Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 November 26

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Billbergia 'Albertii'

Billbergia 'Albertii' (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)

For background to this bundled nomination, please see the previous bundles Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tillandsia 'Feather Duster', which closed with a consensus to delete the first 10 of these cultivar stubs, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tillandsia 'Gunalda', which closed with a consensus to delete the next 50. Please also see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#cultivars for a discussion of the notability of cultivars, which was unanimous in affirming that cultivars must meet WP:GNG and do not have the presumption of notability granted to official taxonomic ranks such as species (and in which numerous participants voiced the opinion that undersourced cultivars ought to be deleted).

The remainder of this statement is copy-pasted (slightly reworded) from the Feather Duster AfD linked above:

All of the following articles are sourced solely to the cultivar database maintained by the Bromeliad Society International. Anyone can submit new cultivars to this database simply by filling in an email form. There does not seem to be any rigorous scrutinizing or verification process that the cultivar even exists, which is to say that it is essentially a user-generated primary source. Even if it were sufficiently reliable, I have not been able to locate any independent coverage for any of the cultivars I have tagged, nor do I expect to locate any for other similar cultivar stubs. It's clear that these cultivars don't meet the threshold for a standalone article either on verifiability or on notability.

When I encountered cultivars of a single species, I redirected to the parent species as possible search terms. Unfortunately, the great majority are hybrids of two species. From a technical perspective, this makes merging difficult, as an article cannot be redirected to two places and there is no objective way to determine which of the two "parent" species should have the redirect (and never mind those which are hybrids of hybrids). Merging would also mean including information in the species articles sourced only to a user-generated primary source.

Merging each one to the genus article would take up an enormous amount of space and place similar undue importance on a large list of unverified, non-notable cultivars. Merging to a standalone list is also not suitable, as the list would fail the verifiability/notability criteria owing to a lack of independent sourcing.

The following 20 cultivars will be included in this nomination just as soon as I can tag them. As before, I intend to notify WP:PLANTS.

A rather large list
  • Billbergia 'Albertii'
  • Billbergia 'Alii'
  • Billbergia 'Aussie Rose'
  • Billbergia 'Bam'
  • Billbergia 'Candy'
  • Billbergia 'Chevalieri'
  • Billbergia 'Collevii'
  • Billbergia 'Curly Top'
  • Billbergia 'Elam'
  • Billbergia 'Fantasia'
  • Billbergia 'Gala'
  • Billbergia 'Gem'
  • Billbergia 'Green Sand'
  • Billbergia 'Hoelscheriana'
  • Billbergia 'JCS'
  • Billbergia 'Leodiensis'
  • Billbergia 'Leopoldii'
  • Billbergia 'Misty Steel'
  • Billbergia 'Nez Misso'
  • Billbergia 'Penumbra'
♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 23:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Draftify. There is very little useful in the Keep votes here, the first one admits to being WP:IAR, the second one is per the first one, and the third is merely "here's what I found on Google". However I don't see any harm in draftifying it so that it can be improved, if that is indeed possible. Black Kite (talk) 14:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Last Man Down

Last Man Down (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)

Film seems unlikely to meet WP:NFILM- coverage is limited to WP:ROUTINE reviews following its release. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:14, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Born2cycle. WP:GNG is a well established policy which has been subject to lots of discussion. Could you please explain which part of it is excessively instructive? And why this specific film is a special case affected by the issue (WP:IAR is typically used as a last resort)? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think GNG means well to avoid misuse. But I think “significant coverage” needs to be measured differently depending on the topic area. For example, the bar for significant coverage for a biography should be much higher than for a film. Let’s define an “obscure” topic to be one not meeting GNG. I think the benefit of excluding articles about obscure people is obvious. The value of not having articles about obscure films is not obvious at all. To the contrary. I mean, if we can establish the name, year, cast, and production company for a film, why not have at least a stub with that info it? Does that make sense? Right now if we blindly follow the rules, articles like this one have to be deleted. But other than to follow the rules, why? How is the encyclopedia or anyone better off with this article deleted? Aren’t they worse off due to such deletions? I think so. —В²C ☎ 07:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your explanation. It seems to me that your disagreement is with WP:GNG itself, rather than being specific to this article. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that’s why I’m invoking IAR. The encyclopedia is worsened by strictly following GNG and deleting this article. —-В²C ☎ 18:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Born2cycle DonaldD23 talk to me 14:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Still fails WP:NF. Long-time editors should realize that their keep will be skipped over by the closing admin if it's not based on notability guidelines. SL93 (talk) 16:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I haven’t spent much time at Afd and I see that. But there’s something very wrong here when we’re deleting articles about bonafide films that readers are likely to look up, if only to find out there’s little known about them. That needs to be fixed. —В²C ☎ 07:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • It doesn't. Wikipedia wasn't made for everything verifiable ever since its creation. SL93 (talk) 03:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • The contents of this article are verifiable. You can even buy it on Amazon or watch it on Prime. Not having an article about it is ridiculous. —В²C ☎ 07:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I didn't say it wasn't verifiable. I'm saying that Wikipedia doesn't need to change to have everything that is verifiable because that was not the intention when Wikipedia started. SL93 (talk) 13:44, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Oh, sorry. I agree WP doesn’t need to have everything verifiable. But I do think everything verifiable within certain categories of topics does belong in WP. That should include produced/distributed films, as well as, for example, cities and species. The bottom line is anything people are likely to look for and seek information about belongs here. I mean, why not? How is it not improved if we do that? —В²C ☎ 15:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fundamentally, I disagree with the way IAR is invoked here. Stubs don't benefit Wikipedia, they just disappoint readers. If all we can do is write a stub because expanding would require original research, then there's no point to keeping this article. We should be careful about whether we're invoking WP:IAR or WP:ILIKEIT. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:18, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think either one of us can speak for all readers, but I for one certainly appreciate the information provided in a stub like this one, and rarely read full WP articles, especially about films. I want the gist of what it's about, when it was produced, who's in it, and that's about it. This stub already has all that. I can get the rest if I decide to watch it based on that. I'm sure I'm not the only one. Far from. If there's a full article on a film I'm almost certain to only skim it for the kind of information that's in this stub. And, frankly, I think this one is already beyond stub level. --В²C ☎ 07:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think this topic is better suited to IMDB.com than Wikipedia. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's also indisputably a stub, at 430 characters of prose. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The appropriate activity on a WP:STUB article is expansion (when possible), but certainly not deletion. I’m baffled by this predilection to delete. —В²C ☎ 16:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not a bad idea. In just a few moments of searching I found multiple sources.Super (talk) 06:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This film has a few actors that are notable and have their own articles. I see no reason why this needs to be deleted? Also, Admins shouldn't be skipping over any vote period and if Admins are tossing community consensus out the window and doing as they please then thats not right. There are multiple sources that can easily be found [1] [2] [3]. I could keep listing sources but that's three, which is what we need. I have seen Rotten Tomatoes listing used to justify a keep alone. Super (talk) 06:19, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The rotten tomatoes entry is routine, and the hollywood reporter source isn't more in detail than "this is a movie with actors. the actors have names and the movies have a release date". theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she?) 06:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify, per BD2412. From what I see, there is no consensus on meeting a specific notability guide but there are those who believe that better referenced information is available. Rather than remove the content, albeit sparse, better to give it a chance for improvement in draft space. Ifnord (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be clear, and I can't speak for others, although of course I see room for improvement in the article, I see nothing but goodness in leaving it as it is as opposed to removing (whether as deletion or move to draft). In its current state, it is literally infinitely better than nothing, and no one in this discussion has said anything to counter this point. --В²C ☎ 06:45, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Wikipedia articles are a work of the collective. The collective maintains, improves, categorizes, presents, and curates the article. If every remotely potentially encyclopedic topic were included, the collective's energy would be spread too thin, and the quality of articles would be worse overall. To combat this, we ask ourselves the question "if this article were expanded as much as possible without violating our policy against original research, how large would this article be?" If the highest potential for an article, with all of the sourcing out there, is still a stub, then yes, keeping it on principle would harm the project's ability to present cohesive, comprehensive, and useful information to the reader. In other words, Wikipedia is not and should not be an indiscriminate collection of information. We can't spend energy on every film that has ever existed, every book, every television show, every song, every person, when for 99% of all the things and people in the world, there's nothing we can say about them. We should concentrate our resources where they can do the most good. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she?) 09:24, 5 December 2021 (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 Snow (2019 video game). (non-admin closure) User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Poppermost Productions

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

This is not of encyclopedic value, probably doesn't really meet notability, and largely reads like a Steam store page. Jasphetamine (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2021 (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 23:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shawna Lenee

Shawna Lenee (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)

Being quoted as opposing a tax rise isn’t actually any basis for us to host a BLP and the article no longer exists. Otherwise what we have as sources is utterly hopeless. Fails GNG and ENT Spartaz Humbug! 22:09, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:32, 27 November 2021 (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 23:49, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taija Rae

Taija Rae (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)

Seriously deficient in the sources department. I have no idea how this has survived for so long. The only thing of any merit is an interview so not useful. Fails GNG & ENT Spartaz Humbug! 21:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:33, 27 November 2021 (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. Per nomination, lacking reliable evidence of notability. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 00:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Benoni W. Finch

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

Fails WP:BIO. Being the first sheriff of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, isn't going to do it. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2021 (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 23:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Harrison

Andre Harrison (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:MMABIO notability criteria as he doesn't have any fights in a top tier promotion, nor has he been ranked inside the top 10 of his division by sherdog or fightmatrix. Also fails WP:GNG as main coverage is through routine sporting reports. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 21:32, 26 November 2021 (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 23:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Benoni Moore

Benoni Moore (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)

A person of local prominence only. Fails WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN as selectman of a small community. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:29, 26 November 2021 (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 23:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob McClintock

Jacob McClintock (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:MMABIO notability criteria as he only has 2 fights in a top tier promotion out of the required three. Also fails WP:GNG as main coverage is through routine sporting reports. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 21:23, 26 November 2021 (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 23:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fletcher, Washington

Fletcher, 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)

This one appears to be a combination of some error in GNIS and a failure to fully compare the sources against each other. The GNIS entry is no longer there, and the name doesn't appear on the topos until after they cease to show structures; considering that the coordinates settle directly on a farmstead, though, with no sign of a former rail right-of-way, this cannot be the right location. Furthermore the place names DB (which was not referenced) says that it was a railroad station as well. Not sure what went on ehre but not getting indications this was an actually settlement. Mangoe (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2021 (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 23:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Bardoux

Rebecca Bardoux (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 passing GNG or ENT. Possible RS are pretty poor. Pornlifemagzine redirects to a web cam site. Vegasnews is clearly a warmed up press release full of promotional language and has no byline. Finally measure aB is about being an advocate so any notability from that is NOTINHERITED The rest of the sources are the usual rubbish. Possible redirect to AVN HOF after deletion Spartaz Humbug! 21:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:41, 27 November 2021 (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 23:56, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Cooper (fighter)

Bill Cooper (fighter) (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:MMABIO notability criteria as he only has 2 fights in a top tier promotion out of the required three. Also fails WP:GNG as main coverage is through routine sporting reports. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 21:19, 26 November 2021 (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 23:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Benoni Hill

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

Sources, such as they are, are totally inadequate for WP:GNG. None of them are about him specifically. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Daniel (talk) 10:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Wave - Squid Party

New Wave - Squid Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable political party which has not let participated in any elections, delete or merge to Kim Dong-yeon. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This Wiki is still being worked on as the party just formed, so Korean articles are still being translated to English. But they will be running in the 2022 presidential election. No need for a merge, as other minor parties are represented with a Wiki. Bashore101 (talk | contribs) 10:31, 13 November 2021 (KST)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 19:59, 26 November 2021 (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. Fenix down (talk) 23:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Philemon Nana Akomeah

Philemon Nana Akomeah (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)

Possible failure of WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. The appearances for Telecom Egypt and Yeni Malatyaspor are unverified and, in any case, neither of these clubs were playing in an WP:FPL at that time. I found one small Ghana Soccernet article about a collapse and also some transfer rumour coverage relating to Slavia Sofia and another for Sepahan. I am completely unable to verify that he ever actually played for either of those two clubs, if he did then he would certainly be notable. Soccerway covers both the top tier of Bulgaria and of Iran but a search for his name fails to find him, which makes me suspect that he never played a game for either Slavia Sofia nor Sepahan. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:26, 26 November 2021 (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. Geschichte (talk) 21:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Furness Premier Football League

Furness Premier Football League (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)

Many recent discussions on leagues at the same level and with similar weak claims to notability have been closed as delete, for example Guildford and Woking Alliance League and Mid-Somerset Football League.

This league is at least 3 tiers below the rule-of-thumb provided by WP:FOOTYN and so WP:GNG needs to be met to qualify for an article. Google searches come back with very, very little. The best that I can find are some passing mentions in NWE Mail such as this and this. A league needs to have significant coverage in more than one news source, especially considering that it's a minor local paper. British newspaper searches of "Furness Premier League" and "Furness Premier Football League" returned absolutely nothing. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:05, 26 November 2021 (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Andrzejewski

Leonard Andrzejewski (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. — 07 ● 💬 15:41, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:35, 26 November 2021 (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. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Haskell V. Anderson III

Haskell V. Anderson III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A fairly prolific journeyman actor who fails WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's a close call. This was Nominated and kept before. The article is barely more than a stub and is poorly written and referenced, but this actor has had roles in film, numerous TV shows (dozens of guest-starring roles on major TV series), and theatre. Especially for an actor of color, I'd err on the side of keeping. If anyone has the time to research more references, that would be very helpful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those appearances on TV series are in roles described generically as "Male Juror", "College Interviewer", "Annoyed Neighbor", etc. (with very few exceptions), hardly indicative of guest star status. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2021 (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 00:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chandrawali

Chandrawali (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)

An article of an upcoming movie, per WP:TOOSOON. Bbarmadillo (talk) 17:57, 26 November 2021 (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. Black Kite (talk) 14:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Miracle Worker

The Miracle Worker (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)

Propose redirecting to Miracle Worker (disambiguation). My bold redirect was reverted, so bringing it here for discussion. My rationale is that the article duplicates the existing disambiguation page, and the prose content contains no useful information that isn't already present in the articles on the individual works. This isn't a "cycle" of works that requires a standalone article, it's a play which has been several times adapted for screen by different companies. Dan from A.P. (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: After a delightfully civil conversation with the nom, I've decided to reopen this discussion and let it play out for another week. I'll recuse and let another reviewer close.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2021 (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 00:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Axelrod

Nicole Axelrod (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 actress with no significant roles. SL93 (talk) 17:13, 26 November 2021 (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. Geschichte (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Salo (business)

Salo (business) (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:NCORP. Sources are directory listings, routine local coverage and/or interviews with company personnel. MB 16:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. A little bit of HEY also involved. Daniel (talk) 10:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Store Capital

Store Capital (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 deletion during New Page Patrol. Previously deleted. IMO deeply fails wp:notability. Zero suitable or even near-suitable sources. North8000 (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)-[reply]

Why is Nasdaq and Seeking Alpha not reliable? Please check my comments below. I have found 8 new good citations. Jaxarnolds (talk) 08:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a $9 billion market capitalization publicly traded real estate investment trust, and certainly has reliable sources to demonstrate notability, per WP:LISTED. Its stock is a component of a major U.S. Stock market index, the S&P 400. How is nasdaq.com, the website of Nasdaq, Inc. not a reliable source? Plus the Phoenix Business Journal here; many other sources. And when was this article previously deleted? (not that that would matter in the slightest). UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The question isn't whether that reference is a reliable source. The question is whether the topic has in depth coverage by reliable sources in accordance with the wp notability quidelines. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You must be kidding! did you actually search? check my comment below. Jaxarnolds (talk) 06:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of the flurry of links, IMO if you would like really make/state your case on the question at hand, how about finding/selecting 2 independent RS's that have in-depth coverage of Store Capital? North8000 (talk) 14:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually they are all good, but these 5 are the best NASDAQ, americanbanker, azcentral. fool.com 1, fool.com 2. If you change your mind now, you can withdraw the AFD nomination. I have also added some other citations to the article. Jaxarnolds (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those are references that you added since the AFD. Those new references are better. North8000 (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there's a lot of crap sources such as Motley Fool and Seeking Alpha (both of which put out too much stock-picking churnalism for me to give weight to any of their articles). There's also some coverage of run-of-the-mill business transactions, like the Berkshire one mentioned above, and a real estate transaction in the business press. And the local newspaper, The Arizona Republic, has covered them, though those are behind a paywall. (And some "Reit magazine" discussed them in what might not have been an advertorial.) It is enough coverage. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "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. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. For public companies, the best references for establishing notability are analyst report. Zack's provides an analyst report which you can download (for no obligation!) by providing your name and email address. There is evidence that at least one other analysts, BTIG Research, also provides analysis reports to their clients on this company - for example this presentation includes in-depth information on slide 42. In my opinion, there are sufficient references, topic passes NCORP. HighKing++ 18:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Due to the newly found and added references. But I am not withdrawing my nomination so that others can fully decide. North8000 (talk) 01:06, 5 December 2021 (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. North America1000 04:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian Bedouin

Palestinian Bedouin (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 appears to be a POV fork of Negev Bedouin, to push the POV that these Bedouins are an organic part of the Palestinian people. Virtually all the contents there appears in the original article, with less POV terminology. A redirect to Negev Bedouin had been made by several editors previously, and reverted each time, with a suggestion to take it here. Inf-in MD (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not a POV fork. I wrote the Negev Bedouin article with the intention of covering the Bedouin inside the borders of Israel (1967 borders). 14 years later, Bedouin inside Israel is still the focus of that article. This article attempts to also cover Bedouin outside of the 67 borders (eg West Bank Bedouin). That's not a WP:content fork. One could argue that the scope of Negev Bedouin should be expanded to include Bedouin outside the 67 borders (and perhaps moving Negev Bedouin to something else that indicates the expanded scope), but I don't see consensus for that either.VR talk 15:36, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
95% of the Palestinian Bedouin article is about Bedouin inside Israel, not those outside of the 67 borders and overlaps what you wrote (albeit in a more POV manner), and the 5% that is about them added just last week, after I raised my FORK concerns. Do you support removing those parts that overlap (replacing them with a "See main article Negev Bedouin)? Inf-in MD (talk) 15:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's a good idea. Imagine arguing that the article Palestinians should have nothing on Arab citizens of Israel because the latter article already exists. The 95%/5% issue sounds like a WP:WEIGHT problem and I agree it should be fixed.VR talk 16:02, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So because you are unable to "win" a content dispute you nominate the article for deletion? And you describe that exact MO as a classic case of forum shopping elsewhere? Huh. nableezy - 16:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have explained my position clearly: I am fine with having one article for Bedouin inside Israel, one for those outside. I am not fine with having two articles with 95% overlap, which is the current situation. There are multiple ways to resolve this - one is a merge+redirect, which you oppose. Another is to remove the overlapping content, which you also oppose. I will leave to others to see who is trying to win a dispute here.Inf-in MD (talk) 16:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you have explained that due to being unable to prevail in a content dispute you nominated this article for deletion. WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP, and per your own words this is a a classic case of forum shopping. nableezy - 16:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest a merge, you removed my merge tag and suggested I take it to AfD . I do that, and now you accuse me of forum shopping? Don't you get tired of playing these tendentious games? Inf-in MD (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your merge tag at Negev Bedouin is still up so you are simultaneously proposing a merge and deletion as well as talking about a redirect.Selfstudier (talk) 17:44, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think these things are mutually exclusive - a common result of AfD discussion is a merge or redirect, and I would be okay with either Inf-in MD (talk) 17:50, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then close the merge discussion.Selfstudier (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why? as I wrote, these outcomes are both acceptable to me. Inf-in MD (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the theoretical possibility of contradictory outcomes in separate discussions.It's a matter of process.Selfstudier (talk) 10:18, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's a real problem. If this AfD ends in 'Delete', you could still merge whtever non-overlapping content into the original article. Inf-in MD (talk) 13:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you have no intention to follow process, I haven't expressed an opinion here until now but you have managed to convince me.Selfstudier (talk) 13:41, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is an interesting framing. Considering that you later admitted the topic is not covered by Negev Bedouin with the inclusion of material on West Bank Bedouin. If you feel that the content of the article now is in some way lacking, then, again, WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. If you are upset that what you admit is a discrete topic from Negev Bedouin includes material you do not want included, then you can make that argument. What you are doing here however is, exactly as you claimed elsewhere to be a classic case of forum shopping, is deleting an article due to being unable to prevail in a content dispute. But no, I am not accusing you of anything tendentiously or otherwise. I am noting that your own words indict your actions as forum-shopping. And you admit to doing exactly what you criticize others for doing. Tendentious game playing indeed. nableezy - 18:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am following the exact process you suggested, only to have you accuse me of forum shopping. Tendentious game playing is exactly what you are doing. Inf-in MD (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That was prior to the inclusion of material that you yourself admitted makes the subject not a POVFORK lol. You can pretend that the passage of time is theoretical, but now, with the inclusion of material you yourself admits does not fit in Negev Bedouin and you yourself admits should be kept in an article on Palestinian Bedioun, are nominating said article for deletion because you have been unable to prevail in a content dispute on other material. And you have several options there, such as an RFC. Bad faith nominations of articles you know are not POVFORKs because they include material wholly unrelated and cannot be covered in the supposed forked from article, in ways that you yourself describe as a classic case of forum shopping is what is now, at this time, occurring. And once again, I am not accusing you of anything. Your own words indict your actions. Not mine. nableezy - 20:31, 26 November 2021 (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 Most Eligible Bachelor#Music. The creator of the article turned it into a redirect less than a day after nomination. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 14:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guche Gulabi

Guche Gulabi (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)

A film song that does not meet WP:NSINGLE. It lacks significant coverage from reliable sources and most of the content is routine/non-RS coverage. May be redirected to section Most Eligible Bachelor (film)#Music. Ab207 (talk) 14:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ronny Kreher

Ronny Kreher (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)

Amateur footballer whose sole claim to notability is having been subbed in for a ten-minute-appearance in a 2008 3. Liga game, per his fussballdaten profile. As per WP:WINNEROUTCOMES, this is not enough to scrape by, since nothing close to WP:GNG-level coverage on this individual turns up. AngryHarpy‍talk 13:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:38, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UPUSA v Komming Knitting

UPUSA v Komming Knitting (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, lacks references and relies on a single primary source. Whilst Google returns several seemingly good results, closer inspection shows these to be no more than passing mentions, and the sources are usually more focused on south African labour law in general. Mako001 (talk) 13:13, 26 November 2021 (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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Warrandyte Cricket Club

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

Non-notable suburban amateur cricket team that only plays against other local teams in a certain district of Melbourne. There is at the the Victorian Premier Cricket and the Victorian SubDistrict Cricket Association above the loca league this one plays in. No noteworthy achievements, the unsourced table below indicates some wins in C/D/E or worse grades in sublocal competitions. No significant independent sources, just random score listings and phonebook listing Bumbubookworm (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blom v Brown

Blom v Brown (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. Based on a single primary source. Google only shows up no secondary sources. May even overlap with BLP since it is likely that both parties of the case are still alive. Mako001 (talk) 11:37, 26 November 2021 (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. Fenix down (talk) 11:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2020–21 Tunisian Super Cup

2020–21 Tunisian Super 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)

Already draftified twice, a third time would very definitely be edit warring. There is nothing here except the shell, husk, of an article. The reader cannot even tell if this competition is notable. WP:GNG failure FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 10:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well if we had a native Arabic speaker, they might be able to find sources. But draftifying something purely because something doesn't have many English-language sources, without having checked the languages of the country in question, seems like a WP:BIAS to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2021 (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 00:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ex parte Van Heerden

Ex parte Van Heerden (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. Based on a single primary source. Google only shows up results for Wikipedia and it's mirrors, and no secondary sources. Another more recent case seems far more notable. Mako001 (talk) 10:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ex parte Henning

Ex parte Henning (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)

Legal case that fails WP:GNG. Based on a single primary source. Google only turns up WP and it's mirrors. Mako001 (talk) 09:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ex parte Goldman

Ex parte Goldman (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)

Legal case which fails WP:GNG, based on a single primary source. Google only turns up results for Wikipedia and it's mirrors, then loses relevance without finding any secondary sources. No case to keep this one. Mako001 (talk) 09:41, 26 November 2021 (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 10:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Dufek

Joshua Dufek (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 significant coverage in reliable sources. Most citations in the article come from Formula Scout, an outlet that has been considered questionable in past AfD discussions. The article fails WP:GNG, WP:YOUNGATH, and WP:NMOTORSPORT. 5225C (talk • contributions) 09:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Won't vote as I'm undecided: Dufek hasn't done anything other than F4 yet, but is a former F1 junior and is poised to make the step up to FRECA next season. What I'd like to know is when, why and by whom Formula Scout was considered "questionable". I know for a fact that they're actively in the paddocks of most feeder series, and their work is independent, neutral and reliable. If anything, the problem with this article is it relies too much on one source. But more sources can be found easily with a quick search. MSport1005 (talk) 12:07, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some mentions of Dufek in other sources, but they are not what I would call reliable or significant. This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON, I don't follow Dufek at all so I'm not familiar with his career trajectory, but as it stands he doesn't have the coverage or notability to warrant an article. Looking at FRECA season articles, most drivers are in blue, but looking at those articles it seems like many shouldn't be.
In several recent AfDs I have been involved in, Formula Scout has been questioned because of its highly specialized nature. I do not disagree that they are a reliable and useful source, but I do not believe they can be used to establish notability because their entire modus operandi is to cover obscure and otherwise unimportant series. Further, looking at their homepage (which is something I do regularly since I follow several junior series), I would say a lot of their coverage is borderline routine. Therefore I struggle to understand how it can be used to establish notability, and its ability to do so must be called into question. Perhaps it was a poor way of wording it, but I am willing to challenge Formula Scout's use in this context. To me, this is WP:UNDUE on a larger scale: allowing Formula Scout to be used to establish notability places undue importance on their view as a small, incredibly niche, but still reliable publication. 5225C (talk • contributions) 13:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage in Formula Scout may contribute towards the notability of the series that these drivers compete in, but the coverage of the drivers themselves is nearly always WP:ROUTINE and I have serious doubts that most single-seater drivers below FIA Formula 2 Championship level are typically notable for more than one event based upon what coverage I've seen. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say the modus operandi of Formula Scout is "covering obscure and otherwise unimportant series"—some might be, but FRECA or F3, let alone F2 or Indy Lights, are hardly unimportant. But I do see your point, their articles are valid purely as a source, but are not enough to establish notability. As for Dufek, I also feel like he may be a case of WP:TOOSOON, as I stated a few weeks ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oliver Bearman, but I remain undecided. MSport1005 (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly disagree. F4 is an amateur series for drivers only just starting out in single seaters. Very, very few F4 drivers have articles since the series is not professional, let alone important in the world of motorsport. Participation in the series does not meet the criteria set out in WP:NMOTORSPORT. References to Dufek are passing mentions because of this and therefore fall under routine coverage. 5225C (talk • contributions) 15:10, 26 November 2021 (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 Emerson Fittipaldi#Family. ✗plicit 10:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emerson Fittipaldi Jr.

Emerson Fittipaldi Jr. (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)

Minimal significant coverage, and what exists is either WP:ROUTINE reporting in highly specialized sources or in relation to his father, so he does not pass WP:YOUNGATH. Notability is not inherited, and the article makes no claim to significance. Sources do not appear to exist that would satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NMOTORSPORT. 5225C (talk • contributions) 09:20, 26 November 2021 (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. Geschichte (talk) 09:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Updesh Rana

Updesh Rana (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:ANYBIO, requires significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. Videos are not considered reliable sources. Dan arndt (talk) 07:14, 26 November 2021 (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 10:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Classical language

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

This is a content fork with Literary language - a reliable source can be found for almost any literary language calling it a classical language so the definition is redundant - which can be demonstrated by the list of articles on this page. I suggest redirecting this page to Literary language and merging in the Edward Sapir quote on a header section treating the term "classical language". - car chasm (talk) 06:58, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The concepts are really not the same. A literary language is a somewhat standard written language which people use to write literature in, while Classical language should have a more selective definition (much more selective in the cases of languages like Latin, Greek, Sanskrit, Chinese, and Arabic)... AnonMoos (talk) 08:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per AnonMoos (talk · contribs); Latin is a classical language, while French is a literary language. Elemimele (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Article gives the reader an idea about the antiquity of the earliest text in a language.Pied Hornbill (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2021 (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 Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 22:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Boutwell

Richard Boutwell (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. No significant coverage in independent sources found. Being a general is not considered sufficient for notability in the absence of coverage in RS. (t · c) buidhe 06:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rusif Huseynov

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

So I came across this on the Turkish Wikipedia, where it's currently also nominated for deletion. The versions in other languages have been created in early-October by the same person, and the articles are an exact copy of each other.

The problem is that this article cites a shit ton of sources, none of which actually contribute to WP:GNG. Most are published on websites which he works for, so these are not independent. The half of the sources are his own news articles anyways. A beforehand search doesn't result in much either. Pretty obvious attempt of refbombing their way into having an article.

Also, why must every article he wrote be cited in the "Works" section? None of these are notable on their own. This whole thing kinda feels like cross-wiki promo. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 19:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:53, 26 November 2021 (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 10:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Albert G. Miller

Albert G. Miller (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. No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources found. Being a general is not considered sufficient for notability in the absence of coverage in RS. (t · c) buidhe 06:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Dychtwald

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

Not a notable author. References are from paid editing. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:34, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:48, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. I find DGG's comments the most persuasive, and sufficiently supported by others. Daniel (talk) 10:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tammarrian Rogers

Tammarrian Rogers (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)

mnon notable and promotional, based on PR sources. Forbes 50 top anything isa promotional gimmick like all similar lists, and to write wikipedia articles on the basis of being listed there is naïve.


Ref 1, barely mentions her in a general article. Ref 2 is Forbes promoting its own lists, Ref .3 is a one paragraph highly promotional quote, but worth reading to see what people will say of themselves. Ref 4. is an interview where she says whatever she wants to in response to leading questions --and there's an advertising tie in--her firm is listing its jobs on the site. 5 & 6 I cannot see., but from the titles 5 is a promotional interview, and 6 is trivial.. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:45, 26 November 2021 (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 13:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Cochrane

Nathan Cochrane (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)

Journalist who fails WP:JOURNALIST. Article is unsourced and appears promotional in nature. Cjhard (talk) 06:37, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:43, 26 November 2021 (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. Sandstein 10:04, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Black Catholic Messenger

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

Fails WP:GNG. A few MINOR mentions in newspaper articles. Created by the individual who runs the website, CLEARLY a self-promotional WP:COI. There has already been discussion about this blog on RSN here: WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_345#Is_BlackCatholicMessenger.com_a_Reliable_Source? ---Avatar317(talk) 00:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose/keep: It has been said by some editors that BCM is an unreliable source, but as can be seen in the link above, no consensus was reached on that topic and the discussion was never closed or resolved; only a few editors participated, including myself and the creator of this deletion request. The claim that it is a "blog" seems arbitrary, in that light, apparently being stated because the publication is new, small, etc. (The site has many authors, is recognized by several media associations, and has received hundreds of thousands of views in the past year.)
Also, what makes the references to BCM in national news sources "minor"? One commenter above seems to imply that because the sources are Catholic, they are therefore not "major reporting" or "reputable". This is obviously false. Moreover, The Philadelphia Inquirer is literally the paper of record for that region and has cited BCM.
As I mentioned in the Reliable Source discussion, one wonders by what metric such a publication would receive the approbation of certain Wiki editors, since some of the criteria being put forward are hardly met by even the most respected sources available (an editor for the editor, fact-checkers for the fact-checker, etc). At what point does a new news publication, clearly defined and widely seen as such, become a news publication in the eyes of those outside of its sphere (namely, here on Wikipedia)? A certain amount of page views? A certain number of years operating? References and full-on features from outside of its content area?
Obviously most any African-American or Catholic publication would fail any number of these criteria, which are being implied as necessary by certain Wikipedia editors in this case. It seems like a bit of a catch-22. natemup (talk) 13:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem of course is how you define "in-depth": Is 43 words in-depth, but 37 words not? That is why it seems not well defined to me. I do not have time to incubate this myself, but if one of the editors of it wants to move back into draft space until it gets enough coverage, that would seem the ideal solution. If the number below of less than a thousand users is true, then would certainly go along with a verdict of not notable enough yet. W Nowicki (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 04:43, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in Anupama

List of characters in Anupama (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 main page already contains cast section, see Anupamaa#Cast which is similar to this page which mostly contains plot summary. MOS:TVCAST Princepratap1234 (talk) 07:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 04:43, 26 November 2021 (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. Per consensus. Lacks encyclopedia content. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 00:24, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Viparyaya

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

Fails WP:GNG, due to lack of significant independent coverage in general media. Given sources are dictionary or books on specialized fringe topics and only have passing mentions of the word. Violates WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Venkat TL (talk) 06:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: A copyright violation investigation has been launched on the articles by the creator at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20211117 and the creator has now been blocked. Venkat TL (talk) 17:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Can the nominator talk about the WP:BEFORE that was attempted on these topics, including reading some of the books that have been quoted as references? I find this a lazy nomination. When the nominator saysgeneral media what do they mean? You are less likely to see this topic in The Guardian, or in the Washington Post, but, has sufficient checks been done in some of the books relevant to the topic? Also, I do not follow what they are implying by bysources are dictionary or books on specialized fringe topics. Irrespective, I do not think that an article should be lazily nominated for an AfD sans thorough and detailed WP:BEFORE checks. Good luck. Ktin (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BEFORE was done and no source was found to justify a Wikipedia article. Your own searches seem to have ended up in similar manner, hence the comment on AfD nominator. The meaning of the green text is Viparyaya is an arcane term that is only found in some rare books on Hindu astrology (fringe theory) that are not considered reliable sources. (WP:FRINGE theory). The criteria of WP:GNG is not met when this word could only gather passing mentions in fringe theory books. Fringe Theory books are not considered a reliable source. Venkat TL (talk) 08:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    An assertion is being made above on sources (i.e. calling them 'Fringe Theory books' that is not being backed by any analysis. This sham of an AfD should be speedily closed. Ktin (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you truly believe this passes our notability criteria. Then what is stopping you from sharing sources that prove notability. Can't find any? Venkat TL (talk) 17:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 04:42, 26 November 2021 (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. SpinningSpark 20:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hampton Towne Centre

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

No evidence it was ever notable. The usual size when a mall is likely to have sources for notability is 1 million sq ft, but this mall had only one-third of that. Thus there are only local and first-party sourdces DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article seems to have okay coverage and could probably be improved. 1 million sq ft seems an arbitrary cutoff and the arguments for coverage being WP:ROUTINE are shaky at best. Pokemonprime (talk) 00:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROUTINE isn't my argument. SL93 (talk) 00:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can anyone tell me what makes shopping malls so special compared to other local companies? No one has told me yet and I can't find the information. For example, I created an article on a local restaurant with similar coverage, but it was deleted in AfD as non-notable. Do people just love shopping that much? It's a serious question because I can't find anything. SL93 (talk) 00:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, great, but I doubt that such local coverage would fly for any other company. I still see nothing beyond a personal opinion that shopping malls are superior to companies with similar coverage and discussion. SL93 (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dozens of AFDs closed as "keep" for the same level of coverage are a "personal opinion" to you, huh? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - with no notability guideline, a failed notability proposal, and a contradictory outcomes page. SL93 (talk) 00:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try it another way. How is another company, with similar coverage, insignificant compared to shopping malls? SL93 (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a question ultimately beyond the scope of this AFD. I'd say that it ultimately comes down to what the company is, and there seems to be some back and forth about this almost every time a mall gets nominated for deletion, but in the end, far more AFDs than not tend to lean "keep". I think by now it's best for both of us to just WP:STICK and let the AFD run its course. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I really am concerned for Wikipedia in general that I can't get a good answer for the above question based on there being apparent common outcomes. I think that the outcomes page is questionable in general - "Books are notable (and thus kept) if well-known, and should be listed under the author if not." So yeah, well-known, but significant coverage isn't mentioned - never in my years of book AfDs have I seen this outcome. I will let the AfD run its course, unless someone lies about my rationale again. SL93 (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TenPoundHammer's answer makes sense. Malls are different than most businesses in terms of scale. A comparison that makes sense is probably skyscrapers. They're of a scale that many of them are indeed notable. e.g. Millennium Tower (San Francisco)
However... this particular mall does not seem to be notable enough for inclusion just like your run of the mill skyscraper, which isn't special in any particular way, doesn't deserve an article. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 01:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment A shopping mall can be a major permanent (or semi-permanent) community facility. I've supported articles on many. I don't think the sources show that this one ever was. (It is one of those subject where it is particularly difficult to distinguish substantial sources from advertising, which can cause difficulties). DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do think that the sources added by User:Sammi Brie show further notability in how the mall was an early adopter of an innovation by Kmart, as well as an impact on downtown. This, combined with the murder at the Lerner store and the substantial coverage it got on purchase, should push it over the notability line (especially since it has spent most of the Internet era as a dead mall). This discussion seems like it's headed to a "no consensus" at worst, given the back and forth that has gone on way too long above. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll note the reason I haven't !voted is that this is a toughie. If this were in another metro area with a long-run newspaper in newspapers.com, I'd be a lot better off. Most of Michigan does not fall under that category (none of the Advance papers are represented in the modern era). I just have NewsBank, and not enough of it to cover the decline of this center. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 04:41, 26 November 2021 (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 Calderdale. SpinningSpark 21:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of arms of Calderdale

Coat of arms of Calderdale (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)

Total lack of notability. Fram (talk) 08:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I really don't see why this one is non-notable, when all these exist (as well as many, many more from all over the world). It serves no purpose to delete piecemeal. It needs a wider discussion as to whether such articles are notable or not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending a wider discussion about whether coats of arms for local authorities should have standalone articles, and how to incorporate them into the main article if they are not individually notable. I'm very surprised that someone as experienced as Fram thought that an AfD of a random member of a set of things was the right way to go, especially as the only remotely plausible outcomes are keep or merge. Thryduulf (talk) 11:28, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the contrary, I am amazed that you think this is how things are done here. There is no reason that all or no local authorities should have stand-alone articles on their coat of arms, that depends solely and purely on the notability of those coats of arms itself, as it does for nearly all other topics. The suggestion that some discussion (leadng to a SNG I suppose) must be had before an article from a certain topic can be nominated for deletion is absurd. Do you have any actual, policy based reason to keep this article, or can your comment be ignored as weightless opinion by whoever closes this? Fram (talk) 11:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      If you read what I actually wrote, you will see that I don't believe what you say I do. I think it should be discussed whether all, none or some local authorities should have standalone articles, what sources are useful for determining this, and if the answer is "some" or "none" then how best to merge the information into the target article - and indeed whether the best option is to merge to the local authority and/or to a list article. It is a waste of everybody's time to discus this individually several hundred times. The information about coats of arms is clearly sourced and significant in the context of both coats of arms (a notable topic) and the local authority (a notable topic) so it's clearly inappropriate to delete the information completely. When the only plausible outcomes are "keep" or "merge" then AfD is the wrong venue, and someone of your experience knows that. Thryduulf (talk) 13:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • First, can you stop with the personalizing comments (here and edit summaries). I read what you wrote, I disagree. The information about the coat of arms of Calderdale is not "significant in the context of both coats of arms (a notable topic)", it is just "a" coat of arms, and is not a significant entry or addition to the topic of "coat of arms". Is it significant for the local authority? Doubtful, not every aspect of a town, district, ... is a notable aspect and not every coat of arms is notable or significant for its locality. It may be that it is significant for this one, and in that case a merge may happen, but the certainty you display here doesn't seem warranted in such a way in any case. Contrary to what you claim, a "keep" based on actual policy merits is highly unlikely here, the result will be delete, redirect, or merge. But your comments so far have done nothing to get any closer to a solution, they only help to get the discussion longer and less constructive. As an oversighter and admin should surely know (see, two can play that game, doesn't help in any way though). Fram (talk) 13:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        I choose not to engage further as it's not clear to me that doing so will lead to comments relevant to the content being discussed here. Thryduulf (talk) 19:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Side comment. Looking at similar articles related to the North of England, this seems as notable as "Coat of arms of Lancaster University", established in 1964. By contrast, "Coat of arms of Middlesex" is a redirect for a section of Middlesex; and "Coat of arms of Northumberland" (and other counties) is a redirect for the article Armorial of county councils of England and its illustrated table. Mathsci (talk) 09:50, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't it just be merged with Calderdale if NN? Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 04:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hubert Sevenich

Hubert Sevenich (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 notability. Sources are an unreliable blog (Stuyfssportverhalen), a database, and one very short obituary and its reprint[14]. Fram (talk) 08:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I reviewed this yesterday. I think I may have been half asleep, and didn't notice the reprint of the one source I wasn't able to check. I did look through various newspaper archives just now as well and so far have found nothing, not even in German. ASUKITE 15:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The problem with these early cyclists, from the general timeframe of the 1890s until around WWI, even ones who won major races of the day like Sevenich, is the sources are not always the best. I admit Stuyfssportverhalen is a blog, but I have seen no evidence of its unreliability. André Stuyfesant is a Dutch journalist and when I have been able to check his sources they always check out. The obituary that cycling4fans mentions as its source for Sevenich's death is the contemporaneous gold standard for such information, especially for German cyclists and is only physically available, in specialized library stacks or state archives. Shearonink (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stuyfersant seems to be a very occasional journalist only, and his writing (with its many grammatical errors) doesn't really give confidence about this. Sevenich won a few races, none of which seem to be in any way "major" races at all though. Or do you have better evidence that the Grand Prix of Verviers was a major race? Or the "Frühlingspreis" in Dortmund (yes, there seems to be a somewhat notable horse race of the same name, and a more notable "Frühlingspreis" in Leipzig, and one in Breslau). I can't find any traces of these two races. Fram (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The early/pioneering cyclists don't always get the attention they deserved, the sources sadly are what they are, much of the news of that day has come down to 2021 somewhat ephemerally in form of casual mentions in contemporaneous newspaper columns or race programs, or even from written memories of past cyclists in "letters to the editor" written decades later. There might be more info hidden about Sevenich hidden away in crumbling archives but I can't get at much of that early stuff. If he's deemed not notable enough for a standalone article, well I've done the best I could. Shearonink (talk) 18:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 04:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A blog is a blog; unless the author is widely considered an expert on the topic we can't use it as a source or to show notability. Do we have evidence that contemporaneous SIGCOV actually does ever exist at this level of cycling, or are we just assuming it must have happened and is sequestered away in some local offline archive? JoelleJay (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2021 (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. SpinningSpark 21:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Julio E. Dávila

Julio E. Dávila (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 subject does not meet WP:BASIC. WP:BEFORE source searches for independent, reliable sources only provide short directory listings, such as in the 2008 Deseret Morning News Church Almanac consisting of two sentences (link). The remaining sources in the article are all primary sources, and do not establish notability, and the external link is not a reliable source per Wikipedia's standards. North America1000 09:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Delete This is similar to having articles on relatively unknown baseball players. Within the Latter Day Saint community, he is notable. I believe that there was a committee that was working on some ground rules for Latter Day Saints. @Rachel Helps (BYU): I feel like I remember you being on this committee systematizing this, but I can't remember what page I read it. Am I making this up? Epachamo (talk) 12:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Epachamo: The problem is that the subject is non-notable per Wikipedia's standards. Significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources is required, and from my extensive source searches, said required coverage does not appear to exist. Subjects that are notabile within the LDS community do not get a free pass for a Wikipedia article; they need to meet Wikipedia's standards. North America1000 07:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Northamerica1000: Look at this Wikipedia policy WP:NBASE. A person is presumed notable if they "Have served as a Major League Baseball umpire on a regular league staff." I would argue the same applies here. Being in the second quorum of the seventy is minor celebrity status in the LDS community and should be presumed notable. Epachamo (talk) 12:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Epachamo: You're entitled to your opinion, but your analysis is an entire synthesis of notability guidelines. First of all, Dávila is not a baseball player, and also, secondary notability guidelines such as WP:NBASE have been developed via consensus, rather than arbitrary opinion. North America1000 22:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Epachamo: Per that talk page discussion you link to directly above, I must object to your WP:CANVASSING of people to this discussion who may have a conflict of interest regarding notability standards and LDS related pages. It comes across that you are trying to get others to come along and !vote keep, but you are not pinging other users who may be for deletion. Also, that discussion has not been active since 13 September 2021, over two months ago. North America1000 10:32, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Northamerica1000:, Jgstokes is a fine editor who deserves a bit more respect. I seriously doubt he has a conflict of interest as you insinuate that would preclude him from contributing to this discussion in a meaningful way. It is ludicrous not to bring in a person who has been working on a policy that addresses this very issue. Epachamo (talk) 11:23, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry you feel that way, as no disrespect has been stated or implied on my part, nor is any intended whatsoever. Notice this excerpt from that talk page discussion, where it is stated,"we'd need to establish a standard of notability in these new guidelines that will be sufficient to support keeping those articles". The major premise there is for LDS-related articles to be kept as a sort of default, rather than basing notability upon present standards that most other topics must adhere to. A short thread on a talk page that only two users have contributed to, and has not been edited for over two months, is not a particularly active discussion; I don't notice any guidelines being developed regarding this matter as you state above. North America1000 11:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the plain fact of this matter is that this deletion discussion is based upon present guidelines, rather than some theoretical secondary notability guideline that is presently nonexistent. Sorry, but non-notable subjects do not receive a free pass for an article based upon a two-month old talk page discussion with two participants, nor do they from a synthesis of an unrelated secondary notability guideline regarding baseball players. North America1000 12:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point with the baseball umpires is that there is a rubric for determining notability. There is a precedent. Just as the act of being a major league baseball umpire is a notable enough act to warrant a wikipedia article, my argument is that the very act of being called as a general authority in the LDS Church is notable enough. There should be a rubric for Latter Day Saint articles just as there are for baseball themed articles, but there isn't. Before deleting articles that people have spent a lot of time and effort creating, it would be better to spend energy creating that notability rubric so that this deletion discussion doesn't get repeated on any number of pages. Various respected editors had been working on such a rubric. There is no urgency in deleting this article, nor harm done waiting for comment from Jgstokes on his progress. Epachamo (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-read the wikipedia guidelines and have humbly rescinded my previous recommendation. I now agree that this should be deleted. I have moved relevant information to article The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Colombia. Epachamo (talk) 11:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 04:38, 26 November 2021 (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 Horoscope#Angles. As the article is still unsourced there is nothing to merge, so this is a pure redirect. (non-admin closure) User:力 (powera, π, ν) 23:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Descendant (astrology)

Descendant (astrology) (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 unsourced article. No indication of importance. Salimfadhley (talk) 11:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

SailingInABathTub (talk) 17:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - These sources are all written by astrologers and therefore completely fail WP:INDEPENDENT. Their publishers are also closely affiliated to the subject (they're all occult/new age publishers), and have no reputation for fact checking at all. Now I think there's a good chance that this topic passes WP:GNG, but these are not the sources that will prove that (and certainly not sources that should actually be used in the article!). Apart from that, the fact that the current article is entirely unsourced should also be taken into account. I expect keep !voters to improve the article by citing at a least a few truly reliable (in this case, academic) sources. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment is illogical, who else do you expect to write books on astrology? Would an article on veterinary surgery sourced to a book about a veterinary surgery, written by a vet and published by a veterinary specific publisher also not be independent? I expect nominators to do a WP:BEFORE and add these very easy to find sources before wasting other editors time at AfD. SailingInABathTub (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and articles on physics should be sourced to physicists, and articles on Buddhism to Buddhist authors, and articles on Flat earth theories to flat-earth theorists, right? And articles on White supremacism should of course be sourced to ... white supremacists? Or wait, may be not! So what's the difference? Well, while physicists know about physics, Buddhists and flat-earth theorists believe in Buddhism and flat earth theory. Astrology, at least in its contemporary form, is a pseudoscientific belief system, not an established body of knowledge like veterinary science or physics. People who believe in things and write about these things from the belief's point of view (as opposed to from a disinterested point of view, like e.g. a historian of philosophy or religion) have a vested interest in them. From WP:INDEPENDENT:An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. Treating veterinary science and astrology as if they were on the same playing field effectively comes down to a WP:PROFRINGE position, which is seriously problematic. And then of course there's still the fact that these publishers, regardless of their lack of independence, have no reputation for fact checking, nor a system of editorial oversight (which should include some form of peer review at the very least). They're just not reliable, there's nothing for it. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC) Please note that I am not the nominator here. In fact, I did not even !vote (yet).[reply]
Attempting to point out a logical fallacy, that you still do not seem to understand, is not the same as the advocacy of a specific point of view. As is appropriate for an article on white supremacy, it cites many sources written by white supremacists (such as Lothrop Stoddard and Madison Grant). SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would you consider the likes of Lothrop Stoddard and Madison Grant as independent, reliable sources to base an article about white supremacism on, or not? If yes, that's WP:PROFRINGE, if not, then other sources would be needed to meet WP:GNG. Of course, White supremacy does cite other sources that are independent and reliable for its subject area. The fact that it also cites Madison and Grant as primary sources is irrelevant: we can cite astrologers here as well if appropriate (there's no requirement for primary sources to be independent), but they do not establish notability, because that does require independent sources. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC) I will also be very thankful if you refrain from commenting on my ability to understand logic. [reply]
While it is accepted that this article is pseudoscience, can you provide any evidence that it is a fringe theory? SailingInABathTub (talk) 22:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the issue here is NOTABILITY?
Unless special notability rules apply, then WP:GNG applies: Has this subject received significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources?
In this case we have not yet demonstrated any significant coverage. All the sources we have are fringe, in-universe, self-published or problematic in the ways that @Aaugasma has kindly explained. If we could first establish notability then we could use these flawed sources to reference what certain astrologers have said about their own field.
This is why the comparison to White supremacy breaks down: That subject has been extensively documented by mainstream, reliable sources. We could build an article using reliable sources alone - but having done so we have the option of using fringe sources to show the contrasting point of view, without a PROFRINGE false-neutrality.
Can we focus on the real question: Can we demonstrate using reliable sources that this subject meets our notability criteria? If we can show that reliable sources have discussed this topic then it's notable - regardless of whether we personally approve of the subject matter or not. Salimfadhley (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:Fringe makes a clear distinction between "notability" and "acceptance". Statements about the the _truth_ or science of astrology can not be sourced to be credulous astrologers, but the policy makes it clear that such sources are not disqualified from being reliable sources for determining the notability of the belief, and describing the details of the belief. ApLundell (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This misrepresents WP:NFRINGE. That guideline does in no way imply that our general notability guidelines, which ask forsignificant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, would not apply for fringe. On the contrary, it explicitly states thatthe notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents. What the 'Notability versus acceptance' section in WP:NFRINGE actually says is that the fact that a theory is not accepted should not itself be a reason to declare it non-notable. That's of course not to be reversed into the claim that all not-accepted theories are notable, just because they are mentioned in non-independent, unreliable sources. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I believe it is a gross misrepresentation of the GNG to imply that an expert in a subject is automatically non-independent of their chosen field. That is very clearly not what is meant by that passage of GNG. It seems like this flawed argument is only ever applied to FRINGE topics, so that's why I pointed out that it's specifically countered by the fringe policy. ApLundell (talk) 21:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 04:38, 26 November 2021 (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 House (astrology). There is near unanimity that a standalone article is inappropriate. The argument to merge is undercut by concerns with the content that currently exists. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:58, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative house

Derivative house (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 unsourced article. No indication of notability. Salimfadhley (talk) 11:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't strike it, but I acknowledge that ref #4 is self-published and therefore unreliable. SailingInABathTub (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with AleatoryPonderings that these sources, as having a vested interest in astrology as a belief system, are not independent and therefore cannot satisfy WP:GNG. A longer back-and-forth about this here. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:Fringe makes a clear distinction between "notability" and "acceptance". Statements about the the _truth_ or science of astrology can not be sourced to be credulous astrologers, but the policy makes it clear that such sources are not disqualified from being reliable sources for determining the notability of the belief, and describing the details of the belief. ApLundell (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This misrepresents WP:NFRINGE. That guideline does in no way imply that our general notability guidelines, which ask forsignificant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, would not apply for fringe. On the contrary, it explicitly states thatthe notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents. What the 'Notability versus acceptance' section in WP:NFRINGE actually says is that the fact that a theory is not accepted should not itself be a reason to declare it non-notable. That's of course not to be reversed into the claim that all not-accepted theories are notable, just because they are mentioned in non-independent, unreliable sources. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To merge....or redirect....or delete, that is the question.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 04:37, 26 November 2021 (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 Bishopsford Road Bridge. Clear consensus not to retain across delete, merge and redirect, so taking the redirect option per ATD. I've picked this target for no real reason beyond it had some support, as did other options. Note that any editor is welcome to re-target this redirect should they wish to. Daniel (talk) 10:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 718

London Buses route 718 (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 cannot see why this bus route is notable. Certainly not all bus routes in the great wen have an article, and I imagine that this is because bus routes are not inherently notable; as a temporary route, this one seems less notable than most. TheLongTone (talk) 15:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 04:34, 26 November 2021 (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 13:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vision: Science to Applications

Vision: Science to Applications (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 subdivision of York University; fails WP:NORG. Article in its current state is mostly WP:SPAM written by someone claiming to be affiliated with the school (who has been blocked for sockpuppetry), so I highly doubt any of the claims about the major significance of this program in the academic world are true. 2/3 of the listed sources are affiliated with the university. The first one is merely a announcement of a grant to York to establish this program. Also see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, that minor subdivisions of a university are usually non-notable unless they're highly significant in their field. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 04:28, 26 November 2021 (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 05:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Freddy Bastone

Freddy Bastone (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 found no significant coverage. The sources in the article are unreliable. SL93 (talk) 03:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 05:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ex parte Barton

Ex parte Barton (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)

Legal case fails WP:GNG. No secondary sources, other similar named cases actually seem more notable than this one. Mako001 (talk) 03:36, 26 November 2021 (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 05:49, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Herschman

Adam Herschman (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 actor with mostly minor roles. The article is only referenced to IMDb. SL93 (talk) 03:31, 26 November 2021 (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 13:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial Vehicle Group

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

Appears to fail WP:NCORP. Very little coverage of any kind outside of PR Newswire and other press release websites, article currently has zero citations. always forever (talk) 06:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hi everyone, I am a marketing intern for CVG. I was unaware of our page not upholding guidelines. I would like to request it not be deleted so I may have some time to improve it to standard. I am currently working on collecting articles, references, and more information to improve this page. I would greatly appreciate your help, but understand if it is not possible. Thank you so much, --MarketingInternCVGRP (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MarketingInternCVGRP: Please do not forget to disclose your COI. And I'm also not sure if your vote counts because you are associated with the subject. Waddles Gobbles 🍂 🦃 03:58, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The user was blocked. SL93 (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 03:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ruben Kosemyan

Ruben Kosemyan (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)

Advertorialized WP:AUTOBIO of a musician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. As always, notability for Wikipedia purposes is not a question of the things the article says, but of the depth and quality of the referencing that can be shown to independently verify that the things it says are actually accurate -- and while this says things about his career that would probably be valid notability claims if it were sourced properly, it fails to reference them to any independent third party coverage in real reliable sources, and instead goes for a mix of YouTube performance videos, Facebook and Meetup posts, the self-published websites of organizations or orchestras he's been directly affiliated with, and improperly licensed photographs of his own CD booklets and other primary source documents just plopped directly into body text in a wildly inappropriate and unacceptable manner -- absolutely none of which is reliable or notability-supporting sourcing at all.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this, and even if the article can be salvaged it still absolutely isn't allowed to be formatted this way. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 03:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LivelyRatification (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of grassroots political engagement groups in Australia

List of grassroots political engagement groups in Australia (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 seems unnecessary to me. The title seems a bit potentially POV (who's to say these groups are grassroots?) and most of the "list" sources (when there are sources at all) seem to be primary sources citing random websites from these organisations. I feel this article might be better off either being deleted or refocused to be an article on the Voices movement, since the list of all the groups doesn't seem needed. LivelyRatification (talk) 02:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose keep I am open to changing the title, that was the best I could come up with when creating the page. Possibly "Voices" movement in Australia? However the page itself is definitely worthy of a page.
  • The group is attracting major press, and is causing the ruling Liberal party a lot of problems politically
  • Many of the groups would be worthy of a page in their own right, and as an amalgam they are a major force in politics today, possibly behind only Labor, Liberal and Greens
  • These groups have provided 4 MPs to parliament in 3 seats, and there is the potential for many more
  • There is even more press that I was going to include, which is the attention that the Liberal party is giving these groups in trying to discredit them
Again I am open to suggestions as to how to improve the page, but this is as worthy for a page as any minor party Playlet (talk) 07:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Playlet: My main concern here is the list. In what way are all these various "Voices" movements connected? A lot of these "movements" seem to be nothing more than websites and Facebook pages, if they even end up running or endorsing candidates at all. Certainly a number of these groups could be independently notable, Voices for Indi has its own article, but not all of them are created equal, and the title is so broad that it could potentially incorporate a number of other groups.
I don't really disagree with any of your points, but I think this article would be better without the list aspect, hence why I nominated the article for deletion - certainly, from what I know, there has been a connection drawn between the Voices movements' success in Indi and Warringah and the rise of copycat groups in other predominately Liberal electorates, but I think the article should focus less on listing them all and simply noting some of the most notable. --LivelyRatification (talk) 00:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We are agreed then. The groups are not really connected, but it is part of a broader movement that is definitely notable, but the page should probably be more focused on the movement rather than as a list. There is also room for more pages for individual groups such as Warringah, North Sydney, Goldstein and others, but this does not take away the need for the main page that focuses on the movement as a whole. I will look in to fixing this and perhaps starting some of those other pages for individual groups.Playlet (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just a humble note of acknowledgement, some of you have been at this longer than me, perhaps this is just your preferred way of doing things and don't allow my comment to detract from that. With respect, --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Goldsztajn: Thanks for the reminder – I probably shouldn't be !voting at nearly midnight! ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 21:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @ClaudineChionh: The whole point of the movement is not to be a political party, but rather a network of grassroots organisations. It does not fit the paradigm of politics as it has been done in Australia until now, but the movement has definitely had successes and is getting quite a lot of press (more than many minor parties)Playlet (talk) 14:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Playlet: that's what I thought initially, but there was the mention of a move to register a party – which I take to be a compromise to improve recognition and support for the movement at a senate election. I think I am leaning towards a prose article being more valuable than a list, but I'm hesitant to delete any election-related article when the next election could be called any minute now. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 21:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ClaudineChionh: Agreed. I have been thinking of filling in out a bit more, so that the list is only part of a larger article. There is now information about the Liberal attacks on the groups and their funders and some other bits. My understanding was there was a group who wanted to be a roof party over the top of all the groups, but the groups rejected that model to remain independent. Playlet (talk) 06:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ClaudineChionh: I have reworked the page and added a lot of information so that it is now more an article than a list. The only question is what the new title should be? Possibly 'Voices movement' or 'Voices groups in Australia'. What would you suggest? Playlet (talk) 04:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I have been away from wikipedia editing for several years, and AfD discussions. There is a movement here, with noteable mainstream media coverage which primarily focuses on just a small selection of groups in this movement. I actually think providing a list of 'Voice of' groups gives essential value to this article, and most of these have been adequately cited, although many of these groups in themselves are not yet noteable. I am Open to changing the title to more accurately reflect the content. Takver (talk) 14:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The growth in independents (McGowan, Haines, Steggall) winning previously considered "safe" seats is notable. However I agree with the nominator that the "grassroots" title is inappropriate. I endorse the new title "Voices groups in Australia" as a much better alternative. Chrisclear (talk) 13:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @LivelyRatification: Now that Playlet has moved the list to the Voices groups in Australia article, are you happy for me to CLOSE this discussion or do you want an uninvolved editor to close it? ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 22:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ClaudineChionh: I am happy for this to be closed. --LivelyRatification (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@LivelyRatification: just realised I probably shouldn't close this as I !voted above – best would be for you to withdraw your nomination. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 00:29, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 05:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aromanians in Kosovo

Aromanians in Kosovo (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/WP:V. The only source is a primary account asserting that some Vlachs lived in some cities that are now part of Kosovo, but at the time were part of the Ottoman Empire. The Wikipedia article without a source asserts that "Aromanians/Vlachs" are "extinct" in present-day Kosovo—in other words that the article topic does not exist. (t · c) buidhe 02:07, 26 November 2021 (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) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SpaceX Starship development

SpaceX Starship development (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)

Well, there's a ton of explaining need for deleting a C-Class article...

So, I think that this article should be deleted, not merged in my opinion, because:

  1. It contains excessive fancruft. Sources here are very low quality (fan websites, @elonmusk tweets, etc.), and almost unreadable to a normal reader;
  2. There is a better version of the article which is shorter, more perfected, and better written, which is here;
  3. This article isn't easily improve by any means, because of the amount of cruft and volume; and
  4. Dispersing efforts to two separate article is not ideal at all.

Thoughts? Here's an old discussion about merging two articles together, here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:02, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:54, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. This material is notable. It was originally the "development" section of the main SpaceX Starship article. The reason this it was separated it precisely because it was lengthy and detailed. The new "developnent" section in the main article can be trimmed further and some material can be moved here. The problem is that Starship is still under rapid development, so what is happening today seems to be much more relevant to the main article that what happened five years ago. But five year hence, this new stuff will look like more boring cruft in the main article. As an encyclopedia, the main article should evolve into a stable coherent description of the evolved system suitable for a general reader, but the history should be available with all its gory details here in this article. That said, this article has not been improved much since it was hacked out of the main article, so it needs attention. -Arch dude (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. As per Arch dude above. Yes there is a lot of fancruft, but Starship has potential to radically change our space abilities and if that happens we may well want to keep details of the development which will in future be a different perspective than the Starship article concentrating on the future current situation. C-randles (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a source of information for a lot of people and if the information in this article is not here anymore, Wikipedia won't be complete. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 19:52, 26 November 2021 (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 05:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oceanus Waterfront Mall

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

Fails WP:ORG. Unreferenced and looking like an WP:ADVERT. I could only find routine coverage for this shopping centre rather than indepth. LibStar (talk) 01:43, 26 November 2021 (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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Waddles Gobbles 🍂 🦃 03:55, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Ugly Duckling and Me!

The Ugly Duckling and Me! (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 film. Dronebogus (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2021 (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 Florida Basketball Association. ✗plicit 13:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Lauderdale Herd BC

Fort Lauderdale Herd BC (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. Bbb23 (talk) 14:30, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2021-06✍️ create
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bbb23 (talk) 00:17, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

National Basketball League – US (2020–present)

National Basketball League – US (2020–present) (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. Bbb23 (talk) 14:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2021-06✍️ create
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bbb23 (talk) 00:17, 26 November 2021 (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. Once I discard a number of !votes which are policy-inferior, if not policy-deficient altogether, this debate is closer than it may appear on the face of it. Deliberately closing as 'no consensus' as this can be renominated in the near future, with this outcome not being prejudicial to that occurring. Daniel (talk) 02:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Occupational Health Science (journal)

Occupational Health Science (journal) (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 PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Article creation likely WP:TOOSOON." Article de-PRODded because article creator object (on article talk page). However, none of the arguments given are policy-based and PROD reason still stands. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 09:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 09:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 09:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The journal Occupational Health Science (OHES) should not be deleted. This peer-reviewed journal has been in existence for five years. Recently administrators at the American Psychological Association's PsycInfo indexing group decided to include in this preeminent psychology index articles the journal publishes. It took a couple of years for the journal to be recognized by APA's PsycInfo, and now it is. OHES has become an important outlet for papers associated with the field of occupational health psychology (OHP). The other main OHP outlets are Work & Stress and the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. OHES covers work-related physical and mental health, particularly in relation to psychosocial working conditions. OHES also covers job stress, workplace safety, and accidents. From the editor-in-chief through to the associate edtors and the editorial board, the figures who shape the journal are researchers with expertise in working conditions, job stress, safety, burnout, work-related, financial strain, etc.
Here some examples of articles that were recently accepted for publication: Musculoskeletal Health and Perceived Work Ability in a Manufacturing Workforce; Effects of Social and Occupational Stress, and Physical Strain on Suicidal Ideation Among Law Enforcement Officers; Job Insecurity during an Economic Crisis: the Psychological Consequences of Widespread Corporate Cost-Cutting Announcements. Respected researchers are the authors. The journal has become too notable to be threatened with deletion. Iss246 (talk) 19:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eyeballing citation numbers in google scholar, it appears to fulfill criteria 2 of WP:NJOURNALS in that there are a lot of articles getting cited in double figures. h-index is for authors, not for journals. I can't find an impact factor rating for the journal, which is what we'd really need.OsFish (talk) 07:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The creation of a page dedicated to the journal Occupational Health Science is important. The journal is now well-indexed (e.g., in PsycINFO). The publisher is a highly recognized scientific publisher. The Editor-in-Chief is a remarkable occupational health researcher. Many great figures of occupational health science have already published articles there. The journal applies high standards for research quality, which is a key concern for OHP researchers and practitioners. Ohpres (talk) 12:51, 28 November 2021 (UTC) Note that this editor was canvassed on their talk page.[reply]
  • Comment There should be a defacto rule for all major scientific journals to be included in the articlespace, as I believe there is one. I don't see any issues with this subject being included in the articlespace. Multi7001 (talk) 03:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: AS a close will probably be done soon, a few final remarks. To start with, this debate suffered from significant canvassing. However, that can be safely ignored, because the "keep" !votes of these editors were not policy-based but obvious WP:ILIKEIT. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, so whether or not authors/editors/publishers are notable is moot. Also irrelevant is our personal evaluation of the quality of the journal. To conclude that it is high quality, we need independent sources and PsycINFO is not the kind of selective database that NJournals requires. In addition, Headbomb has clearly shown that a single researcher with the citation record of this whole journal would not be judged to meet WP:ACADEMIC. Finally, Multi7001 seems to argue that we should throw away all notions of notability "for all major scientific journals", where apparently it is left to editor discretion to judge what is "major" or not. In short, the only policy-based arguments come from Headbomb, who proposes merging to the article on the society, which I think is an acceptable solution. --Randykitty (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Randykitty, there actually is a defacto rule for very few types of subjects deemed as authority figures based on common knowledge, such as academic and scientific entities. In this regard, the academic journal is published by Springer and may fall under similar regard; as for example with these two journals: Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology and Child Psychiatry & Human Development. In my opinion, the subject should have its own page in the articlespace and not per any conflicts with notability. Multi7001 (talk) 00:49, 3 December 2021 (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/2021_November_26&oldid=1059219165"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 November 26, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.