasons. He is very known, but controversial and there needs to be a factual page about him that is neutral or close to it. Dantecolombo4 (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)(Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet)[reply]
    Comment: Now I'm sure it's not serious. ... discospinster talk 17:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The tool to check for AI generated content is "highly confident" that this was written by AI, with 2% written by a human. Netherzone (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - looks like we've got a couple more ducks have flown in that are quacking "Amidst, the nebulous maelstrom of existential quandaries, wherein the ephemeral dance of circumstance intertwines with the enigmatic tapestry of perception, let us unfurl the ineffable, essence of ontological inquiry, and imbue the labyrinthine corridors of cognition with the transcendental symphony of epistemological exploration." I agree this may be a hoax. Netherzone (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. - To address concerns regarding professionalism and bias, especially when discussing quotes by Capo Geezy, it's essential to approach the topic with a balanced and respectful perspective. This involves acknowledging the importance of preserving the integrity of the article while carefully examining the significance of his quotes. In doing so, we strive to maintain a professional demeanor, ensuring that our discussion is free from bias and respects the contributions of Capo Geezy to the discourse at hand. By focusing on the content and context of his statements, we can provide a comprehensive analysis that honors the value of his words without compromising the standards of professionalism. Dantecolombo4 (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)(Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet)[reply]
The tool to detect AI/LLC shows it is 97% confident that this comment was AI generated. Netherzone (talk) 01:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find a single reliable source referencing him or anything he's done, even in passing. There are no news results for him. Anything I can find is either primary, user-generated or not from a reliable source. Shaws username . talk . 20:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable whatsoever. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 21:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails to meet notability criteria. Johnnie Bob (talk) 14:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Quack!!! There's already a billion self-promotional sites out there, so just keep us out of it. Good luck to the dude as he tries to make a living as an influencer by plastering himself all over social media, but I suggest finding a web designer who is better at Photoshop. I once wore a shirt with flower pattern and I know what "epistemological" means, but somehow that has never been reported by reliable media and therefore there is no material with which to build an encyclopedic article about me. But I could say that I'm already an "influential figure" with "pioneering work" and this dude would totally believe me. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable, page is full of obviously false uncited achievements, and this deletion discussion is getting spammed by LLM-written sockpuppets. Quack.FPTI (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2024 (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 03:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fond My Mind[edit]

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

Article has no notable sources and topic itself is not notable as well Pyraminxsolver (talk) 03:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I love this song, I unfortunately do not think we are ready for an article on it. I will happily accept undeletion, though, if and when this gets attention from reliable sources. It is a story as fascinating as its sound, and it sucks that it's not getting the attention it deserves. I suppose if someone wants to make this a userspace draft, that's fine by me, too. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 05:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. If anyone is able to find sufficient source material to make this potentially viable, we can certainly talk about moving to a draft at that point. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zehra Bajraktarević[edit]

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

Lacks sufficient coverage in independent sources to meet WP:GNG. Newspaper sources cited in the article are interviews. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only in Bosnian article it seems
https://bs.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zehra_Bajraktarevi%C4%87#/search ItsMeGabeProductions (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Weak keep. 195,000 hits on Google suggest notability and potential for other sources. The one article appears to be an interview but only a portion of it is accessible online, so we don't know for sure. She also appears to be included in a few books; however, they are not translatable to English to review. Rublamb (talk) 14:36, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to AfC / Draftify. I realize this was translated from the Bosnian Wiki, but it doesn't feel like a complete article.
Analysis of available online resources:
My search only got 141K according to Google (and after clicking "show omitted", it only gave me 119K). Going through the 177 it let me scroll through before it told me I needed to click the "show omitted results" button, 129 of those were YouTube links. Only two that I saw went to news sites: one was a photo only, and one was an interview with someone who knows her. I saw at least two that were announcements of (at the time) upcoming events (ex). Some were announcements of (at the time) new releases (ex). Some of the YouTube and TikTok (22 of the 177) were of people doing covers of her songs. Other links were to lyric sites or places to listen to her music that aren't YouTube or TikTok. One was to a site that claims to have taken its information from biografija.org, but I searched of that site (to hopefully find sources) and couldn't find the article for her.
Several of the Google Books results were for materials that couldn't possibly include her (e.g.: The Most In-Depth Hacker's Guide and Hillary Clinton's How I Lost; and a search inside those showed no results so I don't know why Google would return them).
I did not find any resources when searching Internet Archive.
All of that said, I did go through all of the sites listed as Bosnian newspapers here, and found a few articles that do indicate notability, but unfortunately don't have much information.
-https://bosnjaci.net/prilog.php?pid=56417 -- brief mention as getting her start through the Bihac festival. It's an interview with Dilvad Felić Dado, creator of the festival.
-https://bosnjaci.net/prilog.php?pid=59730 -- interview where she states that she has been largely ignored by the media.
-https://bljesak.info/kultura/glazba/poslusajte-pjesmu-hiljadarka-iz-istoimenog-filma/134055 -- if I'm reading this correctly, the article's author calls her the doyen of Bosnia, which would definitely give her notability with her target audience.
-https://express.ba/izdvojeno/180682/mujo-isanovic-da-sam-bio-zaljubljen-u-zehru-bajraktarevic-ozenio-bih-je/ (also one of the Google news results) -- interview with Mujo Isanović where he states she was the "role model of Eastern Bosnia"
-https://www.klix.ba/magazin/kultura/koncert-ede-pandura-na-bascarsijskim-nocima/110722047 -- one of the artists listed performing alongside Eda Pandur.
-https://www.klix.ba/magazin/kultura/bascarsijske-noci-zavrsavaju-koncertom-sevdaha/120730068 -- one of the artists performing at the festival listed.
I haven't gone through all of the Serbian newspapers yet. I do wonder if applying US standard for cultural news reporting to foreign countries' standards is wholly fair, but I understand that we can't rely entirely on an interview with the subject of the article for encyclopedic content, which is what this article currently does (Discogs aside). OIM20 (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Found One https://www.kkbox.com/sg/en/artist/X_2qON0xnYXJGoI_2s
Gonna Add this now ItsMeGabeProductions (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not providing significant, independent coverage. I still don't see how WP:GNG is met here. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 21:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  17:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I believe the subject exists and seems a worthy artist. I'm not seeing any claim of notability. Why should Wikipedia cover this subject compared to other artists? It's not sufficient that the subject is verifiable; there must be direct detailing in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. I've looked at the provided sources, and I agree with the nominator. By my reading, it doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. BusterD (talk) 03:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to AfC / Draftify per OIM20 if @ItsMeGabeProductions wants to work on it more; otherwise delete. Almost but not quite notable. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 18:10, 26 February 2024 (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 Guildford Four and Maguire Seven. I see a consensus here to Redirect this article. Liz Read! Talk! 07:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maguire Seven[edit]

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

Already covered in Guildford Four and Maguire Seven. Article length at primary topic does not justify a split. Split article creation seems fairly recent, and the subject can be covered with the Guildford Four at the primary article. Redirect to that article looks like the preferred outcome. — Paper Luigi T • C 04:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree per nom. Much of the two topics overlaps. Any valid additions can be made to the combined article. The newly split article already gets on a wrong foot with a strange introduction. Str1977 (talk) 10:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment John Donaldson, of Lymington presided over the trials of the Maguire Seven in 1976 and the Guildford Four in 1975- They are different subjects each meeting the requirements for a unique wiki page. Hazardous to Health (talk) 13:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is the fact that the same judge presided over these two trials an argument for separate Wikipedia articles. The two subjects have a lot of material in common - only the details of the allegations and the original trial - minus the common judge - are different. Str1977 (talk) 07:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Yes, the Maguire Seven are generally covered in the context of the Guildford Four, but not exclusively. A paper from 2022 compares them to the Birmingham Six, as does an academic book from 2019. There's also some coverage in Russian of them as a standalone group of people. I understand the reason to merge here is WP:NOPAGE, but I do think it's possible to have a separate article on the seven without overduplication occurring. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Guildford Four and Maguire Seven: I see no advantage to keeping the new, inferiorly-sourced page as a content fork. The encyclopedic value of the two cases is combined: anyone looking for one is likely to be interested in the other as well. There's little point in splitting the two and requiring readers to click the "See also:" link. Owen× ☎ 13:53, 19 February 2024 (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 MC Ren#Film career. Liz Read! Talk! 06:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lost in the Game (film)[edit]

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

There is scant evidence that this film exists. The only reference is to an article from a questionable source, which was written after this Wikipedia article was created and, as it only wrote one short paragraph, could have easily been copied from the article itself. Looking at Google results, I cannot find anyone who says that they've seen the film or any coverage from when it was allegedly released in 2005. I found a screenshot of the alleged DVD cover, which has different credits from in the article. The other actors listed don't seem to have any content on them online. As MC Ren was a member of N.W.A, it seems unlikely to me that this film would have been released with such little attention, which makes me suspicious that this is a hoax. As it's hard to prove a hoax, I'll settle for now for saying that there are no good sources for this and it should be deleted. Epa101 (talk) 13:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Epa101 (talk) 13:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect this and also that with this source or that one (or both), to MC Ren#Film career, where it is mentioned but with no source. Delete. See below. Happy to change my mind if sources are presented.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think that your first source is reliable? I couldn't find a year of publication anywhere. If it's a self-published e-book from recent years, I wouldn't be surprised if it's done a lot of its research on Wikipedia. Epa101 (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that may well be the case. Let's discard it. That leaves us with Bustle, which is, I guess, generally reliable but the quality of the article and the fact that there's only that available (that I could find and if I didn't search that hard, I searched) is indeed suspicious. We could contact Allie Funk at Bustle? And ask if, by any chance, when she wrote her article in August 2015 she didn't base it on WP... As for the soundtrack, you might want to check this. (YouTube (Warning: strong language) (obviously but I feel I have to mention it if others wish to open this) (really not conclusive but uses the same cover) The authors of the 2 WP articles (film (2014), soundtrack (June 2015)) are apparently different but both seem to have an interest in MC Ren (obviously), and the person who inserted the info in the MC Ren page is a 3d one. I don't want to suspect anyone unduly but yes, you're right, it's odd. I'll be cautious and !vote Delete. Maybe see with the Commons users who uploaded the files for the CD and DVD? If it's a hoax, it's "excellent work." Not that elementary....Best. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 01:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I listened more carefully to the 1st song (other Youtube links show the film poster (#1Hood Movie of the Year)). The 1st song is indeed titled "Lost in the Game". (I'd say there's a pretty good chance this is real) The tracks do correspond to what the article about the soundtrack says, titles, duration, 27 min of music (for a 60 min film, that could make sense). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 01:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
False alarm, I think, the DVD exists on the usual websites. So I am going to re!vote Redirect this and also that with the Bustle source [71] to MC Ren#Film career, where it is mentioned since 2006 but with no source. I apologise for the trouble.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 06:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that I've been absent for a few days. I have been busy elsewhere. I'm happy with the suggestion by @Mushy Yank that we redirect it to MC Ren#Film career. Some good research on YouTube too. Epa101 (talk) 20:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to MC Ren. I couldn't find anything about this film except for Ebay listings and this article. Cortador (talk) 07:20, 19 February 2024 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 07:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tarn Willers[edit]

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

Although he meets ANYBIO #1, that criterion only indicates likely, not presumptive, notability under the GNG ("meeting one or more [criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included"). After searching, I have not been able to find significant coverage in reliable sources. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. He won a BAFTA Award and he is currently being nominated for an Oscar. He also won and was nominated for other awards [72] and I'm sure there are other sources about him around [73]. Only one criteria has to be met according to WP:NOTABILITY, "It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)", so it passes WP:SNG and it meets WP:ANYBIO#1. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 03:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that WP:N does say that; that means we look to see what NBIO says. NBIO, in the lead paragraph for the "Additional criteria" section (directly above ANYBIO), states: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Unlike NCREATIVE, which explicitly states that "a person is notable if" they meet the criteria, ANYBIO#1 does not confer presumptive notability; it only indicates that SIGCOV is likely to exist. See this discussion in the NBIO talk archives, particularly the points made by JoelleJay and Horse Eye's Back.
    Regarding the second source you've provided, it is entirely based on an interview and thus is not independent. As I noted in my nomination, I have not found additional significant coverage after an extensive WP:BEFORE search andthe sources cited in the article do not provide SIGCOV. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It still passes WP:SNG and it doesn't have to pass WP:GNG, only one criteria has to be met in WP:NOTABILITY. While reading the additional criteria, it still meets the WP:ANYBIO#1 following standard. But "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." seems to be something else and it doesn't mention that it has to have significant sources. It just says differently or something. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    seems to be something else and it doesn't mention that it has to have significant sources. It just says differently or something. You're ignoring the previous sentence, which states that people are only "likely to be notable"—meaning likely to have significant coverage in reliable sources—if they meet the criteria, not that they are presumptively notable. With that context, "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included" has a pretty clear meaning: even if a subject meets one of the SNGs listed at NBIO, an article will not be appropriate if there is no significant coverage.
    Put another way, ANYBIO#1 provides a rule of thumb: if a person meets ANYBIO#1, there will usually be significant coverage of them ("likely to be notable"), but that significant coverage is not always guaranteed. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Likely to be notable doesn't really mean "likely to have significant coverage in reliable sources", it mostly means that they are likely to be notable if they meet the following standards in WP:ANYBIO. There is no mention if it needs significant coverage in there. Look at WP:NBOX, it's specific if it needs significant coverage since that says "Significant coverage is likely to exist for a boxer if they" meet the following standards. Willers is still notable. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Significant coverage is likely to exist" is synonymous with "likely to be ntoable" because "notable" is defined as "having significant coverage in independent, reliable sources". The argument that "likely to be notable" means "likely to be notable" if it meets ANYBIO#1, and therefore if something meets ANYBIO#1, it is presumptively notable, is circular. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion, "likely to be notable" means that "if they meet the following standards or criteria on what they have to meet in WP:ANYBIO" (with no mention of significant coverage) since it ends off with "if they meet any of the following standards". This reminds me of WP:NOLY, that it is notable but needs significant coverage. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. MoviesandTelevisionFan's explanation said it all.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MoviesandTelevisionFan. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The award implies notability, but we still need sourcing about the person. This is about the best I could find [74]. Sadly, I think sound engineers don't get much press coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Won BAFTA and nominated for an Oscar, clearly notable. --NiTen (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:27, 22 February 2024 (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 Scott Weiland. Liz Read! Talk! 06:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Softdrive Records[edit]

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

This article literally has only two sources, one of which (Alternative Nation) is listed under WP:NOTRSMUSIC, and the other of which (Buzzbands) has no consensus at RSMUSIC. Complete failure of WP:NOTABILITY, just because it was established by a notable musician does not mean the label is notable in and of itself. JeffSpaceman (talk) 03:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EnergyX[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creepTalk 02:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

::I support either a keep or redirect and object to a delete or merge, per reasons detailed above. gidonb (talk) 14:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC) Delete is now also an option so the post scriptum has outlived its useful live. It was a summary for that moment of my comment above it. gidonb (talk) 02:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Lets look at the first block of references in hope of getting some input:
  • Ref 1 [75] Forbes 50 fastest growing startups. Non-notable trade award. Not independent. Fails WP:SIRS.
  • Ref 2 [76] "EnergyX wins the 2023 Korea 4th Industry Leading Company Grand Prize" Non-notable trade award. Fails WP:SIRS
  • Ref 3 [77] "Seoul-based energy funding startup bags $5.1m in Hyundai-led round" Funding. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
  • Ref 4 [78] "Park Seong-hyeon and Hong Du-hwa, co-CEOs of EnergyX “Energy independence through buildings is the key to future cities". Not independent. Conference. Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:SIRS
  • Ref 5 [79] "EnergyX presents sustainable building platform and vision at the 2023 Carbon Neutral Expo". Not independent. Conference. Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:SIRS
  • Ref 6 [80] Funding annoucement. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
  • Ref 7 [81] Funding annoucement. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH

The rest of the references are the same low quality. None of them meet the bar defined in WP:SIRS, effectively failing WP:SIRS. scope_creepTalk 14:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • vote removed: Thanks to scope_creep for the source analysis, but I must disagree with some of the conclusions drawn. While an award might not be notable, if the award gets coverage in an otherwise reliable, secondary, and independent source and the coverage is significant, it counts towards notability. Similarly, articles about a funding round, if more than trivial or incidental (ie., significant coverage of the funding rather beyond a line or two in a tipsheet about the round) can count towards notability if its more than a brief mention and otherwise SIRS. DCsansei (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC) Striking my vote per the paid editor observation made by BusterD, probably best to start over. DCsansei (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DCsansei: Do you have actual evidence per WP:THREE which is considered best-practice since last autumn. I do hundreds of these company articles, since 2008 and I've seen the same argument multiple times. It is false. Your slightly confused. In 2018, the WP:NCORP guidelines were completely rewritten to be stricter. Funding is now considered trivial coverage and is non-rs. Also trade awards, which are given out like water to drive business relationship are generally considered non-notable on Wikipedia. So if you some references that prove the company notable, post them up instead of posting conjecture and non-truths. scope_creepTalk 18:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to pick up on the comment above. If the *award* gets coverage, we need to examine the content of that coverage to see whether it includes information *about* the company that is original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. If the "coverage" is a cut-and-paste and all the "coverage" is essentially the same article, then no, it fails our criteria. And in this particular case, none of the coverage about the "award" meets our criteria. Similarly, articles about a funding round might meet the criteria if the *content* of the article meets the criteria and isn't simply regurgitating information from a press release or the company website. There is a difference between notability of the company and "coverage". HighKing++ 14:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. More discussion explicitly about the sources presented would be helpful in attaining a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment So far, they hasn't been a single reference presented that supports WP:SIRS correctly. Its relatively a brand new startup, the usual SAAS type startup and not a single piece of coverage that has been presented that hasn't been created by the company. The supposed trade awards are by long consensus, more than a decade, are non-notable. Does anybody have evidence that the company is notable, or is it another brand new company using an agency to manage its Wikipedia brand. It is brochure advertising and non-notable. scope_creepTalk 16:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm choosing not to assert keep for what is obviously a purely promotional and paid page creation or redirect it to another clearly promotional and paid page creation. The nominator's source analysis leaves very little for this page to stand on. This article fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Question: What distinguishes this contracting firm from any other? BusterD (talk) 14:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability despite the "awards" and "funding rounds" which are not part of our criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 14:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rogers (character)[edit]

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

All I could find for this character were Valnet sources or posts from the official Marvel site. The character appears to also be an extremely minor one, and the article itself is rather small. A basic merge of character info to the list is probably more than enough to suffice here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Appears to be a very minor character, with only a handful of actual appearances. Searching under all of the various names given to the character turns up very little coverage in actual reliable sources (i.e., sources that are not fan wikis or official Marvel pages). There are just a few handful of sites simply summarizing a few of the issues he appeared in. On top of that, both entries in the "In other media" section are on two completely different characters, so I am not sure why they are even listed there, and of course those appearances would not demonstrate any notability for this character. Rorshacma (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Rorshacma. Doesn't have enough coverage to pass the WP:GNG. Without enough sources, it might even have fundamental issues with WP:V. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: R in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters: R per above, lacks IRS with SIGCOV.  // Timothy :: talk  22:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion around the proposed alternatives to deletion would be helpful in attaining a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment To address the proposed ATD as suggested by the relisting, the character is completely non-notable and poorly sourced. Merging anywhere would just result in the non-notable and poorly sourced information being shifted to another page, which would just mean the exact same problems that prompted this AFD would now just exist on a different page. Again, I want to point out that the listings in the "Other Versions" and "In Other Media" sections are not the same characters, meaning there is literally one very short paragraph of poorly sourced information in this article even about the subject. Citing WP:PRESERVE is not a a magic passphrase that means that one can completely ignore addressing the blatant notability and sourcing concerns with this fictional character. Rorshacma (talk) 03:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't be opposed to a deletion verdict should that come to be the case, especially given the points acknowledged here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:43, 25 February 2024 (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 03:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jana K. Arnold[edit]

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

no sourcing online apart from database entries. external links link to films Ms. Arnold was apparently involved in but do not actually mention her. Password (talk)(contribs) 01:41, 19 February 2024 (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 Moxee, Washington with the history preserved should anyone want to merge. Star Mississippi 01:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Artesian, Washington[edit]

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

Contested PROD, with the reason being that Reference 4 describes this place as a town. While that is true, Reference 4 is also a two-sentence entry in a table, dated 1923, sourced to a letter that I don't have the means to track down. References 1 and 2 are GNIS, references 3 and 5 are dead links. Other than reference 4, I cannot find a single mention of a "community" or "town" of Artesian; several news articles from the early 1900s do mention artesian springs in the Moxee area, but not one mentions a "town" of Artesian (or even any person "from" or "of" Artesian), which is suspicious considering this place supposedly had a post office in 1900. So most likely this was just a rural post office, which by precedent is wholly insufficient for passing WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. Another useless stub on a nonexistent location based on sloppy misreading of GNIS. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Washington. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mr James H. Gano who ran the Artesian post office in Yakima until 1901 when rural free delivery, that he himself promoted, supplanted it,(IPC 1904a, p. 641) would be astonished to learn that thanks to Edmond Stephen Meany in 1916 misreading Marian McShane's handwriting in a letter and one or the other of them promoting a defunct 1901 post office into a 1904 town, here we are a century and a quarter later. Not to be conflated with the George A. Gano who had an artesian well and later went into the hotel business with I. B. Turnell, of course.(IPC 1904b, p. 565) Uncle G (talk) 02:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
references
  • "Gano, James H.". An Illustrated History of Klickitat, Yakima and Kittitas Counties: With an Outline of the Early History of the State of Washington. Interstate Publishing Company. 1904. pp. 640–641.
  • "Gano, George A.". An Illustrated History of Klickitat, Yakima and Kittitas Counties: With an Outline of the Early History of the State of Washington. Interstate Publishing Company. 1904. pp. 564–565.
  • Meany, Edmond S. (October 1917). "Washington Geographic Names". Washington Historical Quarterly. 8 (4). Washington State Historical Society: 265–290. JSTOR 23908626.
  • Russell, Israel Cook (1893). A geological reconnoissance in central Washington. Bulletin. Vol. 108. Washington, D.C.: United States Geological Service. doi:10.3133/b108.
  • delete GNIS is in fact not sourced to any map, but to another place names book, published in 1985 and therefore fairly likely dependent on 1923 book as its source. This makes the location extremely suspect. I'm sorry, but reference to it as a town in a listing is just not good enough. Unsurprisingly the maps show nothing at the location, even as far back as 1936. Mangoe (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The 1923 book is just a condensed version of what Meany wrote as a series of articles across several issues of his Washington Historical Quarterly starting in 1917. And Meany 1917, p. 274 attributes it to "(Marian McShane, in Names MSS., Letter 347.)". As explained on Meany 1917, p. 265 this is a handwritten letter received from one Marian McShane, who I suspect wrote an "o" that Meany mistook for a cursive "s". Uncle G (talk) 05:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Moxee, Washington, which is a mile away. As noted, the springs are generally described as a feature of Moxee, not an independent place. Jbt89 (talk) 07:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except that: (a) this is the 21st century, not the 19th; (b) artesian wells are not springs; (c) this article isn't about wells nor springs but goes on about a bogus "community" and its 1-year post office; (d) none of its 3 sentences are in fact accurate and mergeable; (e) the human-made modifications of the 19th century were in the Moxee Valley not in the small area of the city; (f) they were in fact along an 80-mile (130 km) valley that was more than the Moxee Valley even back in 1893;(Russell 1893, p. 54) and (g) the far more extensive 21st century truth, because of sizeable changes in the 1940s and 1960s, is dealt with, albeit somewhat glibly, in Yakima River#River modifications. Uncle G (talk) 10:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Agreed. For a merge to make sense there must a) be accurate content to merge, and b) if a redirect is left, some probability that someone searching for Artesian would find what they need at Moxee. Neither is the case here. Apart from the Meany book and this WP entry (and WP mirrors), there is no mention of a community of Artesian anywhere on the internet; nobody would search for it unless they came across this article first. I lived in the area for several years and never once heard of Artesian until I stumbled on this article the other day. We are creating misinformation by keeping any trace of this article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Re: the current year, WP:Notability does not degrade over time.
      If there was a town of Artesian - and I'm not convinced there was - it's notable, regardless of in what century that town existed. Jbt89 (talk) 06:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to moxee There is no mention of a town called Artesian in the local papers. There are frequent mentions of the "Moxee Artesian District" that might be what got on the map as a town.James.folsom (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Should add there was no mention of the post office either. James.folsom (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete concur with "post office out of a house" description. SportingFlyer T·C 16:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion on the proposed alternative to deletion would help in attaining a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and Redirect. Per the nomination most of the article seems to be poorly sourced and possibly inaccurate, Due to this I don't believe it would be wise to merge information from this into moxee. I looked at the satellite images available and based on that plus the prior discussions (ie: James.folsom and Jbt89's comments) I think that as of the 21st century, this is now just a part of moxee. Seeing as this doesn't pass WP:GNG I think it should be deleted and turned into a redirect to moxee. Thanks! ZombiUwU ♥ (🌸~♥~ 📝) 23:18, 22 February 2024 (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 GRTC Pulse#List of stations. Liz Read! Talk! 06:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Willow Lawn station[edit]

Willow Lawn station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Staples Mill station (GRTC) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Scott's Addition station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Science Museum station (GRTC) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
VCU–VUU station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Convention Center station (GRTC) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Government Center station (GRTC) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
VCU Medical Center station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shockoe Bottom station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
East Riverfront station (GRTC) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rocketts Landing station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
{{GRTC}}

These are non-notable bus rapid transit stations - while there's plenty of coverage about the bus line, there's next to nothing about the individual stations. I suggest redirecting all to GRTC Pulse#List of stations. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allison Street station was recently closed as redirect; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arts District station is ongoing but consensus is clearly not to keep. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping to participants in related discussions: @Boleyn, Shaws username, Reywas92, Djflem, Flatscan, Jumpytoo, StreetcarEnjoyer, Oaktree b, and Rupples: Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all. Not individually notable. S5A-0043Talk 14:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all: They’re just fancier bus stops at the end of the day, not individually notable. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 15:16, 19 February 2024 (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 03:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolaos Argyriou (footballer, born 1994)[edit]

Nikolaos Argyriou (footballer, born 1994) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

don't think this is notable enough. only sources i could find are database entries. Password (talk)(contribs) 01:26, 19 February 2024 (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. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 03:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Asriyan[edit]

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

Successful musician but I couldn't establish that he meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rufai Waris[edit]

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

Draftified the article for sile purpose of being improved. Yet moved back to main space without addressing citation needed tags and notability. Clearly fails WP:GNG. A thorough name of the artist cannot be seen on google /bing search before talking about references. The article cited sources which seems to be obvious blog and non of them is reliable. Otuọcha (talk) 10:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: sources are press releases or promotional puff pieces by dubious publications that have no indication they meet WP:RS. S0091 (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:49, 19 February 2024 (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 03:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Spanish Quidditch Cup[edit]

2016 Spanish Quidditch Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSPORTS. There's no Spanish Wikipedia article on this one. The article lists some references (no inlines), but they all just say "this event will happen on this date at this location" then explain what quidditch itself is, so no significant coverage provided. Really wasn't able to find anything else other than an article about who won that was behind a paywall. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 00:38, 19 February 2024 (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 Ewok. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 00:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wicket W. Warrick[edit]

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

This article is entirely redundant to the Ewok article, as all Reception is related to Ewoks, and not Wicket. Outside of casting info, there really isn't anything that justifies a separation, especially since a source search yields practically nothing else in terms of Reception. I'd say either a merge or redirect to Ewok could be good AtD. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Film. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Ewok. The character is certainly notable, but the sourcing just isn't quite there. Every citation is either primary, non-RS, or not about the character but about Ewoks in general, as nom says. With better sourcing I could change my mind. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wicket W. Warrick. A notable character for sure. Was a main character in two made for TV movies (with theatrical releases outside North America) as well as two seasons of the Ewoks cartoon, and a large part of Star Wars marketing for the mid-1980s. I would suggest a few additions and citations be added, rather than outright deletion. May require some cleanup, but far less notable characters remain with pages in tact. RamshackleMan (talk) 02:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you show any of these sources illustrating notability? I'm willing to consider changing my stance, but my BEFORE showed nothing proving Wicket's independent notability from Ewoks as a species. Just because a character is important does not mean it automatically warrants an article, there need to be sources actively proving a character is notable instead of just a WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES argument. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or redirect per WeirdNAnnoyed. This doesn't have WP:SIGCOV outside of the Ewoks, where it is already covered. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Ewok: Wicket W. Warrick is not independently notable from his fictional species. ―Susmuffin Talk 06:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_February_19&oldid=1210632299"