Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 8

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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Wenvoe Arms

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

PROD was removed. Article is about a non-notable public house. It's not a listed heritage building or particularly remarkable in any way. Two of the three sources (Barry: The Centenary Book and R3D2 Lives in Preston) are brief mentions about another pub of the same name, in Cadoxton, a few miles to the west. The third appears to be about something else that was near the pub. I can't find any significant news articles or book sources about the pub. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit - actually the source about the malt house is also about the former Cadoxton pub
Being passing mentions, the sources wouldn't make any pub notable. Sionk (talk) 19:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note for future ref - The Wenvoe Arms in Cadoxton was renamed to The Admiral, and closed.[1][2] ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 03:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Domen Makuc

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy keep as the nominator is a confirmed blocked sockpuppet ‎. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RapidBlocs

RapidBlocs (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)

Nothing to establish notability. Only two sources, which are external links in the article, actually cover it. It has a mere name-drop in the other sources which document it. Interestingly, it was a candidate for speedy deletion but was remade again. Ominateu (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enzo Celli

Enzo Celli (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)

tried to find some sourcing, but i could only find minor mentions in some news and books about dancing. fails notability. She was afairy 21:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am uncertain about the page's likelihood of survival, given that it only cites two sources. This raises a question about the origin of the remaining information. How was the rest of the content developed, and what are the sources for that information? 149.172.122.230 (talk) 10:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Insufficient references and citations, to show notability. Mevoelo (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pou (video game)

Pou (video game) (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 definitely don't believe this passes WP:GNG. Most of the sources used are completely unreliable just from a single glance, and I can't find anything reliable covering it apart from a review by Engadget. Jurta talk/he/they 23:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Depend, Despite of being a popular mobile game, the article has a lack of reliable sources, but I found some sources such as [1] and [2] NatwonTSG2 (talk) 04:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: PROD'd in 2014, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – Mobile game with more than 500 million downloads [7]. [8]. The article needs improvements, but passes on WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 10:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Though searches such as "Pou video game" do not yield many results, I have found enough reputable sources, including large newspapers, reporting on the game and its revitalization of the "Tamagotchi clone genre" by looking up "Pou app" to pass WP:GNG. [9][10][11][12][13]. User:RayanWP — Preceding undated comment added 11:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:GNG. As a Brazilian, I confirm TecMundo, TechTudo and TudoCelular are reliable sources. Skyshiftertalk 22:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not seeing the sources required to pass WP:GNG. Engadget "review" has a lot of words and sentences but is more of an angry rant that touches upon most trivial things that unsettled the "reviewer" and says nothing about the game besides like 2-3 sentences at most. The fact it has 500 million downloads is utterly meaningless in terms of Wikipedia notability. Wamda's source is good on paper but "Wamda accelerates entrepreneurship ecosystems across the Middle East and North Africa region through its sector-agnostic investment vehicle, Wamda Capital, which invests in high-growth technology and tech-enabled startups", so it's not an independent source. Tecmundo's source in the article is literally a guide of how to install Pou on an emulator! And Tudocelular is a short mention of the download milestone (+ a press release feature copy at the end). My searches haven't brought anything besides directories, press releases, game guides or listings. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unfortunately a mix of professed popularity and amassing a large assortment of trivial coverage isn't enough, as paradoxical and frustrating as that may be. Let's put the Engadget aside as I recognise that's significant coverage from a reliable source. What else? There's not much of a focus on the content of the sources that are claimed to assert notability. The coverage is seldom significant and has little to evaluate or review. The best three sources that seem to be relable surely should be of a better calibre of Mindelheimer Zeitung article, whose evaluation extends as far as calling it "downright addictive", Focus, that says little other than "users can dress their Pou individually with hats, glasses and wigs", or Berliner Morgenpost, that says nothing about the game other than that it is "funny"? The significant coverage that does exist is dubious: the fawning Wamda article is written by the former editor of a oblique private sector 'thought leader' website whose stated purpose is clearly to elevate entrepreneurship like that of the game's creator, and it is genuinely difficult to gauge any editorial process here given they openly invite pitches and contributions. The other mix of blogs and press release coverage neither has significant coverage or reliability. You can definitely amass a very loose description about the game from all of these sources, but you can't reliably tell from all of these sources how the game was made as nobody reliably discussed it, and you can't reliably say how it was received because there's no reviews. So it fails general notability on the sources available. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 06:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cea Serin

Cea Serin (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 was PRODded back a few years ago, and User:Guy1890 dePRODded, saying there was enough verified information--well, there wasn't then, and there isn't know. No properly verified information and the GNG isn't passed, no records with a notable record company, no hit singles, none of them are dating Travis Kelce--this is just a non-notable band. Drmies (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Common Shiner (band)

Common Shiner (band) (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 about a band, not properly sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The main notability claim being attempted here is minor local music awards that don't pass WP:NMUSIC #8 -- that's looking for major national awards on the order of the Grammys, not just any small-fry music award that exists -- but otherwise this is on the level of "band who exist(ed)". The sourcing, meanwhile, is not establishing that they would pass WP:GNG: two of the four footnotes are to their own self-published EPK on SonicBids, one is to a (deadlinked) Q&A interview in which they're talking about themselves in the first person on a non-notable and unreliable blog, and the last is a (deadlinked) piece of "local band tries to make it" in the local newspaper of their own hometown, which is not enough to singlehandedly vault them over the notability bar all by itself if it's the only piece of acceptable third-party coverage they have.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to have a lot more and better coverage than this, and the article has been tagged for notability concerns since 2016 without improvement. Bearcat (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd in 2007 so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shield Media

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NCORP, with all the sources merely covering routine business transactions. Let'srun (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Cook Family Singers

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

Another bit of spam designed to promote David L. Cook. Non notable group. The current dishonest sourcing (a google books search claiming to be a Who's Who) does not show any notability for this group. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hubert Trenkwalder

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

Subject fails WP:MUSICBIO; I could not find significant coverage in independent, reliable sources and much of what's provided here fails SPS, so there is no argument for GNG. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, as author. Enough sources provided and he made quite a list of albums as leader of his band. The Banner talk 23:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 14:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2018 WSF Championship

2018 WSF Championship (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 evidence that this championship was notable; almost all citations come from the league itself. Efforts to redirect this have failed. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are any of those URLs reliable sources? I don't think that they are. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fwiw, the first link is that of the Governing body. SnookerHQ is generally deemed as a RS. I don't think Inside the Game is. I don't have any opinions on the other links. My issue isn't that the result wasn't covered (it will have been), it's whether it's WP:ROUTINE or if it's simply just stating who won, which could be summarised in the series article. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Friedl

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

Subject fails MUSICBIO and GNG. Of the citations provided, many fail SPS. Of the others, they are mere mentions or are interviews which are not independent. What I found in BEFORE is more of same. Efforts to redirect this have failed. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as Soft Deletion is not an option. It would be great if the new content added to the article was assessed. Is there a possible ATD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as, again, Soft Deletion is not a possibility. Could we get a few more editors to consider the Redirect proposed or other options?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to List of Latin phrases (U). Editors are free to Merge content to other articles as long as attribution is given. Liz Read! Talk! 21:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra posse nemo obligatur

Ultra posse nemo obligatur (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)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary ComputerUserUser (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 8. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 23:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge somewhere. Do we not have a list of law Latin phrases? BD2412 T 00:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We have a List of Latin phrases (U) that would be appropriate. I'll add a !vote now. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a poor article, but a merge to Impossibility (which is about the concept in contract law, not ontology) or some other law-related article seems appropriate. Cnilep (talk) 02:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Latin legal terms per above and per our policy about words as subjects. I've blocked the nominator for incompetence and general inflexibility, as shown in the nomination statement. Graham87 (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies GNG easily and by a wide margin. There are numerous entire book chapters and entire periodical articles on this. A legal maxim such as "ad impossibilia nemo tenetur" or "nemo tenetur ad impossibilia" is a rule of law (ie the command of a sovereign which is reinforced by a sanction), and is not "just a phrase", so NOTDICTIONARY and WORDISSUBJECT are simply not relevant. This maxim is just a restatement of the rule that a person is not legally obliged to do the impossible. This particular rule certainly satisfies GNG, as you can see from the chapter Broome's Legal Maxims [22], who formulates the maxim as "Lex non cogit ad impossibilia", the articles in Trayner's Scottish Legal Maxims [23] [24], this periodical article in the Canadian Law Times [25], this Italian article which has it as "ad impossibilia nemo tenetur" [26], this article which has it as "impossibilium nulla obligatio est" [27], this chapter in Zimmerman [28], this chapter in Black [29] and from the many, many, many, many, many other sources which discuss this rule and concept in immense detail. It might be appropriate to move the page to another name for the maxim or concept, whether in Latin or English. This should not be merged unless there actually is another article covering this concept directly, which I cannot find. Impossibility is presently about contract law, whereas the maxim has a wider scope. The maxim applies, for example, to statutory construction and criminal law [30] and prerogative orders (Broome) and evidence [31]. In English law the maxim "Lex non cogit ad impossibilia" seems to have existed long before Taylor v Caldwell in 1863 (which is the date given in Impossibility), and is included in Coke on Littleton [32] and Coke's Reports [33] in the 17th century. This article should not be merged with the article presently located at the page name Impossibility. As far as I can tell, the article Impossibility is about the doctrine of impossibility of performance in contract law. Although the doctrine of impossibility of performance in contract law appears to be an application of the maxim "lex non cogit ad impossibilia" [34], the contract law doctrine is not identical to the maxim (which also has other applications), and the contract law doctrine is idependently notable of the maxim, which is the parent topic of the contract law doctrine. The contract law doctrine satisfies GNG, and is the subject of entire books [35], entire chapters of many other books in Google Books, and many entire periodical articles in HeinOnline eg [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] amongst others. As the contract law doctrine is independently notable, we should not repurpose Impossibility to include material other than the contract law doctrine. Indeed there is so much coverage of both the maxim and the contract law doctrine that we could not possibly fit both topics into the same article. (The article would either become WP:TOOBIG or would omit necessary information in violation of PRESERVE). Indeed there is so much coverage of the contract law doctrine that there can be no doubt we will have to WP:SPLIT its article at some point. It might be appropriate to move Impossibility to eg Impossibility in contract law or Impossibility of performance or Doctrine of impossibility of performance or the like. It is not obvious whether "impossibility" is the common name either (WP:COMMONNAME). It is not obvious whether "impossibility as a legal excuse" is the primary topic for "impossibility" (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). It would not be surprising if impossibility per se was a notable topic in science, mathematics, philosophy or the like. There do seem to be a lot of philosophy sources for logical, nomological, metaphysical, physical, alethic and epistemic impossibility, for example. Likewise for mathematical impossibility: [44]. James500 (talk) 04:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It might be possible to move this page to Impossibility (law). It would be impossible to merge this page to any existing Wikipedia article, because there is no existing article that could serve as a merger target. James500 (talk) 02:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. Clearly more than a dictionary definition, though it could be explained more clearly than it currently is. P Aculeius (talk) 13:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Latin phrases (U) which will then be transcluded into List of Latin phrases (full). The phrase is in the list but the notes field is blank and may be updated with information from this page. I think it is not just a legal term, so this is the best target, but note that the information may also be copied to List of Latin legal terms using the same format as in the other list. It currently has no entry in that latter list. I note Graham87 suggests the latter list as the merge target. To be clear, if it achieves consensus, I would be fine with that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the list of terms, as suggested, or Impracticability under the law, of which this is a fork. Bearian (talk) 18:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not a fork of impracticability. Impossibility and impracticability are absolutely not the same thing in English law. England does not have the Uniform Commercial Code, and English law should not be viewed through the POV lens of the UCC's attempt to abolish "impossibility" as a separate test in contract law. English law has largely resisted allowing impracticability as an excuse for non-performance of contract at all. See Downes, Textbook on Contract, 4th Edition, p 302. I suspect the same may be true of other commonwealth countries. As far as I am aware, impossibility and impracticability were not originally the same thing in American contract law, and I do not see any evidence that they are even now the same thing in American criminal law, or the American law of statutory interpretation, etc. I do not see any evidence of any criminal defence of "impracticability", any presumption of statutory interpretation against "impracticability", any rule that "impracticability" is an excuse for disobeying an order of mandamus, or so on, anywhere in the world. James500 (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Metro Retail Stores Group

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

Subject fails NCORP. The citations provided all re-state the subject's press releases. My BEFORE search revealed more of same. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Subject does not pass WP:NCORP. It is currently WP:PROMOTION produced by a likely confirmed COI editor, so prompt deletion may be a good idea.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already the subject of an AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metro Retail Stores Group Inc.) so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: Could you please explain your apparent CANVASSing for inclusionists? Chris Troutman (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Informing all of the previous AfD's participants about the current AfD is good practice and does not violate the canvassing guideline. Cunard (talk) 09:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations says: Sources
    1. Analyst reports:
      1. "Metro Retail Stores Group Inc (MRSGI) - Financial and Strategic SWOT Analysis Review". GlobalData. December 2023. Archived from the original on 2024-03-03. Retrieved 2024-03-03 – via Research and Markets.

        Here are some sections of the 32-page report:

        1. METRO Retail Stores Group Inc - Corporate Strategy
        2. METRO Retail Stores Group Inc - SWOT Analysis
        3. SWOT Analysis - Overview
        4. METRO Retail Stores Group Inc - Strengths
        5. METRO Retail Stores Group Inc - Weaknesses
        6. METRO Retail Stores Group Inc - Opportunities
        7. METRO Retail Stores Group Inc - Threats
        8. METRO Retail Stores Group Inc - Key Competitors
      2. Cheng, Justin Richmond (2020-05-19). "Metro Retail Stores Group, Inc. 1Q20 Operating Income Below Estimates". COL Financial. Archived from the original on 2024-03-03. Retrieved 2024-03-03.

        The analyst report notes: "MRSGI’s 1Q20 sales grew 9.9% y/y to Php8.5Bil. This is in line with estimates accounting for 21.7% and 21.3% of COL and consensus forecasts, respectively. The company recorded a blended same-store-sales growth of 3% during the period. Sales growth was mainly driven by the strong performance of food retail sales (+19%). Demand for grocery-related products significantly increased after the implementation of the enhanced community quarantine in Luzon and other areas by mid-March. However, this also disrupted the sales and operations of MRSGI’s general merchandise business (-11%). Management decided to close all of its department stores, even those outside Luzon, to support the government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Geographically, around 35-40% MRSGI’s sales comes from Luzon, while the balance is from stores in Visayas."

        The analyst report notes: "Metro Retail Stores Group, Inc. (MRSGI) is one of the leading retailers in the Philippines with a market leading position in the Visayas and a growing presence in Luzon. The company is predominantly a supermarket and department store operator. As of 1H15, supermarkets were the largest contributor to sales, accounting for 49% of total net sales. However, its hypermarket format has been the fastest growing segment since being launched in 2011. Hypermarkets now account for 19% of total net sales. MRSGI’s supermarket segment includes supermarkets under the Metro Supermarket brand and neighborhood stores under the Metro Fresh N Easy brand. It also operates department stores under the Metro Department Store brand and hypermarkets under the Super Metro brand."

      3. Tan, April Lynn (2019-04-15). "Consumer Sector: Consumer companies to benefit from lower inflation" (PDF). COL Financial. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2024-03-03. Retrieved 2024-03-03.

        The analyst report notes: "Metro Retail Stores Group, Inc. (MRSGI). MRSGI is one of the biggest retailers in the Philippines with a market leading position in the Visayas through its Metro branded supermarkets, hypermarket and department stores. MRSGI’s core earnings should start normalizing in 2019 after falling in 2018 due to the fire incident in January which led to the closure of its flagship store in Metro Ayala Cebu. Note that the supermarket already reopened in December of last year while its department store is scheduled to reopen soon. Moreover, the company has successfully addressed issues which hampered the expansion of its retail foot print in the past, allowing it to open eight new stores in 2019 from only seven during the past three year. Finally, valuations are very attractive with the stock trading at only 13.5X 2019 P/E. This is despite our expectation that profits would grow by a compounded annual growth rate of 21% over the next five years."

      4. "Retail Market in the Philippines Growth, Size, Trends, Analysis Report by Type, Application, Region and Segment Forecast 2022-2026". Technavio. January 2022. Archived from the original on 2024-03-03. Retrieved 2024-03-03.

        The 120-page analyst report notes: "The report analyzes the market's competitive landscape and offers information on several market vendors, including: ... Metro Retail Stores Group Inc. ..."

    2. Newspaper articles:
      1. Dumlao-Abadilla, Doris (2015-11-23). "Metro Retail: New play on the trading block". Philippine Daily Inquirer. Archived from the original on 2024-03-03. Retrieved 2024-03-03.

        The article notes: "“I think their knowledge and experience in the Visayas area set them apart. Branding and location as well—they are not something that any new player can copy,” says April Lee-Tan, head of research at leading online stock brokerage COL Financial. “I think the fact that they are able to survive in [Metro Manila] despite the more competitive environment also shows that they are not going to be a push over to the other big boys.”"

      2. "Metro Retail Stores marks corporate milestone with IPO". The Philippine Star. 2015-11-06. Archived from the original on 2024-03-03. Retrieved 2024-03-03.

        The article notes: "Metro, which is the retail arm of Cebu-based Vicsal Development Corporation, operates 45 multi-format stores in key areas in the Visayas, Central Luzon, National Capital Region, Calabarzon, and the Bicol region. According to a 2014 Euromonitor report, Metro is the largest department store and hypermarket operator in the Visayas, and the second-largest supermarket operator in terms of retail sales value."

      3. Austria, Jenniffer B. (2015-10-15). "Gaisanos finalizing IPO plan". Manila Standard Today. Archived from the original on 2024-03-03. Retrieved 2024-03-03.

        The article notes: "Metro Retail stores have steadily grown to become a market leader in the Visayas after the opening the first outlet in Cebu City in 1982. As of June 30, 2015, Metro Retail had a portfolio of 45 stores, with nine in Metro Manila, 10 in Luzon and 26 in Visayas, with a total net selling space of approximately 197,873 square meters. According to Euromonitor, the company was the third largest supermarket operator, the third largest department store owner and the fourth largest hypermarket operator in the Philippines in terms of retail value sales in 2014."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Metro Retail Stores Group to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A review of new sources found would be helpful to whomever closes this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of TCR Series champions

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

Do we need another list of champions when these lists about championships all have their own listing, thus making this completely unnecessary. Unnecessary WP:FANCRUFT list that is only good for the most obsessive motorsport fans, also WP:LC and WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies. Also, not notable enough to pass WP:LISTN, in fact fails all requirements. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's try one more relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Simonson (mountaineer)

Eric Simonson (mountaineer) (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 widespread coverage in secondary sources for this subject at all. A short momentary period of coverage for the discovery of Mallory's body on Everest, but very little more than that somewhat short-lived event. GuardianH (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jfire (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Uzbekistan women's international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 22:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dildora Nozimova

Dildora Nozimova (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)

Redirect to List of Uzbekistan women's international footballers as I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions (2017, 2018, 2019, 2021, 2023, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Uzbekistan women's international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 22:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dilnoza Bektemirova

Dilnoza Bektemirova (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)

Redirect to List of Uzbekistan women's international footballers as I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions (2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2023, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andreja Vidić

Andreja Vidić (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 am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a Montenegrin women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG. All I found were passing mentions (2013, 2014, 2015, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert C. Bush Jr.

Robert C. Bush 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)

Fails WP:GNG. Cited to database entries and non-independent coverage (PR and interviews). ~ A412 talk! 20:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Modacity

Modacity (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 company doesn't seem notable because it doesn't have enough coverage from independent sources. The sources found so far only briefly mention it, and checking WP:BEFORE shows the same pattern of passing mentions, photo credits, or sources published by its founder. This suggests it doesn't meet the criteria in WP:CORPDEPTH. GSS 💬 19:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. czar 19:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Partha Pratim Bora

Partha Pratim Bora (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 politician failed WP:NPOL, also WP:GNG. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a compelling reason for it be speedily deleted. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. czar 19:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chetan P. U. Science College

Chetan P. U. Science College (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)

Cannot find anything notable about the College. Newhaven lad (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried, too. Couldn't agree more. This College is not notable, and it should be deleted, WIKIPEDA (yes i meant to misspell it) (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. czar 19:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New York City Administrative Code

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG for a standalone article. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Government of New York City: The only sources that I can find for this topic were primary sources; however, the administrative code should at least be mentioned in the governmental article.
    Keep per the good analysis by James500 below. I didn't see these initially, which is why I erroneously thought the administrative code was covered only in primary sources, but I'm satisfied that these at least put the topic of the article over the GNG bar. Epicgenius (talk) 15:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Satisfies GNG. The code has significant coverage in books and periodicals in Google Books, Google Scholar and elsewhere. Books like [49] [50] [51] are clearly not primary sources. There are entire book chapters on the code, such as chapter 21 of Gibson's New York Legal Research Guide, 3rd Ed [52]. This chapter contains about 23 pages of commentary on the code and is clearly significant coverage. There are entire periodical articles on the code, such as the TICL journal [53]. The book New York City Charter and Administrative Code: Annotated, published in a number of volumes and supplements by Williams Press Inc in Albany in 1963 and 1964 and 2004, includes a commentary on the code. As far as I can tell Williams Press is the corporate author of the book. There is an article by Reuben Lazarus on "A New Administrative Code for New York City" [54]. James500 (talk) 08:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's the law of New York City, containing the codified local laws. Local laws are not ordinances or regulations, but laws on the same level as state laws. This is unique to New York. Since they're codified laws, it's important. If merged it should be merged into Law of New York which is a general article about law. Yes it should be mentioned in the government of New York City article also, but there's only so much info that can be fit into such a high level article. Also, everything James500 says. :) int21h (talk · contribs · email) 15:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For example this recently came up in the news about § 14-137 ("Subpoenas"), which is a law, where the police were asking for private information from Twitter without a warrant stating "You are not to disclose or notify any customer or third party of the existence of this".[55] There are a great many ins-and-outs about the Administrative Code and its unique vagaries that should be added to this article and would be difficult to discuss elsewhere without this article. This law code is for 8.5 million people, approaching the size of Switzerland which has multiple in-depth articles on the equivalent law codes. And again as James500 pointed out, it's important enough that it has its own chapters in a great many well-known tertiary books and other publications. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 15:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Besides the policy-based arguments, use common sense, and read the room with 8.5 million residents and 5.5 million commuters and visitors a day. The scaffolding everywhere? This code. Rent control? This code. Taco carts on every corner? This code. Bearian (talk) 14:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 16:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ergonomics in Canada

Ergonomics in Canada (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)

Topic fails notability guidelines. There are no other articles that describe ergonomics in other countries. (Discuss 0nshore's contributions!!!) 18:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 16:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ramji Than Bhujee

Ramji Than Bhujee (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 reliable sources and repeatedly created by a single user under a promotional username. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 16:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 16:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emmett McAuliffe

Emmett McAuliffe (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)

Emmett McAuliffe, the subject of this entry, was only accused by a single source, the hucksters.net website, that is not very reputable given the partiality in the writing and the lack of evidence in the page that's referred to. Given that no other source has brought any credence to this supposed unmasking for more than two years, the entry doesn't respect the standards for sourcing and is most definitely libelous. And in February 2024, legal documents produced in court have established that the true identity of “Enty” is one John Nelson, from Beverly Hills. As a result, because this entry only exists to mention the supposed actual identity of some blog writer and the identification is incorrect, it should be deleted. PetitCesar (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 16:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K'nex Original Roller Coaster

K'nex Original Roller Coaster (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 toy does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPRODUCT. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne Lachelier

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

Subject fails GNG and ANYBIO, as she is a mere mention in these sources. She was a bit player in a larger drama regarding prisoners at Gitmo. WP:BIO1E applies. Efforts to redirect this have failed. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- Her work is discussed inRachel Hajjar (2022). The War in Court: Inside the Long Fight against Torture. University of California. ISBN 0520378938., which I added to the article. This shows her role was of lasting importance given the ongoing coverage in RS. Furthermore, after she retired from the military, according to Hajjar, she continued to defend Guantanamo prisoners, showing that BIO1E isn't applicable. Central and Adams (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Besides just the lack of widespread coverage, her role ordiscussion in that book doesn't exactly make up for the subject's reliability simply because her work is only mentioned. A stronger case could be made here if the book dedicated multiple chapters or specifically identified her role as integral. GuardianH (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Regardless of the merits of the original closure, the post-relist comments clearly push this into consensus-to-keep territory. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lion of Oz

Lion of Oz (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)

Mostly-unsourced article on a 2000 animated film; I've looked in newspapers and found showtimes but not reviews. I was hoping some would come up in the AfD for the book it's based on, but nada.

Adaptations of The Wizard of Oz appears to be for adaptations of that book specifically, not any of its sequels/spinoffs, so it's not a good redirect target. asilvering (talk) 03:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy,Literature, and Film. asilvering (talk) 03:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Common Sense Media; RTP; Filmdienst, Cinema.de are reviews/assessment (short, but reviews containing a critical assessment) in reliable sources so that the article can be retained; TV Guide calls it a "charming animated prequel ".-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC) (Note: added some to the page.)[reply]
  • Delete - From the sources listed above, only Common Sense Media qualifies as a review, others are just descriptions of the film. And the Common Sense Media review is so short that I wouldn't say it's "significant coverage" per WP:NFILM. --Mika1h (talk) 13:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Maybe not exactly reviews, you are right, but they do "address the film directly and in detail" (WP:N) (and contain a (minimal) critical assessment, but let's not even mention that) and are independent and reliable; and that's exactly what is needed to meet the general requirements for notability, which subsumes N:FILM. So maybe does not meet N:FILM but does meet GNG. Hope you agree. Best,-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And the CSM review is not that short, is it? I'll quote it verbatim (prose only) for other users to decide: "Oz prequel has sweet message, cloying songs. The Wizard of Oz is a classic touchstone in the worlds of film and literature, and kids will learn that there was more to the series than the familiar 1939 movie./The lion lacks self-confidence, but he is a devoted friend. Wimsik is caring and wise and has faith in others' goodness./The lion and his friend Oscar are caught in a lightning storm, and the lion falls (safely) out of a hot air balloon and into Oz. In Oz, the Wicked Witch of the East and a menacing mist creature called Gloom threaten to capture the lion's friends and create dangerous obstacles for them along the way, such as taking away a bridge that would get the friends past a waterfall. There are a couple of suspenseful situations wherein a character has to be rescued from a river or from a magic spell. Parents need to know that Lion of Oz is an animated prequel to the familiar book The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, which inspired the beloved film The Wizard of Oz. This movie is based on a novel by Roger S. Baum, grandson of L. Frank Baum, who wrote the original Oz series. This adventure explains how the Cowardly Lion got to Oz (though he is simply called Lion here). Although this movie doesn't include enough music for it to be considered a musical, the characters sing a few times. The only concern for parents here is cartoon scariness, as the villainous Wicked Witch of the East, her flying monkeys, and her partner in crime -- a skull-faced mist creature called Gloom -- threaten Lion and the friends who're trying to help him. However, any child who's comfortable with the level of scariness in the 1939 classic film can handle Lion of Oz. To stay in the loop on more movies like this, you can sign up for weekly . (Plot:LION OF OZ is an animated prequel to the familiar book The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, which inspired the classic film The Wizard of Oz. When the movie begins, the central character, Lion, is the main attraction in the Omaha Magnificent Circus. Most people fear the lion, but Oscar, the man who takes visitors on hot air balloon rides, is friendly to Lion, and one night, he lets Lion out of his cage and takes him up in the balloon. A storm hits; Oscar loses control of the balloon, and Lion falls out and lands in Oz. As with Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz, Lion meets an evil witch, as well as friends -- in the form of the caring and optimistic girl Wimsik and her talking toys -- who journey with him to find the powerful Flower of Oz, which holds the key to protecting Lion's friends, old and new.) The animated film Lion of Oz follows the Wizard of Oz formula, and young Oz lovers will enjoy the magical characters and familiar elements. The movie's emphasis on friendship, courage, and believing in what's possible are nice and very positive, and the story is sure to please its intended audience. However, adults will find the character of Wimsik overly sweet, and the music is strictly B-list." (and I didn't quote all the small bits).....-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, CSM and TV Guide are both reliable, independent sources and help this film pass WP:NFILM, but even if the length of one of them is questionable...it is still enough for WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 16:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Schultz, Barbara (2023-04-04). "Parents' Guide to Lion of Oz". Common Sense Media. Archived from the original on 2024-02-10. Retrieved 2024-02-10.

      The review notes: "The animated film Lion of Oz follows the Wizard of Oz formula, and young Oz lovers will enjoy the magical characters and familiar elements. The movie's emphasis on friendship, courage, and believing in what's possible are nice and very positive, and the story is sure to please its intended audience. However, adults will find the character of Wimsik overly sweet, and the music is strictly B-list."

    2. Sherman, Louise L. (March 2001). "Lion of Oz". School Library Journal. Vol. 47, no. 3. p. 77. Archived from the original on 2024-02-10. Retrieved 2024-02-10 – via Gale.

      The review notes: "In this animated prequel to The Wizard of Oz, based on a book by L. Frank Baum's great grandson, Roger S. Baum, a circus lion and the circus balloonist, Oscar, are blown from Nebraska into Oz. ... The action is punctuated by several nicely melodic and message-laden songs. The story follows in the Oz books tradition of successive episodes introducing new and fantastic characters. Some of these minor characters, particularly Fitzy, the toy soldier prone to malapropisms, and Caroline, the doll with a sharp tongue and a warm heart, are delightful and help keep the video from becoming cloying. Technically this video is beautifully made and it boasts a fine cast of actor voices including Dom DeLuise as Oscar, Jane Horrocks as Wimsik, Jason Priestly as the Lion, and Lynne Redgrave as the Wicked Witch. While the story is more didactic than any of L. Frank Baum's Oz books, it will entertain young viewers."

    3. Fane-Saunders, Kilmeny, ed. (2004) [2000]. Radio Times Guide to Films 2005 (5 ed.). London: BBC Worldwide. p. 720. ISBN 0-563-52216-X. Retrieved 2024-02-10 – via Internet Archive.

      The review gives two stars. The review notes: "This animated adventure — billed as a prequel to the events of The Wizard of Oz — suffers from an excess of contrivance. Yet the vocal talents on duty are impressive. Jason Priestley voices the heroic circus lion who becomes increasingly cowardly on his travels, while Jane Horrocks plays the little girl who helps him resist the wiles of Lynn Redgrave's Wicked Witch of the East. Tim Curry, Don DeLuise and Bob Goldthwait add to the fun. But don't expect the cartoon equivalent of The Wizard of Oz, this is much flimsier in its construction."

    4. "Lion of Oz". Family Life. March 2001. p. 89. ISSN 1072-0332.EBSCOhost 4144500.

      The abstract notes: "Reviews the videotape 'The Lion of Oz.'"

    5. "Lion of Oz roars into Licensing 2000". Playthings. Vol. 98, no. 6. June 2000. p. 74. Archived from the original on 2024-02-10. Retrieved 2024-02-10 – via Gale.

      The article notes: "Sony Wonder will showcase its animated musical feature, Lion of Oz and the Badge of Courage, at this year's Licensing 2000 International. The 75-minute program is set to air on the Disney Channel this September to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the original book publication of The Wizard of Oz."

    6. Brennan, Steve (1999-09-09). "Sony uncages 'Lion' telefilm during MIPCOM". The Hollywood Reporter. Vol. 359, no. 24. p. 46.ProQuest 2469243737.

      The article notes: " A new animated musical tele-film, "Lion of Oz and the Badge of Courage," which celebrates the 100th anniversary of the original publication of "The Wizard of Oz," will make its international sales debut at the MIPCOM market in Cannes from Oct. 4-9. The special is Sony Wonder's first feature-length original production and is produced with Cine-Group. "Lion of Oz" is described as a prequel to the original work and is based on the book of the same name written by Roger Baum, the grandson of "Wizard of Oz" author L. Frank Baum. It will debut in the United States on the Disney Channel in fall 2000."

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

    Cunard (talk) 11:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per reviews identified by Mushy Yank and Cunard. Toughpigs (talk) 11:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the many, many sources listed above. Honestly there needs to be some sort of mechanism to stop the amount of timewasting AfDs which have clearly not had good Before. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @BoomboxTestarossa It had an entire AfD preceding it. Books are typically considered to be notable if they have been made into a notable movie. No one managed to turn up evidence of the movie being notable in the AfD for the book, which was then redirected for lack of sources. If you don't think an entire AfD process is enough of a WP:BEFORE, I'm not sure what more you could possibly require. -- asilvering (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So we should redo the book AfD as well? Toughpigs (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think so, as I do not believe that the keep !votes here have at all shown a WP:GNG pass. The coverage is extremely minimal; Cunard's quotes aren't excerpts so much as the entire mention, for most of them. If this AfD does close as keep, it might be worth revisiting the book one, but to what end I'm not sure, since there aren't any sources on the book. It would probably make more sense to open an RfD instead, to retarget the redirect to this movie. But again, I don't think we have seen evidence that this is a notable movie, and I stand by my nomination. -- asilvering (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (nom): I couldn't withdraw the nom if I wanted to right now because of Mika1h's !vote, but I do want to reiterate that I currently still stand by my nomination. Cunard's #5 and #6 are so minimal I don't know why they were brought up, and the quote for #3 is actually the entire review; if this really is all the coverage that exists I don't see how we can be calling this a notable film. It certainly doesn't pass WP:NFILM, so the question that remains is whether it passes WP:GNG. The CSM review is currently the best coverage anyone has turned up. I would not call this WP:GNG-passing coverage of a creative work, myself. -- asilvering (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Schultz 2023 provides 535 words of coverage about the Lion of Oz. Sherman 2001 provides 318 words of coverage about the Lion of Oz. These two sources by themselves are sufficient for the Lion of Oz to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Cunard The number of words is not terribly relevant when it comes to satisfying WP:GNG. It's the depth of coverage that matters. The coverage we have in the best source found yet, Schultz's CSM review, lightly describes the story (about the size of the blurb you'd find on a book jacket or DVD cover), then gives three short critical sentences. It is very difficult to describe this as thedirectly and in detail required of significant coverage (directly, yes, in detail, no). Moreover, CSM isn't a selective review platform that only looks at the most notable/impactful/whatever films, so the fact that it was reviewed doesn't give us much to work with as an indication of notability either. This is a film that very few people have heard of, for which the best review we have is a parenting website, not a professional film review column. I don't believe we have evidence here that either the letter or the spirit of GNG are met. -- asilvering (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • In addition to the "Is It Any Good?" section, the Common Sense Media article has secondary analysis in the "Parents Need to Know" section: "The only concern for parents here is cartoon scariness, as the villainous Wicked Witch of the East, her flying monkeys, and her partner in crime -- a skull-faced mist creature called Gloom -- threaten Lion and the friends who're trying to help him. However, any child who's comfortable with the level of scariness in the 1939 classic film can handle Lion of Oz."

          At Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 186#RfC on requiring non-plot coverage to demonstrate book notability, there was a strong consensus that for books, an author's description of a book's plot is transformative and contributes to establishing notability. As one editor wrote, "It's not for use to insert our value judgments about what reviewers (or RS generally) choose to focus on when discussing a narrative work. The purpose of GNG is to determine how much coverage a given subject has received from RS, as a measure of whether a statistically significant number of readers would benefit from the utility of an independent article on the subject." The same consensus is likely to apply to film reviews, so the "What's the Story?" section counts towards significant coverage.

          Cunard (talk) 06:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

          I am honestly somewhat confused by your assertion that those two sentences are in-depth secondary analysis useful for writing an encyclopedia article and indicative of the subject's notability. -- asilvering (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • The author of the Common Sense Media review provides secondary analysis in the "Parents Need to Know" section of the review by discussing how the movie does not have sufficient music to make it a musical even though there are several song performances from the characters, that parents need to be concerned about the "cartoon scariness", and that if a child is unperturbed by the scariness in the 1939 movie, they can handle the scariness in this movie. This is not merely restating the plot—it is injecting the author's own opinion into the review.

              There is more secondary analysis in the "Is It Any Good?" section, where the author says the film "follows the Wizard of Oz formula", youth fans of Oz will like the "the magical characters and familiar elements", and that the focus on friendship and courage is "nice and very positive". The review offers negative commentary by saying the character Wimsik is "overly sweet" and the music is "strictly B-list". This review contains very detailed commentary.

              When combining all this secondary analysis with the consensus in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 186#RfC on requiring non-plot coverage to demonstrate book notability that allows discussion of plot to contribute to establishing notability, this review easily meets the "significant coverage" requirement of Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 09:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

              Again, I am baffled at the idea that you think someone saying the focus on courage and friendship is "nice and very positive" and the music is "strictly B-list" isvery detailed commentary. Simply restating the things you have already said is not going to convince me; I read them the first time and, obviously, disagree. -- asilvering (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              Maybe it will help to give a comparison. Here is undisputedly GNG-passing film coverage: [57]. (Found by googling "film criticism journals".) This is very detailed commentary. Does it have to be this detailed to count for GNG? Certainly not. Does it have to be more in-depth than the CSM review - a review which, again, is not by a professional film writer? I believe that it does. -- asilvering (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see enough to support GNG when it's such a clear failure of NFILM. I usually work with WP:NBOOK (which the book absolutely did not pass!) but NFILM also gives us very clear criteria for what is the kind of coverage that makes a film notable. NFILM#1 looks for 2 reviews by national critics: we have 0. (School Library Journal does not count here.) NFILM#2 looks for 2 reviews (by anyone) 5+ years after release: I GUESS we can count the Common Sense Media database entry as one (it is at least written by an independent team, rather than using user reviews; though we have no evidence it was written after 2005), but where is the second one?
I agree that the CSM and SLJ sources are the best ones; they are the only really useful ones, I think. But I don't think they are sufficient for GNG, and we definitely don't have NFILM. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To get back on log, relist note TK
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So we have two solid sources so far, however neither are in-depth enough to prove notability. I'd say one more solid source would be enough for the article. Industrial Insect (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shai Benbasat

AfDs for this article:
Shai Benbasat (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)

Re-created immediately following two deletion discussions, but under a different title and moved so it was undetected. Not at all a G4, but the only factor that appears to have changed is the Cannes shortlist, which I'm not sure is enough. Bringing here for discussion Star Mississippi 15:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WAUG-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Merge with St. Augustine's University. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete‎. This is a mixture of hoax and truth, it seems. I had initially deleted it as a hoax but it looks like this is basically a copy of the article for the movie Aflatoon (2023 film). There are some small changes here and there, like the production company names and the addition of several awards. A reverse search does bring up this poster, so assuming this poster isn't a hoax it's possible that this was released somewhere under this name. That said, this is still a complete copy of an existing article and as such, still qualifies for a speedy deletion. It's also hard to assume this wasn't an attempt at a hoax when this was copied pretty much verbatim from the Aflatoon article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Defective Detectives

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

the article appears to be a WP:HOAX as it specifies a release date in the future but then lists a litany of awards, all of which are uncited. A BEFORE does not turn up anything particular to this film, although I will note it is a common name dating back to a 1980s short. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 13:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 14:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Munir Nayfeh

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

Notability (Academics) not fulfilled Samuelshraga (talk) 13:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Prominent and well nown in the fied of particle physics: https://physics.illinois.edu/people/directory/profile/m-nayfeh. Extremely high h-index for his field. Syrianpoet94 (talk) 08:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vishveshwarayya Abhiyantriki Padvika Mahavidyalay, Almala, Ausa

Vishveshwarayya Abhiyantriki Padvika Mahavidyalay, Almala, Ausa (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)

Nothing notable online. A small college with an annual intake of 360 students. Current page reads like an advertisement. Newhaven lad (talk) 12:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

British Machine Vision Conference

British Machine Vision Conference (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 seeing a good reason why this should be considered notable. A lack of good quality third party sources on the page at present, not seeing much else to consider JMWt (talk) 11:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about Ahmedabad

List of songs about Ahmedabad (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)

Same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about Oslo. The list fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:LISTN and WP:OR. There is little to nothing worthwhile in this list, be it content or context. Geschichte (talk) 11:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about Bareilly

List of songs about Bareilly (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)

Same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about Oslo. The list fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:LISTN and WP:OR. There is little to nothing worthwhile in this list, be it content or context. Geschichte (talk) 11:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Cremer

Jeff Cremer (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 have carried out WP:BEFORE and added a reference to this article about a photographer, but I cannot see WP:SIGCOV of him. It doesn't look as if he meets WP:NARTIST or WP:NAUTHOR. Three of his books are self-published (not sure about the other one) and I haven't found reviews of them. Tacyarg (talk) 10:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Chandighat (1771)

Battle of Chandighat (1771) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article fails to meet WP:GNG. None of the Reliable Sources referenced mention the "Battle of Chandighat (1771)," nor has any historian referred to it as such. The title is an invented designation for a military conflict that occurred at a location referred to as "X." Therefore, the article was titled "Battle of X," which is entirely inappropriate. Moreover, the content within the article is so sparse that it could easily be incorporated into one of the parent articles. Imperial[AFCND] 10:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Radiolab episodes

List of Radiolab episodes (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)

Per a 2022 RfC from WikiProject Podcasting that suggests episode lists for non-fiction podcasts with no overarching narrative or plot are not considered to meet WP:NLIST. Secondary sources may write about the show or individual episodes, but do not write about the list of episodes as a meaningful set. Belbury (talk) 09:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Social Liberal and Democratic Party

Social Liberal and Democratic Party (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)

Has been unsourced since creation two decades ago. Fails WP:ORGCRIT as lacking "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." AusLondonder (talk) 13:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to see this, is it simply a directory listing of political parties? AusLondonder (talk) 11:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It goes a bit beyond that with two or three hundred words of prose. I can see the first few lines at [59] and the rest at [60]. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 08:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeshivat Torat Shraga

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

No refs on the page for many years. Not seeing sources which show why this religious school is notable, but then I don't read Hebrew so may be missing things JMWt (talk) 09:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James D. Watson Institute of Genome Sciences

James D. Watson Institute of Genome Sciences (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)

Very few independent sources on the page - agree with the hatnote that these are insufficient to meet the GNG. I don't see much else which could be added. JMWt (talk) 09:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(weak) Keep I added some main investigations fulfilled by the institute. Looking at scholar.google, it looks like a notable institute with 382- 395 hits. 82.174.61.58 (talk) 14:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article you are pointing to, are not articles discussing the specific institute.Cinadon36 16:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn;t do an extensive "WP:BEFORE", but what I see it seems to be notable; and I can't read Chinese. Because of that my (weak) Keep. 82.174.61.58 (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC) — Duplicate !vote: 82.174.61.58 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. We need more participation from AFD regulars here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I see nothing applied or presented which puts this article past GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. A reasonable search is handicapped by all the coverage of James D. Watson. BusterD (talk) 11:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radius (band)

AfDs for this article:
Radius (band) (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:NMUSIC, as it lacks any sources or references required to establish notability. The previous AfD in July 2006 which resulted in retention was on the basis "Seems rather notable, has songs in commercials and a well-known TV series. Also has a real website, and not just a MySpace page or something". I feel that that sort of reasoning is no longer valid now. I've searched but apart from unreliable sources such as Spotify, YouTube, SoundCloud and Amazon, I can't find anything that clearly establishes this band as being notable. Dan arndt (talk) 06:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. I'm closing this discussion as No consensus rather doing a final relist as it feels as if the discussion has come to an end after two relistings. Opinion is divided on whether sources are adequate and that uncertainty might mean a return trip to AFD, hopefully not for at least 6 months. Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Radhakrishnan

AfDs for this article:
Robin Radhakrishnan (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:NACTOR because there are no significant roles in multiple notable productions. The subject also lacks significant coverage. Apparently one of the contestant of Bigg Boss which is alone not sufficient for notability per WP:BIGBROTHER. TheWikiholic (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Not sure what the Big Brother notability above is, it's the project page that really only says the episodes of the shows need GNG. Regardless, about 6 pages of Times of India coverage in Gnews (iffy source), but this is a RS [61]. And the local language sources, I think we have just enough for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 01:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Source 23 is a RS per CiteHighligter, it talks about his marriage and has some bio info. Oaktree b (talk) 01:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to have significant coverage on his "scrapped off" movie with Mohanlal too, and his own movie. Rydex64 (talk) 01:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheWikiholic - WP:BIGBROTHER is a completely a different show, the project page is for Big Brother Shows. The subject is related to Big Boss Malayalam here. How is it connected to WP:BIGBROTHER and "not sufficient for notability"? Rydex64 (talk) 03:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Big Boss is just the name for the Indian franchises of Big Brother. AryKun (talk) 08:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, just to clarify, I'm not talking about self-promotional sources in the article, but about what I found during a WP:BEFORE search. Wikishovel (talk) 10:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. I understand. I believe during the WP: BEFORE you must've came across several coverage about multiple events (Engagement, Movie, Big Boss, Awards, and other appearances) that can be considered as RS for each topic. I would appreciate if you could cross-check. The subject however meets WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Rydex64 (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did check as I mentioned, and since the last AFD discussion in July 2022, where the consensus was for deletion, he's announced a debut film role in a film that hasn't begun principal photography, so there's no sign of him meeting WP:NACTOR yet. He also won an award from a company called "Einstein World Records", for which I can find little online, so that's not enough to bring him over the line of WP:BIO or WP:GNG yet. Wikishovel (talk) 11:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Regarding the movie - He had a movie announced with Mohanlal back year, seems like it's scrapped off. However, he have a movie released called "Ravanayuddham" which got significant coverage online and in local medias [62][63]. He still meets the WP:ENT and WP:GNG with significant roles in television shows and stage performances and sufficient media coverage. Rydex64 (talk) 13:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the film hasn't begun principal photography yet, and may never be released. The film business is like that. Please see also WP:NEWSORGINDIA about the reliability of many mainstream news sources. Wikishovel (talk) 13:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and asides from the film that's not "released or starting production" yet, there is already a film released though. Moreover, we can still see the notability of the person. He is known well in local medias since that's where the subject is based. WP:NEWSORGINDIA is something I'm aware of. I noticed there are definitely articles with "gossips" "rumors" about Robin, But, I can also find lots & multiple SIGCOV about him which are actually fact and confirms the GNG and WP:ENT again. Thanks. Rydex64 (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article says that Ravanayuddham (written and produced by him) will be his debut film. Ravanayuddham hasn't been released yet, or even been filmed. If he's had another film role, then please add it to the article with reliable sources. Wikishovel (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notable person. Did some research on online. There are multiple RS about him on notable medias too like MediaOne, Asianet and more and has significant coverage. The coverages are mostly about his appearance as contestant as well as a Guest to Big Boss Malayalam, his movies, and few of the awards. Also has appearances on TVs as well. Notable per WP: GNG Adhi2004 (talk) 10:30, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the article was created by an editor who claimed this image as their own work on the commons, and I can not find the image online (which would imply copyright infringement). This implies a close connection between the uploader and the subject. —TheWikiholic (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheWikiholic - Uploaded the picture myself on Wikimedia under Copyright Free material, found this picture of him on his Instagram page [64]. That picture was uploaded on Instagram by the subject itself. There is no connection or affiliation with the subject at all, writing this article as he's based in my state and has seen him on various medias as well as shows. If Instagram pictures cannot be considered copyright-free if it's a picture of subject, feel free to remove. Rydex64 (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've nominated it for deletion... FYI, unless you've taken the photo, you can't copy images at random. Oaktree b (talk) 13:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the clarification, @Oaktree b, Appreciate that. Rydex64 (talk) 15:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A source analysis of the most reliable sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pressat

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

Fails WP:NCORP, appears no more notable than at the 2013 AFD. The problem is that there's no significant coverage of the company. The only things actually about Pressat all appear to be sourced to the same 2013 announcement that they accept Bitcoin, with no further coverage. The good-looking references from The Guardian, LA Times, and CBS News all cite a survey from the company about coffee drinking with no WP:SIGCOV of the actual company. ~ A412 talk! 03:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: A recent new article about a PR distribution firm. I gave a "delete" opinion in the 2013 AfD deletion; looking at this new article instance, neither the 2013 announcement-based coverage about accepting Bitcoin nor the 2014 item about fraudsters issuing fake invoices for their work rises above trivial coverage, nor does the coffee-drinking survey. Clearly a company going about its business in its chosen sector, but searches are not finding evidence of notability. A redirect to the article on the GlobeNewswire parent could be an ATD, though Pressat is not mentioned there. AllyD (talk) 14:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 05:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martinice (Žďár nad Sázavou District)

Martinice (Žďár nad Sázavou District) (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 notable; search for sources pulls up no results Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 04:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. This is random nomination of a random municipality that was a stub. In general, every municipality will pass WP:GEOLAND. In the case of the Czech ones, there is no doubt that there are enough sources, official data and books and materials outside the Internet about each. FromCzech (talk) 06:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The nomination, the first ever made by the nominator, is utterly unfounded and violates a core guideline. Geschichte (talk) 11:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, municipality geostubs are still presumed notable per WP:GEOLAND point 1. – dudhhr talkcontribssheher 17:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

East Selah, Washington

East Selah, 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)

Prod was declined based on naive reading of the newspapers. This is another of those communities that purportedly grew up around the train station. According to the Pomona, Washington article, The Selah train station was renamed Pomona. Additionally, This news article (https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-yakima-herald-east-selah/140757627/) about a bridge being built at Pomona station states the East Selah and Pomona station are the same. That article also makes no mention of a town being there.

East Selah is Grange district, a valley in the grange district and a river in the valley. The newspapers don't contain any mentions definitively proving this was a town. While many of the mentions of East Selah are non specific about the nature of the place. Many other mentions are specific, referring to it as a district and valley and the residents thereof being from East Selah. While none are found saying it is town.

Key examples: This news article https://www.newspapers.com/image/457179495/?terms=East%20Selah&match=1&clipping_id=94435529 gives some description of the East Selah valley in 1910 and describes it as "out in the sage brush." No mention of a town.

This is pretty decent example of an article where releative clear that it is just a valley where ranchers live. https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-yakima-herald-east-selah-valley/141041529/ James.folsom (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I realized that the first article about the bridge does mention a town in the area, it's just not called East Selah.James.folsom (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete This is actually a nondescript area of a bunch of houses and such strung out along a road on the other side of the river from Selah proper. At best it may be a sort of neighborhood but not a notable settlement unto itself. Mangoe (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything that I turned up, from maps to the biography of Frank Crowe, turned out to be related to the Bureau of Reclamation's 60-year Yakima Project, which someone really should write about at Yakima River#River modifications or somewhere. Pfaff's book,OCLC 49390736, is a good start and shows why it would be absurd to write about it in this article. There's pretty much nothing that I can find where East Selah is the topical focus, nothing verifiable to say in this article. Uncle G (talk) 08:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Uncle G is spot on here, and that Yakima project is a thing. It seem's like Wikipedia just attracts editors that want to OCD lists into many articles. And, people just write about crap that they think is important instead finding something that is important to write about. James.folsom (talk) 01:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the 1930 US census showed 324 people living specifically in East Selah, and a patent application from a resident there in 1936. And this is from late 2023 showing it's still at least some sort of community, even if not on GEOLAND grounds: [65] So a populated place at least once. At the same time there are a lot of references to "East Selah district" instead of a town - but it's the same with Moxee, which is clearly a current populated place. SportingFlyer T·C 23:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment In response to SportingFlyers new evidence. I have done additional searches of newspapers from 1925 to 1940. I found one mention of the east selah school district in 1926. I contend that a town existing in 1930 or 1936 would be mentioned in the local papers. Furthermore, I checked the archival images of the 1930 census on Ancestry.com. The forms filled out by the census taker has blanks for State, County, Incorporated place, Unincorporated place, and Township or other division of county. The census taker recorded State: Washington, County: Yakima, Township or other division: East Selah precinct #43. Incorporated place, and unincorporated place were left blank. Ancestry's drop down box categorized it as an election precinct. The 2023 reference, and the sources from a search I did around the PFAS incident all steadfastly refuse to refer to the place as town or a city or anything other than an "area". It is a zip code. I don't have enough info to find the patent application, but East Selah is probably the filers post office. And we know how much that counts for anything. I'm happy to look up the patent if Sporting Flyer would provide the patent number. Nobody has produced any sources that explicitly describe East Selah as a town/unincorporated place/city. It's impossible to prove it never existed, but we can't even prove it does.James.folsom (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just to continue with the census research, because we really should consider them all. This doesn't appear on the 1950 census. The 1940 census describes it: ELECTION PRECINCT 43 EAST SELAH, UNNAMED ISLANDS, ISLANDS (PARTS). The map from 1940 (free with login) https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/3028/images/m-a3378-00069-00959?ssrc=&backlabel=Return. In 1940 it appears as other division and unincorporated place, but the map is clearly of a rural area. We've already talked about the 1930 census. For the 1920 census East Selah contains parts of East Selah extension. There is no unincorporated place option, incorporated place has an x. For the 1910 Census, East Selah contains parts of Selah and is listed as township or other division. Doesen't exist in 1900, 1890, 1880, 1870 had no divisions and State was territory.James.folsom (talk) 22:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep. My glances through genealogy sites turned up references to east Selah (lowercase E in "east") in "History of the Yakima Valley, Washington; comprising Yakima, Kittitas, and Benton Counties", published in 1919, and available at Archive.org, so I was ready to pass on this proposal without comment. However, I am bothered by the title of the book "The Selah story : history of the Selah, East Selah and Wenas Valley in Yakima County, Washington" with capitalized E in East Selah, published in 1984, in this catalog reference here. The book is not available online that I can find, but combined with observations above from SportingFlyer, who also posted links to capital-E East Selah references that I'm not able to wave it away as a simple railroad siding. All I have to go on is the title of a book, but it creates enough of a suggestion of WP:GEOLAND that I'm slightly on the keep side of the fence. RecycledPixels (talk) 09:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • That title indicates East Selah Valley as what it is denoting. There are a Selah Valley and a Wenas Valley.East Selah Valley is a geographic feature. The Selah Valley contains Selah, Washington much as the Moxee Valley contains the city of Moxee, Washington. But the only thing that I've found that is documented for East Selah is the pumping station, which is part of the aforementioned Yakima Project, and the tunnel for the Roza canal between the East Selah Valley and the Moxee Valley, which is not really about a purported "community" named East Selah.

      Uncle G (talk) 14:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      We literally have a news report from 2023 that Washington state is offering free livestock testing to East Selah residents. There's more to this than just a pumping station. SportingFlyer T·C 15:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This whole line of reasoning is silly and not well thought out. Ask yourself who needs livestock testing? Why farmers who raise cattle do, don't you think. Gee, I wonder where Farmers with cattle live. OOH I bet they live in a rural area, don't you think. This source is literally telling you that East Selah is rural farming community. James.folsom (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your feedback, Uncle G. I agree that the use of East Selah in the title of that book refers to the valley, not a settlement. Before changing my opinion, I decided to do a basic Google search to see what comes up. When you narrow the term "East Selah" to the site:yakimaherald.com the local newspaper, it does give a pretty good picture that the term East Selah (capitalized) does appear to be widely used to refer to a specific area distinct from the town of Selah, and there appears to be some degree of independent notability due to some water contamination issues from the Army. The Google link is here. Look at it and see what you think. One thing that holds me back about some of these articles is that it uses East Selah in the headlines, but some of the photo captions refer to the pictured people as residents of Selah, such as the articles "Army to install filtration systems for forever chemicals in East Selah homes this fall" and "Opinion: Has the Army forgotten about East Selah?" RecycledPixels (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because an area has a name and people live there, doesn't make it a popoulated place. There are no reliable sources for this article, and no one has presented any proof this is anything more than a rural area. Nobody here has produced any shred of anything that plainly states that East Selah is a city, town, or community. All the sources I've seen, and that others have dredged up have never clearly indicated what they mean when they say the residents of East Selah. And, as RecycledPixel has pointed out, the residents have been described as being from Selah as opposed to East Salah. All these sources leave it unclear whether they mean the valley, the zipcode or city(if it exists). In my experience (and think this is plainly obvious to everyone not grasping at straws) if a community/town/village/city exists, you can find a source that says it's a community/town/village/city relatively quickly and easily. When you have to go to the extremes we have here, and only find sources that are non specific about the type of place, then you must conclude it either doesn't exist, or doesn't have enough sourcing to be an article on Wikipedia. If any one of those army news articles said "the citizens of the town of East Selah", then this would be case closed. But, not one article that does that has been turned up. I'm quite certain there would be at least one instance of that, if it were true. I should also point out that there are more than a small handful of sources that specifically say it's just a rural area. Like every census for example. James.folsom (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Right now, it looks like a No consensus closure. I'm not optimistic of editors jumping into this discussion at this point but those are the alternatives I see, relisting or no consensus. Thanks to the editors who so far have searched high and low for relevant sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have to think that the Times got that phraseology from us. In a pre-WP era I would think they were more likely to have called it a "neighborhood". Mangoe (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's just conjecture. The term "unincorporated community" pre-dates us. SportingFlyer T·C 21:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:::::Well, none of those articles that you posted actually state that this is an unicorporated community. It would be happy to concede if any one could produce proof that it's an unincorporated community. Those newspapers articles could easily be talking about a a rural area or a Yakima suburb. James.folsom (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's literally in the Seattle Times article:Over the past week, Army officials and contractors visited households in this Yakima County unincorporated community to discuss the installation of point-of-entry-treatment system filters ... SportingFlyer T·C 23:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:::::::Well if it is an unincorporatedDo you realize that is literally the only source on the entire internet James.folsom (talk) 21:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - WP:GEOLAND is permissive towards unincorporated communities and that's how sources have described this place. ~Kvng (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What sources? James.folsom (talk) 23:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Seattle Times. Stop WP:BLUDGEONING. ~Kvng (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Seattle Times article above and other sources clearly identify this as a distinct, identifiable, and notable unincorporated community, not just a scattered rural area in a certain compass direction from the city. Reywas92Talk 01:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No those articles never state that it is an unincorporated place as opposed to a neighborhood or rural area. James.folsom (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're being ridiculous, the Seattle Times article literally calls it that and has a map showing its location. There's no functional difference between any of those, and there's clearly enough sources to identify this as a notable neighborhood, area, or place. Other sources over many decades that use the name to specify a distinct place where people live include [70][71][72][73]. I'm the guy who started going after non-notable places years ago including many fake ones in WA made by the same editor as this, but this place certainly has enough coverage that a standalone article is appropriate. Reywas92Talk 21:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Out of who knows how many untold hours that have been spent (I've probably spent at least 8) to establish the the actual identity of East Selah, there is a single primary source that refers to it as an unincorporated community. That source being the Seattle times, a non local paper. There are numerous sources that make it clear that in the past it was simply a rural area. Even, the PFAS news articles that the keep voters are citing as proof of legally recognized place point out that part of the problem is damage to the East Seleh cattle growers (The area on satellite even now, is just rural farmland). But at the end of the "hair splitting", of course it's unincorporated, because everywhere that isn't incorporated is unincorporated. Unincorporated places are not legally recognized and not presumptive notable per WP:GEO. Therefore all the Seattle times article proves is that this location must meet WP:N. Since the current keep argument is about the modern day East Selah being a legally recognized place, the sources about the Valley and grange district East Selah don't apply, and modern day East Selah doesn't have sufficient sources to establish notability. The news paper articles cited are primary sources, and there are no secondary sources so it is not possible to meet WP:GNG. The PFAs event while likely notable, this notability is not transferable and East Selah would only warrant a mention in the article about the PFAS event.James.folsom (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I came to this process as an uninvolved admin intending to close. In the nomination, I noticed the nominator chided as "naive" the reading of editor who removed the prod. I thought this characterization unwarranted. Seeing some issues in the discussion, I've read both the Pomona discussion and this one and have decided to make a keep assertion in both processes. User:James.folsom was wise to strikethrough some of their comments above. User:Kvng was quite correct when they warned of BLUDGEONING, which could be reasonably charged against the nominator, who has drawn a number of conclusions not proven by the sourcing. BusterD (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your points are well taken, and I'm learning as I go. But, they are not the basis for a keep vote. James.folsom (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to FBI search of Mar-a-Lago#FBI field office attack. Feel free to Merge any relevant content. Liz Read! Talk! 06:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cincinnati FBI field office attack

Cincinnati FBI field office attack (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:EVENT. No lasting WP:EFFECT. Almost all the sources provided are from August 2022. LibStar (talk) 02:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This definitely fails sustained and should not have its own article but I feel like given the political motivation there's a plausible redirect target somewhere, where it can be briefly noted. However I am unable to come up with a good one :/ PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still doesn't fulfill sustained but redirect to its section at FBI search of Mar-a-Lago, the closest claim to notability it has is as a reaction to that plus it's mentioned there already PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as creator - The article is sufficiently notable because the incident was an attack on a federal agency, was committed in response to a significant event (the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago), resulted in an hours-long chase and standoff and multiple road closures, had widespread media coverage, and prompted statements by multiple prominent public figures. The article itself is detailed enough that it would be difficult to merge into another article without losing significant details. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 10:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting and to see what editors think of the Redirect proposal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Janeya Griffin

Janeya Griffin (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)

Highly promotional (see history for how bad it was), likely UPE--person does not have inherent notability, and this is not enough coverage to satisfy the GNG. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. which is influenced by the nominator now arguing to Keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 01:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of advice podcasts

List of advice podcasts (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:NLIST, providing functionally little additional information to readers than Category:Advice podcasts. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 00:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree with TipsyElehant. Keep so someone can write the general discussion / comparisons etc. Hym3242 (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Ontology. Liz Read! Talk! 00:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ontic

Ontic (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)

Adjective - we usually discuss such concepts under articles on related nouns (here, Ontology). Given very poor references, WP:OR is an issue, and separate notability from the related noun is not clear. Merge, redirect or keep (and if keep, any volunteers to improve this ORish mess)? WP:TNT is also a consideration. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. If an editor wanted to work on an article on this subject, I'm willing to restore it to Draft space but it would have to be submitted to WP:AFC rather than moved back to Draft space. You can contact me or ask at WP:REFUND Liz Read! Talk! 00:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon data centers

Amazon data centers (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)

Pro forma nomination as WP:DRAFTIFY process was not deemed appropriate. @Toddy1: recommended a move to draft, which I agreed with and implemented. While the article exceeded the 90 days limit, I thought the talk page gave sufficient consensus at "another suitable venue", which @Hey man im josh: objected with. IgelRM (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have trouble understanding the last couple sentences. My attention isn't on this anymore. I believe even a stub article is good to keep, but if you feel this is best for Wikipedia I won't oppose it. DenverCoder19 (talk) 00:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just to make it very explicit, this is the article's creator. HyperAccelerated (talk) 00:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DenverCoder19: The problem is still the same when we first talked, the notability and sourcing is not enough for an article (also a stub). A DRAFTIFY, which we tried, would have allowed you or anyone to continue to work on it to be up to article standard. IgelRM (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1st choice) Draftify (2nd choice) Delete. The article is not ready for mainspace. Nobody is improving it - the only content was added on 25 August 2023‎ in the edit that created the article. If the aim of the article is to write about the topic of Amazon data centres, it would be possible to create such an article using reliable sources (see talk page), but the topic overlaps that covered by Amazon Web Services, so it is not clear whether an Amazon data centres article is needed. The article seems to indicate that it was intended to list the locations of Amazon's various data centres by continent; that sounds like the wrong idea (because of WP:OR, unreliable sources, and notability). These issues could be sorted out in draft.-- Toddy1 (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have specific examples of non-routine coverage of the subject as a whole (i.e. not articles about individual data center construction / opening)? I couldn't find any. PaulT2022 (talk) 15:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As mentioned on the article talk page, there is coverage of Amazon data centres in The Economist and the Financial Times. None of the articles are about specific data centres - I skim-read a lot of the articles found by a search for "Amazon data centres" on the The Economist website; there is a lot of content that could go into the article on AWS, and a lot that could go into data centre businesses in general. If the article on AWS did not exist, you could build an article on Amazon data centres based on that content. But as it does exist, it is arguable that it would be better to improve that article than to build a standalone Amazon data centres article. (Hint in your searches try spelling the word "res" not "ers".)-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Amazon Web Services: This is a plausible redirect target, and could possibly be merged into it as well. DrowssapSMM 14:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – WP:DIRECTORY makes clear thatoffices [or] store locations are not valid topics for a list. Any other details about data centers can go to the main AWS article. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: besides WP:DIRECTORY, I don't believe there's a sufficient WP:SECONDARY coverage of the subject in independent sources. PaulT2022 (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The topic seems notable, but unless meaningful content is added, this article is in no shape to be in the mainspace. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unless information can be found that provides controversy or additional interest to what is essentially a list of locations (for example, collective unionization, brownfield development of notable sites, a company culture of hiding misconduct across data centers, or the use of historic buildings), I do not think this topic warrants a page. Trainsskyscrapers (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cannot think of it as anything else than a directory. Azuredivay (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_March_8&oldid=1213949445"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 8, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.