Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 November 6

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< November 05 November 07 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Washington and Old Dominion Railroad routes and stations

Washington and Old Dominion Railroad routes and stations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Currently stubified

WP:POVFORK by now indeffed user.[1]

Block was specifically for creating this page to circumvent consensus against it on

WP:INDISCRIMINATE lists of stations, external links, etc. that was already attempted at the parent article[2], so there is nothing to merge from the article history, and isn't a useful redirect for search terms since it's redundant. Technically not available for CSD because it's in the very short period between blocks, and the PROD was removed. KoA (talk) 23:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Editors can have any opinion that they want. The creator of the AfD under discussion *here* has no other place to put their thoughts on this AfD other than their talk page since they are now blocked. Longwinded or short & succinct....why should the length have any bearing on this discussion.
Also - what is this "horrid sourcing" you speak of? If some of the content is sourced to unreliable sources, then that content could be removed leaving the rest but I am not seeing a widespread overarching issue. A few examples of unworthy sources would be helpful. Shearonink (talk) 15:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's an entire column of ELINKBODY violations in all of the tables, linking to various maps and nonfree images of stations. We have Commons to fufill that purpose. [3] is an image that is A) hosted on Pinterest and is more likely than not than an CVLINK violation, and B) an image that is supporting a reference of text. Images can be interpreted in many different ways, even if you find one to be obvious. An image must be interpreted by a secondary source for it to be usable on Wikipedia, otherwise we interpret the image ourselves and produce OR. Ref #4 in the article (has multiple links within the reference) is entirely to maps, which are not reliable because they can be interpreted in multiple ways. Most of this article is to maps, which does not provide significant commentary to merit a FORK of the main article. The cited pages in much of this ref [4] are to maps and images, which cannot be construed as definite notability.
First choice is to delete as an unencyclopedic collection of links, POVFORK, and a directory, and probably not a notable topic on its own. Second choice is a well referenced, succint, and detailed list with none of the insanity of entire columns containing external links to facebook images in the body. Sennecaster (Chat) 19:32, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Still don't know what the term "longwinded" has to do with this AfD but ok. Shearonink (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A map is a reliable source if it is compiled or published by a reliable source. A historical marker is a reliable source if it is created by a trustworthy source. A railroad is not just two strands of steel. It represents an area of economic and social development facilitated by the creation and operation of the railroad. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:46, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This comment doesn't seem to be addressing the topic at hand. Relevant information that already got consensus related to specific locations is already at the parent article
WP:SALT of the article. KoA (talk) 14:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Eastmain's "this comment" is speaking to the deletion discussion at hand. Are previous discussions at another article - yeah, the parent article but a different article - supposed to hold sway over any other particular AfD? Maybe, but maybe not. I am certain whomever is the Closer on this AfD doesn't need any of us to point out how they should do their job or what they should pay attention to. Shearonink (talk) 15:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eastmain's comments were extremely superficial and not really addressing the subject the blocked editor tried to carve out through disruptive editing. Not to mention no inherent claims to
WP:SPLIT
they could develop that at the actual article first.
As for your comments, that would violate
WP:POVFORK, and the blocks/ANIs were clear on that. There are no maybes about that on closed discussions. We're just going through the formalities for deletion at this point on something that already wasted a lot of community time. Unfortunately we don't have speedy deletion criteria for instances that fall through the cracks like this, so here we are instead. KoA (talk) 23:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I assume other editors around here are competent at their chosen level of participation, so I try to be careful of judging others motives or their editing qualifications - that's all. It just seemed that some/many of the respondents were telling possible Closers how to do their jobs and casting aspersions about other editors' comments and I don't understand why that is at all necessary.
It's always so much fun happening upon an AfD or some other pocket of Wikipedia, stating an opinion, and falling into a hornets' nest. Have fun y'all, I'm out. Shearonink (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. LFaraone 09:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Knight

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

Not represented in a museum collection, no monographs, no reviews of exhibitions. His claim to fame is apparently a viral video purportedly showing a kinetic water sculpture. Vexations (talk) 15:15, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 15:15, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request: Should the previous AfD discussions be listed on the article's Talk page? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only the first one. The second AfD was about a different person who goes by the same name. (And I, personally, would put off listing the first AfD on the talk page until we see whether this article gets kept. If this AfD concludes as "delete", then the talk page will be gone too.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The rationale for deletion seems to be vaguely gesturing at point #4 of
    WP:BASIC
    ), and I believe he passes #3: his work being the subject of independent periodical articles. In addition to the pieces already mentioned, I found some more coverage of his sculpture series:
I would also not be surprised if there was coverage of him as a skateboarder from the '90s, but so far I haven't found any, just suggestions that he was a figure known enough for there to be some elsewhere. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:15, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete , it's

snowing. No indications from anyone besides the creator that it's notable. Star Mississippi 22:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Augean software

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

Contested PROD - doesn't seem to meet

WP:NSOFT. Passengerpigeon (talk) 22:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Augean is a notable piece of genealogy software, as it is the only desktop genealogy software designed to help persons with vision problems. Most other genealogy software listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_genealogy_software have wiki pages, Augean is feature equivalent to the other genealogical software, but has the additional advantage of being the only vision accessible desktop genealogical program. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francis1864 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Appears to clearly fail
    WP:NSOFT. I see zero secondary coverage. Danstronger (talk) 00:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Augean doesn't have a lot of web coverage it is a new piece of software, designed to help persons with vision problems what is the reason, why it is flagged as

WP:NSOFT
 ? Does the article need improvement? the article follows the same format as other geological software wiki's see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_genealogy_software how is it inferior, or different from the other genealogical software wikis? Yes, Augean is new, but it is feature equivalent to the other genealogical software that has wiki's what is it, that they are doing right, that we are doing wrong? Please advise, thanks.Francis1864 (talk) 00:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Francis1864: At a glance, it appears to me that many of the programs listed at Comparison_of_genealogy_software do not meet NSOFT and they should be deleted too. Danstronger (talk) 01:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


For nearly two decades genealogists have listed their software on Wikipedia, without any problems
Please see [[5]]
When Augean releases a free vision accessible piece of software, designed to help those with low vision there is an immediate call to delete the Wiki.
Augean is feature equivalent to the other software, the only difference is that it is free, and was specifically designed to help those with vision problems. (please refer to the comparison chart at the above link).
Augean should not be treated differently on the basis that it is a free piece of software, designed to help persons with disabilities.
Please be formally advised, that it is illegal in the USA to discriminate based on disability. Please see [[6]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francis1864 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've advised you on your apparent conflict of interest on your talkpage. Please understand that no publication, including WIkipedia, is obligated to provide free publicity for a product under the ADA. Acroterion (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry if the above sounds a bit direct, but it has always been my experience, that persons with vision problems have to fight for their rights. Sometimes, people forget what it is like not to have good vision
I just don't understand what is the problem, in trying to help persons with low vision Obviously, I need to list my software, the same as all other genealogy software providers did (for the last 2 decades). I was very careful to use the exact same format.
Please, consider the needs of persons with vision problems, Please, thanks !!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francis1864 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Other genealogy tool makers listed their software, and did so for nearly 20 years, with no objection from WikiPedia
see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_genealogy_software
Augean, which is a free visually accessible software designed to help persons with disabilities, lists the software and suddenly Wikipedia treats Augean differently than you did the other genealogy software makers.
I listed the software in the same format as the other tool makers.
I feel this is grounds for claiming discrimination, and the American disabilities act would provide protection.
Also Augean is not treating Wikipedia as the first stop on the train, but previously exhibited at Roots Tech in 2021 https://www.familysearch.org/rootstech/rtc2021/speakers/augean/en
I will gladly revise the wiki if you can provide an example of what it should look like
thanks
Stephen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francis1864 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Do you need me to clarify the low opinion generally held for this line of argument? Also, your use of HTML rather than Wiki syntax is screwing up this page.Cabayi (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

The argument is not that other crap exists, as you put it, but that in the USA it is illegal to treat people differently based on disabilities.
For 20 years, other genealogy programs were listed, without any objection from Wikipedia. But, a genealogy program designed to help persons with vision problems, as been flagged for following the same format as the other programs did.
There is no need, to start insulting the other vendors, or their content.
But, I would ask Wikipedia editors to respect persons with vision problems and those that try to help them.
I will remind you again, and the other editors, that it is illegal in the USA to discriminate against persons based on a disability.Francis1864 (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Francis1864:, we are not discriminating against people with disabilities because our standards for the notability of topics are the same whether or not the author of the page is disabled. If you had no disabilities and created a page about this software, it would still be nominated for deletion. Passengerpigeon (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd advise you to not bring up anything about legal matters. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For 20 years, Wikipedia had no objection to the other genealogy vendors listing their tools.
They only get upset when a genealogy program to help persons with vision problems is listed.
This seems a very clear-cut case of discrimination to me. I followed the exact same format as the others.
The above behavior is illegal in the USAFrancis1864 (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop messing up the AFD page, learn to indent properly & sign your posts properly. PS - I'm seeing a
WP:CIR situation, here. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
talk) 23:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep, obviously bad faith nom. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vito Trause

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

Reason- This article is about a guy who did nothing more than serve in the us military like millions of others. There are thousands if not millions that have died which are not listed here. Hence does not meet WP:GNG.Bobbybob2021 (talk) 22:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 23:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Legrand

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

Badly sourced BLP on a subject who potentially falls short on

WP:GNG. A search of German sources only yielded database pages and coverage on Fan Soccer and Die Glocke is just basic match report mentions. Clear consensus that this sort of coverage is not sufficient for an article. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was speedy keep, nominator blocked as a sock and no one else argued for deletion (

WP:SKCRIT#4). (non-admin closure) Elli (talk | contribs) 01:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Ike Lozada

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

Non-notable Person. Article contains zero source. As for

WP:GNG. VladimirBoys (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Cornmeal (band)

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

Non-notable and completely unsourced. Hoponpop69 (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pirbod

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

Cross-wiki promotion (

WP:BEFORE
sources doesn't yield useful results.

Nominated after a notification by Johannnes89 at my talk page (permanent link). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep Also references full covered WP:NWSRC.The following is in accordance with the WP:NMUSICIAN of paragraph one (Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.) like the

This person has been widely mentioned in all sources. With this vast amount of resources and having more music resources that have talked about this person's albums and their distribution In my opinion easily the subject meets

wp:GNG. And this distribution is completely in accordance with the policies and there is no advertising clause in it.Thanks.--Modeling (talk) 11:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Speedy delete. Clearly met

A7. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 22:09, 6 November 2021 (UTC) ===Brent mather swan===[reply
]

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

Non-notable autobio, only sources are a bunch of Blogspot references and his website. To my knowledge it doesn't seem to qualify for a CSD (i.e. has a claim to notability) and PROD would be controversial. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 21:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Withdrawn.

(non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 12:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Anna Akasoy

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

Does not appear to meet

WP:NAUTHOR, etc. I did not find significant coverage of the subject in independent sources and I see no indication that she is especially influential in her field. (t · c) buidhe 21:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wu Tien-chang

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

SOAP, autobiography AINH (talk) 19:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify, the reason of nomination was not notability but soap. Especially in the "works" part, which is full of comments-AINH (talk) 23:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concerns about the tone of an article's content can be addressed through normal editing. AllyD (talk) 08:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vitamin A2

Vitamin A2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original research, insufficient secondary sources.

WP:WITHDRAWN I'm withdrawing my nomination. Wow, this is embarrassing—shouldn't have nominated this in the first place. I've now looked deeper into A2, and, while at first glance this article had the same issues as Vitamin A5, Vitamin A2 is well-supported by other sources not in the current article.rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 19:27, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

References

  1. ^ Shantz, E.M.; Brinkman, J.H. (1950). "Biological activity of pure vitamin A2". Journal of Biological Chemistry. 183 (2): 467–471.
  2. ^ Provencio, Ignacio; Loew, Ellis R; Foster, Russell G (1992). "Vitamin A2-based visual pigments in fully terrestrial vertebrates". Vision Research. 32 (12): 2201–2208.
  3. ^ Cama, H.R.; Dalvi, P.D.; Morton, R.A.; Salah, M.K. (1952). "Studies in vitamin A. 21. Retinene2 and vitamin A2" (PDF). Biochemical Journal. 52 (4): 542.
  4. ^ Edgar M. Shantz (15 October 1948). "Isolation of Pure Vitamin A2". New Series. 108 (2807). American Association for the Advancement of Science: 417–419.
  5. doi:10.1016/0042-6989(84)90149-4
    .
  6. ^ Morton, R.A.; Creed, R.H. (1939). "The conversion of carotene to vitamin A2 by some fresh-water fishes" (PDF). Biochemical Journal. 33 (3): 318.
  7. ^ Lederer, E.; Rathmann, F.H. (1938). "A physico-chemical and biochemical study of vitamin A2" (PDF). Biochemical Journal. 32 (7): 1252.
  8. ^ Karrer, P.; Bretscher, E. (1943). "Vitamin A2". Helvetica Chimica Acta. 26: 1758–1778.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 00:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, SailingInABathTub, all those sources fail current evidence with no reviews within the past 5 years, indicating this topic is not evolving in the vitamin A community. Zefr (talk) 18:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is not required to show notability - but there are plenty of sources from the last five years on Google Scholar. SailingInABathTub (talk) 22:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Probably could use a little cleanup, but deletion is not cleanup. The compound in the infobox is known as Vitamin A2. The article might be better being moved to
    alternative to deletion. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Ecolojovem

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

Youth-wing of a Portuguese political party. The article don't pass

WP:PRIMARY. No article in the Portuguese Wikipedia (where the party comes from). Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 18:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was draftify. See

(non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Tom and Jerry: Cowboy Up!

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

Non-notable film, all coverage is simply a publication of a press release, no actual

WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 18:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Draftify: The DTV films rarely get big media coverage (with the exception of Willy Wonka), but it's not impossible. - Shadowboxer2005 (talk) 23:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify As per what DonaldD23 said. Pahiy (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Vika Kuropyatnikova

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

An article about a Ukrainian model who appears to have relocated to the West. The English article and its Ukrainian equivalent,

WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was keep.

WP:SNOW Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Theresa H. Arriola

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

No independent, in-depth coverage. Does not pass

WP:PROF. Filetime (talk) 17:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Acousmana 19:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel de Joode

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

fails

WP:SOAP-like article that's more PR and CV than encyclopedic entry. Acousmana 17:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject: [13][14], [15], [16] There's a helpful list (most artists do this in their CVs) of press coverage at [17]. When nominating an article for deletion, please make sure to check for such coverage as part of
WP:BEFORE. Vexations (talk) 18:04, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Also, Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanupTheredproject (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
one shouldn't have to "do their research," should be readily apparent from article content and associated sourcing why subject exists, if an AfD gets people to improve said entry, job done. Acousmana 20:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not how it works. You shouldn't nominate articles for deletion so that others do the work of fixing them. That's why
WP:BEFORE exists. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominators are expected to carry out certain checks before nominating an article for deletion. I'm not sure that that qualifies as research, but my guess is that anyone who carried out those checks would have found at least something. If you're not particularly well-versed in the visual arts or have you have no idea where to look for sources, you could perhaps ask for advice at
WP:WikiProject Visual art first when you consider making such a nomination? Or if you're really eager to nominate articles about very much not-notable people for whom we really have no sources; just ask me. I've got a list of soccer players somewhere. Vexations (talk) 21:30, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Guaranito

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

Non-notable cola brand, fails

WP:NCORP; no significant coverage to be found. Unsourced and tagged for notability since its creation in 2012. Lennart97 (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was redirect to Erysimum odoratum. Sandstein 11:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Erysimum hieracifolium

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

These taxonomic synonyms are spelt differently, so the potential ambiguity is better resolved with a hatnote. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch! I have no objections for deleting. Solution per user:1234qwer1234qwer4 --Estopedist1 (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, redirecting to Erysimum odoratum seems to be appropriate as a {{R from alternative scientific name}}. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
convert to redirects --awkwafaba (📥) 14:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per IPNI there are 5
Erysimum hieraciifoliums (note the "ii" version already redirects to E. odoratum). Linnaeus originally spelled it with a single "i" (see BHL link at IPNI), and his name has priority. Seems reasonable to redirect the "i" version to E. odoratum, but I'm not sure whether it is better to tag as an alternative scientific name or as a misspelling. Plantdrew (talk) 02:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
  • soft deletion
     at the end of its 7-day listing.
Logs: 2021-02 ✍️ create
--
talk) 00:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 18:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Narendra Kumar (activist)

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

Wikipedia is not for telling the world about good work or good people. The sourcing doesn't indicate notability. Source 1 is an interview with the subject and is therefore not independent, source 2 doesn't even mention him, source 3 is a Facebook link (not a reliable source), and source 4 is his own website. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete fails

WP:GNG. (talk) 09:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC) — Tnawang (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Vinodtiwari2608 (talk · contribs). [reply
]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saeid Jamali

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

Appears to be a promotional article about a subject that has questionable notability. Current sources also do not seem to be RS. WomenProj (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...also noting that per the article-talkpage, the book is self-published.[18] I just checked Amazon, and it lists publisher as "Independent". DMacks (talk) 04:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Seems TOOSOON for bio but some reliable sources have published about his work, so I don't think so deletion is the right option, but User:Clarkson001 seems to be a paid contributor as per talk page. Mehmood.Husain (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which are the
      WP:RELIABLE sources about his work? -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 18:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kitchener and District Soccer League

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

Non-notable amateur soccer league in Canada. Clearly fails

WP:FOOTYN). This topic does not receive routine coverage and details can not be verified from reliable, secondary sources. BLAIXX 16:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. czar 18:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Omprakash Pandey

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

This is an autobiography of a politician who seems to have contested the assembly election from Isauli but lost. Fails both

WP:NPOL. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

*Delete Doesn't meet notability guidelines for politicians

WP:POLITICIAN. (talk) 09:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC) — Tnawang (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Vinodtiwari2608 (talk · contribs). [reply
]

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

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Takayuki Kubota (artist)

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

This poorly sourced biography has languished in

CAT:NN since 2009 and makes no explicit claim of notability. None of the cited references constitute significant coverage of any kind, nor can I find any significant coverage online; it may exist in Japanese sources, but the lack of a jpwiki entry doesn't seem promising. Lennart97 (talk) 15:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete' It's not quite an A7, because Kubota's work has been exhibited and written about, but the most recent news I can find is that he graduated from Hunter's MFA program in 2016 and started an artist-run-space called Fig. in Tokyo in 2017. Vexations (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beta. Scandinavian Journal of Business Research

Beta. Scandinavian Journal of Business Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal, tagged for notability since 2014. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet

WP:NOTINHERITED and being "serious and respected" does not make a subject notable. GScholar does not show much citations to articles published in this journal, hence PROD reason still stands. Therefore: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 09:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 15:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This journal appears to have published about 7 articles per year in the past few years. That is fine, but in my opinion, these articles are not particularly weighty or scholarly. Since there are so few I am able to browse titles and abstracts. One article is a comparison of a financial process at two banks during one year; several of these articles seem to be essays which would require no conventional peer review; and some of these are speculations on how to do more research. I have not read these articles, just the abstracts. This alone is not a reason to delete, I feel that I am unable to offer a rationale to keep when also this article fails other notability criteria. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete indexed nowhere.
    b} 20:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Bright Aferi

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

Non notable businessman that lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of him thus fails to meet

WP:ANYBIO is also not met a before search links me to self published and user generated sources all of which do not constitute nor prove notability Celestina007 (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 15:15, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Pedro Carlos of Orléans-Braganza

Prince Pedro Carlos of Orléans-Braganza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article about him was deleted from Wikipedia in Portuguese. He is not notable because the Brazilian imperial throne does not exist any more since 1889 (and that's one of the reasons the article about the succession to the Brazilian throne was deleted. In 1993 people voted the possibility of changing the form and system of Government in Brazil to Monarchy or Parlamentarism and the result was that the vast majority of Brazilians did not want to change them that after more than 100 years of Republican Democracy. In Brazil, monarchist movements are very weak. The Brazilian imperial family has basically zero political power after more than 100 years that the throne does not exist. That is the reason why articles about them are frequently deleted from Wikipedia in Portuguese: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 (AfDs Wikipedia in Portuguese). Nowadays members of the imperial family are basically normal people, most of them are not even close to be celebrities. In addition to these, most of the sources on the article are actually not about him, they are mostly about his father, the imperial family, or his son.) Bolhones (talk) 14:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:GNG" which also applies here since there is no significant coverage of independent reliable secondary sources. Bolhones (talk) 14:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • 1 It's about his father, nothing about him.
  • 2 Pedro Carlos, the great grand son of princess Isabel and his wife visited a museum.
  • 3 It's about the imperial family, nothing about him.
  • 4 (archived) Prince Pedro Carlos was selling objects from the imperial family.
  • 5 It's about his father, nothing about him.
  • 6 It's about the imperial family, nothing about him.
  • 7 It's about the imperial family, nothing about him.
  • 8 Prince Pedro Carlos was selling an object from the imperial family
  • 9 (archived) Pedro Carlos, was responsible for a property fom the imperial family. The newspaper try to contact the prince to ask why part of that proprty was transformed into a parking lot.
  • 10 Pedro Carlos is interviewed and says that "I believe we are republicans because we have to adapt to reality and that our family is respected for working hard". He said that he had to work harder to honor his family name.
  • 11 It's about his son, nothing about him.
  • 13 (archived). Pedro Carlos and his sister Cristina lived in the Grão Pará Palace. The news os about his son (Pedro Thiago), who stole her dishes.
  • The only source which is not available online is #12. The title indicates that it is some news about his son ("Police raid hideout near Rio and liberate a teen Prince").
In conclusion: The sources either do not mention him or mention very little information about him. Bolhones (talk) 01:44, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article titled "In Rio de Janeiro’s Museu Nacional Fire, Brazil Lost More than Just the Items on Display. Aside from the troves within it, the building's museum itself was a treasure" by Mitchell Owens (5 September 2018) in Architectural Digest - see https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/rio-de-janeiro-museu-nacional-fire-brazil-lost-more-than-jsut-the-items-on-display - mentions that the "Palácio do Grão-Pará, in Pétropolis, ... is the home of Prince Pedro-Carlos of Orléans-Braganza, a forest engineer who might be emperor if the monarchy hadn’t been overthrown". Living in and owning a palace seems noteworthy to me. I'll try and dig out some more references. Greenshed (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Noteworthy != wiki-notable. Plenty of people live in and own palaces, doing so is not inherently notable. JoelleJay (talk) 18:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems to garner occasional passing mention but no significant coverage, so not notable. I think here we take our lead from pt.wiki. Agricolae (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also mentioned at [19] which describes how Pedro Carlos is not interested in becoming Emperor of Brazil. Greenshed (talk) 17:35, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is against keeping. Whether to redirect anywhere is up to editors. Sandstein 17:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare knot

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

I stumbled on this article, and have looked for sources. I have found none, though I did find the sources to start

WP:GNG. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. Looks to be 'just a design on a ring' that has been puffed up into something formal. The only cited source simply refers to a ring held at Stratford with this knot portrayed, that "is said to have belonged to Shakespeare." It says nothing about it being a heraldic symbol nor its derivation. Brooke-Little's An Heraldic Alphabet has an entry for 'Knots' where he shows 'the principle heraldic knots' but does not name or depict this knot. The only Google returns for the string either derive from Wikipedia or refer to 'Shakespeare's Knot Garden', which should parse as Shakespeare's Knot-Garden, not Shakespeare's-Knot Garden, and 'Shakespeare's knot-grass'. Even if it is real, and I find no evidence it is, its exclusion by Brooke-Little suggests it is not a notable heraldic symbol. Agricolae (talk) 15:09, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to
    signet ring and that the knot on the ring is a true lover's knot). Or delete; can't imagine who'd be searching for "Shakespeare knot" anyway, if they're not interested in the ring. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge/redirect -- It might be worth adding a few words about the Dacre knot which is more similar to this than the Bowen knot. This is clearly about a signet ring, which is worn on the 4th finger. Men have not habitually worn wedding rings in England until quite modern times, so that that theory is not credible. How the ring became lost is equally mere speculation. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Megan MacDonald

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

The subject fails both

WP:MUSICIAN. There's no significant coverage found, only passing mentions. Less Unless (talk) 09:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Weak keep: independent sources include coverage in national press and evidence of performance in relatively prestigious and notable events, although overall fairly minor. I think this is borderline but lean towards keep. Foonblace (talk) 14:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Aside from one source, none of the references cited in the article discuss MacDonald herself in any detail and BEFORE searches do not return any additional sources that could be used to build the article. I originally PROD'd this article but the PROD was contested. So I support this AFD as I really don't think GNG or MUSICIAN are met here. DocFreeman24 (talk) 14:14, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Have been tracking since an apparent newbie SPA created the draft and moved to mainspace bypassing AfC scutiny. I did a little technical clerking but had notability concerns at the time. I noticed on dePROD there was a suggestion a band might be notable, and despite a single award that didn't seem to be an alternative move/target. Should other RS be found happy to change mind. Doesn't seem a TOOSOON article to draft either, again happy if I am proved wrong. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Does not meet WP:GNG test Coldupnorth (talk) 09:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus not notable Nosebagbear (talk) 13:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12, Tughlak Road

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

no reason to think notable 'doubtful even as a redirect DGG ( talk ) 08:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unlike 10 Downing Street, this one is not a permanent official address of a high-ranking official but just one of government-owned residences in Delhi that are offered to various VIPs. Additionally, sources refer to it as Tughlak Lane. — kashmīrī TALK 20:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think there is any genuine need of this article.
    • This is my first participation in AFD discussion so apologies (in advance) for any mistakes or not doing it properly. Lilybts (talk) 16:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unless evidence is provided that the residence itself is notable, this fails
    WP:GNG. A residence does not automatically inherit notability by virtue of a notable person residing there. The sources provided are a literal directory listing and two throwaway mentions. --Kinu t/c 16:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Steam (service). Eddie891 Talk Work 16:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steam Chat

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

No reason to exist as an independent article. All of the content (once cleaned up and removed of cruft/trivia) can simply belong within a minor section within the article for Steam (service). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 08:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CosmoPop

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

Promotional fluff, attempting to portray the music of a single individual, Gabriel of Urantia (born Anthony Joseph Delevin, and subsequently known by multiple other names, including TaliasVan of Tora) as a 'genre'. It presents no substantive evidence that anyone else contributes to the 'genre', or even uses the term as a description for a musical style. A web search reveals that the term 'Cosmopop' is used elsewhere, but as an unrelated brand name etc, rather than as anything connected with the supposed subject of this article. Rather than describing a recognised genre, the article merely duplicates material already found in the (bloated, over-promotional, and questionably Wikipedia-'notable') Gabriel of Urantia biography: there appears to be nothing of any significance, backed by suitable independent sourcing, that would merit merging to that article. Much of it is best characterised as new-age waffle from Gabriel himself, repeated more or less verbatim by local Arizona media where it is even sourced at all. A bad article about (or vaguely about) a non-existent 'genre'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:28, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've sent Gabriel's article to AfD as well. wizzito | say hello! 02:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:29, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A supposed genre that has been trademarked, that has indication of being notable, particularly since many aspects of the genre seem to have been invented, or better created, of discovered perhaps is a better word, elsewhere, inclding in America, UK, Germany and France. scope_creepTalk 12:47, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article has a lot of "sources" , but on closer investigation they are almost all PR announcements from the guy's own organization, softball interviews in which he was allowed to glamorize himself, and concert announcements in which his group performed the supposed "genre" of music. The article also takes pretty comical liberties with "influence" and "recognition", as if holding a concert somewhere or being mentioned by a minor DJ equates to widespread notice of the "genre". Well it is not a genre until someone in the reliable music media reports on its influence, and nobody has. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

Withdrawn. VladimirBoys (talk) 10:24, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Delgado

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

Unfortunately, Wikipedia isn't for

Memorial. Google search shows sources only about his death. VladimirBoys (talk) 06:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was redirect to

ATD. Daniel (talk) 22:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Howling Mad Murdock

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

This is fiction trivia. The article is written so much from an in-universe persepctive that it lists the numerous medals and decorations this fictitious character has. Lack of notability/cultural impact outside of the series indicates that the character should be summarized in The A-Team, but not in a standalone article. Geschichte (talk) 11:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Room is not actually limited here, so if you think something else needs adding deleting another article actually has no bearing on it. Artw (talk) 03:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep topic is notable due to RS coverage. No objections to editing it to condense and improve. Personally not seeing the need to describe fictional awards of real ribbons and medals. Jclemens (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jclemens Could you link those RS? I don't see any mentioned here and the references in the article look bad (two out of four are primary, there is a passing mention in a newspaper and a presumablu some other in a documentary-ish TV show). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:28, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was referring to the two already in the article. Jclemens (talk) 17:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tidy per above. Artw (talk) 03:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No objection to the redirect if that ends up as the outcome - it DOES need a major pruning, and have a suspicion that a if no new material is added it will look a lot like what is already in List of The A-Team characters once that is completed. Artw (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No SIGCOV in RS has been shown to exist that establishes notability. Please ping me if better sources are found for a review. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:30, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Character from the A team - definitely not independently notable, and the character has been in no other show. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of The A-Team characters - There is not actually enough coverage in reliable sources to justify a separate article (the one actually valid source currently in the article is literally only being used to confirm that he was one of the four protagonists of the show), but as a valid target exists, redirecting would be preferable over straight deletion. Rorshacma (talk) 03:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article fails
    Avilich (talk) 17:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Elizabeth Espinosa

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

Despite working at a number of television and radio stations and having been on a reality show, I can't say that the subject meets the

WP:GNG. Mentions Emmy awards—which, in broadcast journalism, typically means regional awards that do not confer notability. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:14, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Military unrest following the 2000 Fijian coup d'état

Military unrest following the 2000 Fijian coup d'état (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability separate from the article on the coup itself, almost completely unsourced, and BLP problems GA-RT-22 (talk) 05:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to International Game Developers Association#History. Once discounting SPAs, this is a slim consensus, but there is one to redirect. Daniel (talk) 22:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest W. Adams

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

Most sources are just for the books. It's written like a resume. It says known for "Founding the IGDA", and the organization could be notable, but not sure whether Adams is independently notable.

He is a "senior lecturer / associate professor" at a Swedish university. https://katalog.uu.se/profile/?id=N13-98, so WP:Academic may apply. I'm not familiar with his field to evaluate notability, so hoping to get some feedback from those who are more familiar of the game design field. Swil999 (talk) 05:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— JoeKazz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • ... Mister or Ms. Anonymous, given that you have admitted that you know nothing about the subject, you should stop proposing edits about it. "I've heard of Atari, but I've never heard of Nolan Bushnell, so I suggest that we delete his page." Your own ignorance is a poor excuse for vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EWAdams (talk • contribs) 13:15, 6 November 2021 (UTC) Striking comment from indefinitely blocked sock puppet account. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't attack other editors. ColinBear (talk - contributions) 15:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ColinBear: It's not suppressing that he wouldn't want his own article deleted. It looks like the last commenter is an SPA account. You might want to look into if this AfD has been mentioned anywhere outside of Wikipedia or if the SPA is a sock of EWAdams. I wouldn't be surprised if either were true. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that proposing a delete when you know nothing about the subject is not a very sensible approach to take. I report that Adams is well-known in the computer games field not only as the founder of its leading association for game developers but as a senior theorist and educator in the field. He is also the author of a whole set of well-regarded books on games topics, of which the best-known is probably Games mechanics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruthaylett (talk • contribs) 13:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC) Striking comment from indefinitely blocked sock puppet account. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ernest Adams is a noted figure in the video game industry for many works, including being a founder of IGDA. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 17:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ernest W. Adams is a pioneer in the Games Industry. It is absurd to consider deleting his Wiki page. The person that proposed this deletion has disqualified himself and this should be removed on that basis alone. "Well-known" in the field is an understatement. In some regards he is the Asimov of Game Development writing (and creating) (both prolific and an exceptionally well-known pioneer in the field). Fundamentals of Game Design alone (now in it's 3'rd printing) is enough in and of itself to warrant his inclusion in Wiki. To just about anyone in the business of Game Development, the guy is a legend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeKazz (talk • contribs) 23:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC) — JoeKazz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Striking comment from indefinitely blocked sock puppet account. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.
  • Academic; notable in field.
  • Author and co-author; subject of research by readers.

[1] Basicporch (talk) 05:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC) Striking comment from indefinitely blocked sock puppet account. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ https://www.google.co.nz/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:%22Ernest+Adams%22
Extended discussion with blocked socks Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • 4256 citations in Google Scholar. WTF does it take to satisfy the Wikipedia oligarchy? EWAdams (talk) 14:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I argue best by analogy. Let's redirect "Neil Armstrong's" page, to the Space Program or the Moon's wiki page because he doesn't seem to have had much impact beyond that "Small Step for Man" thing. All the counter arguments seem to come down to..."I've never heard of the guy, so he must not have had much impact as an individual" - It's Dunning-Kruger at it's finest. JoeKazz (talk) 14:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I edited the above because I was told I wasn't civil enough. It's now as civil as I can be while still pointing out the basic wrong-headedness of this entire discussion. It's really quite silly.JoeKazz (talk) 14:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    One last question: Why is there both a Harper Lee and a To Kill a Mockingbird Wiki pages?JoeKazz (talk) 14:51, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a ridiculous comparison because the subject of this AfD is simply not on par with Harper Lee or Neil Armstrong in terms of prominence and societal impact. If he was, he would absolutely merit an article. Notability not being inherited, the person must prove that they are worthy of covering independently of what they created. (Of course, this doesn't necessarily have to be by notoriety, but by infamy as well. SOME kind of significant coverage is necessary).ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not ridiculous. Within the members the world-wide Game Dev. Community, Ernest is a Pioneer on par with Neil Armstrong, and much more prolific as Harper Lee. 25,000+ people attend the GDC each year at Moscone in San Francisco (Pre-Covid). I'd wager that most of those attending know and have read Ernest, and that at least a third of them could pick him out by sight. I don't think you can say the same for Neil or Harper. He's even more famous than Rami Ismail (who's Wiki-Page is quite sparse in comparison (yet not challenged)).JoeKazz (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the old "keep because some people from a random tech conference know him" argument, classic. Like ApLundell says, your not doing yourself any favors here with it. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Anonymous1941 (talk) 21:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

House Hippo

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

There are a lack of references to this article and it fails

WP:N. Anonymous1941 (talk) 04:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was speedy keep, nominator blocked as a sock and no one else argued for deletion (

WP:SKCRIT#4). (non-admin closure) Elli (talk | contribs) 01:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Baby Alive

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

Clearly fails

WP:GNG. VladimirBoys (talk) 04:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wilsons Corner, Virginia

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

Nominated in the Allen Shop Corner AfD but not mentioned past that. Looks to be a road corner near someone's house?

Possibly relevant newspaper results: https://www.newspapers.com/image/189488974/?terms=%22Wilsons%20Corner%22%20Amelia%20County&match=1

https://www.newspapers.com/image/230810974/?terms=%22Wilsons%20Corner%22%20Amelia%20County&match=1 wizzito | say hello! 04:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to take this opportunity to emphasise again that, even if it were populated at some point, we would still need evidence of legal recognition by e.g., incorporation for this to be a
WP:GEOLAND #1 pass. FOARP (talk) 08:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There's rough consensus that a list of this type presents NOTNEWS problems (a list of historical eruptions by year would probably be OK). I'm discounting the two "Keep but rename to List of active volcanoes" opinions because they make no arguments. Sandstein 10:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of currently erupting volcanoes

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

It is really unclear what is meant by "currently erupting" here, since no dates are involved. The article was dates back to 2009: is it a list of volcanoes that were erupting then, or since then? Are all the volcanoes on this list really erupting right now? You can't tell from the article, and there are no references. What happens if you find a cached version of this? I think if this was to be saved, then we should do things by year, e.g., List of volcanoes erupting in 2021, then it's clear when the eruptions were taking place. But if we're not willing to create that kind of list, maybe this should just be deleted. Mike Peel (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nominator has not provided a valid rationale for deletion; an unclear (to them) title is certainly not a valid reason. Like many other similar pages, "currently" means as of the version date, so today's version should be those that are erupting today, and the article should be edited whenever a volcano stops erupting (to remove it from the list) or starts erupting (to add it to the list). Of course a 2009 version from the article history would be a different list. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @UnitedStatesian: Remember that we have offline Wikipedia browsers, like Kiwix, you can't assume that the version of the page is being read today, you have to write it to last. Happy to see alternatives to deletion - as I suggested, 'by year' may make more sense. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't understand the nominator's confusion, "currently erupting" means erupting currently. The nominator's claim of "there are no references" is so false it's embarrassing: the Smithsonian Global Volcanism Program has the definitive source for this, which is used to source the article as a footnote four times! It would be easy to make into a sourced table with start dates from that, though I am somewhat uncomfortable with an article that merely duplicates one source. I see no reason to do this by year, though
    List of large volcanic eruptions in the 21st century could be expanded beyond major ones. Reywas92Talk 19:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @Reywas92: See above about offline versions. Adding start dates to the eruptions would be a good start. Looking again at the references, it seems that one reference per section header has been used, which really isn't enough, it needs to be one reference per line to make it clear that the reference covers that eruption. Otherwise, someone can come along and add a volcano to the list, which happens, and it's not clear if this is still from the reference or not. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, good suggestions for improvement but I see no basis for deletion. Very easy to add "as of"s or whatever to aid in keeping updated and accurate for offline or cached views. Reywas92Talk 19:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Reywas92: A move / split would be my preferred outcome here rather than deletion, but "currently erupting" is very problematic, so if we can't move/split then deletion is best. Having specific pages per year of eruption would avoid the issue. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A name change to "ongoing" could be doable. I don't think a surplus of annual articles is a good approach either. Maybe break down
    List of large volcanic eruptions in the 21st century by decade to account for intermittancy and duplication of multi-year eruptions. Reywas92Talk 21:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • delete per
    list of active volcanoes makes sense because it changes relatively slowly, but eruptions start and stop all the time, so that this article ought to match the Smithsonian's Global Volcanism Program current eruptions page. And of course, it does not. And they say that "Detailed statistics are not kept on daily activity, but generally there are around 20 volcanoes actively erupting on any particular day; this is a subset of the normal 40-50 with continuing eruptions." (their emphasis) They don't take an eruption off their list until it has been quiet for at least three months. It seems unlikely that someone is going to commit to checking the GVP page every week to keep this "current" list actually current. This is a case where an external link to the actual authority makes much more sense. Mangoe (talk) 20:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I've just browsed the Lists of volcanoes and it's puzzling that they don't seem to distinguish the active and extinct volcanoes. I agree with Mangoe's point that it would be better to focus on the acive volcanoes than have this half-baked real-time tracker. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course that's because as Volcano#Volcanic_activity says, there's not a clear definition for an active volcano. But most of these lists do provide the most recent eruption, which is the key indicator for such classification. It makes sense to have a place for recent activity vs. having had some activity in the last century or more. Reywas92Talk 21:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do think a list of erupting volcanoes is notable enough to be kept as an article; however, I certainly see Mike Peel's point here. Perhaps the name of the article should be changed to "List of volcanoes that have erupted since (certain date)?" As Mangoe said, volcanoes stop and start erupting all the time, so it's almost impossible to keep track of which are erupting at a given second. (side note: I did create the article so naturally I am biased toward keeping it) --THFSW (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per
    WP:RECENTISM, or repurpose as an article on every erupting volcano in 2021 or the 2020s. That way, it isn't a live update ticker, and can actually be maintained to proper encyclopedic standard. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep, as currently erupting is reasonably clearJackattack1597 (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per
    WP:NOTNEWS, as this seems like it will have to be updated every time a volcano is erupting or stops erupting, classifying it as more of a news ticker than an encyclopedia article about something that already happened.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:19, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to

Amelia, Virginia. Daniel (talk) 22:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Scotts Fork, Virginia

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

A fork in the road at a "Five Forks Road" where an Exxon gas station is, likely not a community.

Possible relevant Newspapers.com results:

https://www.newspapers.com/image/616170124/?terms=%22Scotts%20Fork%22%20Amelia%20County&match=1 (between Scotts Fork)

https://www.newspapers.com/image/615483821/?terms=%22Scotts%20Fork%22%20Amelia%20County&match=1 (Scotts Fork Baseball Team?)

https://www.newspapers.com/image/615803490/?terms=%22Scotts%20Fork%22%20Amelia%20County&match=1 (at Scotts Fork near ... Amelia County)

https://www.newspapers.com/image/615863886/?terms=%22Scotts%20Fork%22%20Amelia%20County&match=1 (Real estate listing) wizzito | say hello! 04:14, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's 24 articles in five minutes. I think we can say pretty straight forwardly that the amount of care applied in the creation of these articles was minimal. Of course this was all a very long time ago and probably the author has change their behaviour in the mean-time, and Wikipedia was a very different place in 2010. All the same I think a bulk-delete of unimproved articles based simply on GNIS may be in order, similar to what was done with the California GNIS listings created by Carlossuarrez46. FOARP (talk) 16:21, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus not notable Nosebagbear (talk) 13:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Masons Corner, Virginia

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

Was in the Allen Shop Corner AfD, but not mentioned further than that. This is, most likely, just a road corner/junction/waypoint. Possible relevant results: https://www.newspapers.com/image/615945268/?terms=%22Masons%20Corner%22%20Amelia%20County&match=1 https://www.newspapers.com/image/615799795/?terms=%22Masons%20Corner%22%20Amelia%20County&match=1 wizzito | say hello! 04:10, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Consensus not notable Nosebagbear (talk) 13:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valley View, Virginia

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

I'm not sure what this is or if it was a community. Topo shows a Valley View Lane. I see Newspapers.com results about a Valley View estate in Fauquier County but nothing in Alleghany, but there's also listings for people in "Valley View, Va." and "Valley View, Ky (Kentucky)." https://www.newspapers.com/clip/88428518/valley-view-estate/ wizzito | say hello! 03:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. I believe that the Keep voters have convincingly demonstrated that the concept is covered in reliable sources and deserves to be covered somewhere on Wikipedia. However, there isn't full agreement on exactly where this concept should be covered. Many different merge/redirect targets were proposed, and others argued that it should remain in its own standalone article. In the end, no clear consensus emerged on where this content should reside, therefore it defaults to staying where it is for the moment. It should be noted that the content at

exact copy of the content of this article, so something should be done about that soon. I'd encourage further discussion on the article's talk page about the best place to host the content of this article instead of starting more AfDs, because it seems clear that there is consensus for this content to appear somewhere on WP. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 23:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Relationship anarchy

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

Multiple times this article is redirected at sexual identity however no discussion has brought so here it is. Does this deserves moving? YT0 ☎ (she/ey) 20:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. YT0 ☎ (she/ey) 20:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. YT0 ☎ (she/ey) 20:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My main objection to the specific redirect that is that this is clearly not really a sexual identity at all. It is a type or structure of relationship that people of any sexual identity might, or might not, choose to adopt. This makes it qualitatively different from all the other identities listed in Sexual identity#Identities (even "sapiosexuality", which is utter nonsense but does at at least try to frame itself as if it were a sexual identity).
As for the references, not all of them are great but ref 2 is a whole published paper about this very subject and some of the others are OK too. There are other sources that could be used. In books, I quickly turned up this (fairly substantial coverage) and this (not as extensive but still something). In Scholar I quickly found this and this. I didn't look very hard to find this stuff and I'm sure that quite a bit more exists. Given that so much of the coverage comes from Sweden, I'd bet that somebody who speaks Swedish could turn up even more still. I'm not pretending that this is a major topic with mountains of scholarly coverage but there is clearly enough material to justify and support a short article. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also note that Swedish Wikipedia has had an article on this topic since 2009 and there are articles in several other languages too, some more extensive than this one. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't consider any of those sources suitable for use in an encyclopedia. The Swedish article is sourced primarily to Dr Andie, a blog. The other links are dead. Then there's the term paper that cites the author's own bachelor's thesis (both unusable). The only source we have is
justify a standalone article. czar 00:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Free_love#Recent. The number and content of Ghits indicate enough serious independent interest to justify encyclopedic coverage of the neologism "relationship anarchy". That was also the finding of the previous AfD. But it sure doesn't deserve a stand-alone article. There's a good deal of chaff in the sources provided, and with anarchists you're never going to get to an authoritative source anyway, are you? The Midnattssol paper is the most promising as actual social science but it's in Swedish. The Strandell paper is an unholy wreck. (He cites 5 movies, 1 t.v. show and a Pitbull song.) None of the cited sources show any awareness of Fourier or Armand or Emma Goldman. Yes the phrase appears to be notable and verifiable but this idea is 100 years old and already in the encyclopedia. --Lockley (talk) 01:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I see the idea of anarchy different from anarchism. I believe there are some relationally anarchal statists just as are anarchists that are strictly monogamous. But I see your point, free love, free relations and relationship anarchy are almost the same thing, with one being more theorized and precisely defined than the other. —YT0 ☎ (she/ey) 15:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Relationship anarchy is not an approach that fits into the category of non-monogamies, nor can it be included under the umbrella term of polyamory since it doesn't focus on refuting affective sexual exclusivity. Instead, it centers on challenging the whole set of authoritarian, normative, individualistic, and coercive attributes of the dominant culture in terms of relationships. The form expressions like non-mono or poly take and their reference to numbers (both make plurality explicit) is important, since it definitely conditions persons interested in new relationship formats, pointing them in a specific direction: to change how many people they interact with, not how they relate. jcperezz (talk) 13:35, 2 May 2024 UTC [refresh]
  • Merge to Non-monogamy#Terminology - limited discussion with "relationship anarchy" directly in the title of articles. Citation databases Scopus (1), Google Scholar allintitle: (4). Future work growing this section within Non-monogamy could help flesh it out and then, if it becomes too big, then future options could be considered. Jamzze (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If merge, where to?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 03:36, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment – Consensus is indeed for the article to not be retained, but presently no consensus exists about whether to merge or redirect, and five potential merge/redirect targets have been suggested:
Hopefully more input can occur whereby a merge or redirect target can be more clearly discerned, and so a hopeful consensus can be achieved about whether to merge or redirect. North America1000 04:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Three editors named Non-monogamy#Terminology as satisfactory. And the term's already covered there so no need for merger. The other options are more of a stretch. czar 04:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@
Czar: In the discussion, you have cited that link, another user has stated to redirect to the Non-monogamy article, and one other user has opined with a merge !vote. While you may feel that there is nothing to merge, another user feels differently, and I feel that more discussion is warranted so an actual consensus can be formed, if possible, rather than a "two against one" situation where one of the two for redirection discounts the opinion of the one for merging. I don't view that scenario as an actual consensus. Furthermore, three users have opined with keep !votes as well, although the first one is a bit on the weaker side in terms of evidence. North America1000 07:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't think this is nearly that complicated. czar 14:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's fine, and I don't find it particularly complicated either. No offense intended, but you seem to be applying all of the weight of the discussion toward redirection, while downplaying or ignoring other commentary, in favor of your own point of view. This is not how consensus is formed on Wikipedia. You refer to the other potential outcomes as "a stretch", but this is a bit ambiguous. Ultimately, it is much more important for discussions to be closed accurately based upon a close inspection of the evidences presented, relative to various guidelines and policies, and based upon an accurate determination of
WP:CONSENSUS, rather than siding with one "camp" or another and then performing an executive decision based upon personal preference. North America1000 16:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Redirect to Non-monogamy#Terminology. For me, it shouldn't go in Sexual identity#Identities because, as already noted it is not a sexual identity. I believe it is already sufficiently covered in Non-monogamy#Terminology given the lack of RS on the concept. The concept doesn't seem notable enough to warrant inclusion in the main Anarchism page (Anarchism#Gender, sexuality, and free love) or in Free love#Recent which seem to be more about giving an overview of some of the most notable developments. It is appropriate for Anarchism and issues related to love and sex - although only a short summary of the term is warranted based on the lack of RS and not a full merge. Vanteloop (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC) Merge to Anarchism and issues related to love and sex as done by Alalch Emis (talk · contribs) is a sensible enough compromise, given the improvements to the article since my first vote. Vanteloop (talk) 13:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The mere fact that people think that any of Sexual Identities, Non monogamy or Free Love are acceptable places to redirect/merge shows how much this article needs lacking, because all of those completely miss the point. I'd strongly prefer for this article to be improved to make that much clear, but if it is merged with something else it should probably be one of the anarchism pages. LeonT85 (talk) 23:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The concept is well-established and notable by a wide margin, it's a fairly common relationship-philosophy and has been for many years. Many of the merge-proposals are nonsensical and demonstrate that the people proposing it do not even understand what the concept is about. The article is fairly poor though, so it should probably be tagged with one of the "needs improvement" templates. For example merging with Sexual Identity is absurd since RA is orthogonal to sex, you can organise your life according to RA principles regardless of what your sexual preferences and identity are. Eivind Kjørstad (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for closer Note that the two users above have not edited anything except the article in question (and their own user pages) since January 2021, they may be SPA. Vanteloop (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing by SPA you mean a sock puppet account, but I am amused to see that is none of the expansions listed at the linked page. If you did not mean that, then which of those expansions was intended? Vttale (talk) 22:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean sock puppet account. I should have linked
WP:SPA. When you click on SPA the very first line says "On Wikipedia, SPA may refer to a single-purpose account." which is what i was referring to. A single purpose account is not the same as a sockpuppet. It is merely an account which seems to be focused almost exclusively on one article or area. It doesn't discount their opinion but is useful context Vanteloop (talk) 22:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Um what? I'm accused of being a "single purpose account" on the basis that I've been an infrequent contributor in recent years? That's not what the term means at all and I strongly resent that accusation. This seems like a deliberate attempt to discount my voice not for any valid reason, but instead simply because I voted in a way that the user happens to disagree with. Eivind Kjørstad (talk) 00:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also https://www.reddit.com/r/relationshipanarchy/comments/qlkwmy/wikipedia_has_flagged_ra_page_for_deletion/ czar 05:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not on the basis of being an infrequent contributor, on the basis the account has been used for a single purpose since January. I do not think you vote should be discounted and I have said as much in my original reply. I do think it is important context, especially given the canvasing that has gone on in regards to this article. Vanteloop (talk) 23:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would not describe either of those users as being SPAs. Neither account was recently created for the purpose of promoting a POV. They are both infrequent contributors who, while they may be less familiar with our specific policies than some, are clearly participating in the AfD process in good faith. I see no reason to discount their !votes. We let anybody !vote on AfDs, even IPs, excluding only those who are being intentionally disruptive. This is as it should be. Infrequent editors have a right to give an opinion on the odd occasion that they feel moved to give one.
I also see that Reddit thread as fairly benign by Reddit standards. The OP is clearly assuming bad faith in an unhelpful way but the people underneath (of which there are only a handful) don't seem to be buying that line. It has been up for 10 days now and it hasn't lead to an influx of angry SPAs. If it was an attempt to get a brigade going it seems that the RA people are level headed enough not to go along with it. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As i said above: 'It doesn't discount their opinion but is useful context'. I am not doubting the editors are voting in good faith neither have I argued that their votes should be discounted.
If the accounts were simply 'infrequent' accounts I would not have said anything - it's the fact that the only mainspace articles either account has edited since January (at time of original comment) have been this page. That's the 'important context' I referred to. Especially given the proof of canvasing we've seen from someone who is obviously aware of this discussion. Vanteloop (talk) 23:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep abundant coverage in reliable sources, it's clear to me that it meets notability guidelines. Proposed merge targets are not satisfactory as RA is not limited to romantic or sexual relationships but is a method of envisioning/managing all personal relationships, even platonic ones, and does not necessarily involve non-monogamy. Nor is it necessarily related to anarchism. (t · c) buidhe 20:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I added a further reading section with additional sources showing the notability of this concept. (t · c) buidhe 20:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Editors here may want to review some recent changes I made to improve the article. I have done some cleanup of the article, removing bachelor and masters thesis as primary sources such these are generally not considered RS per
    WP:SCHOLARSHIP. I have also removed duplicates in the 'further reading' section as this is discouraged except for articles with reference sections containing 'very many entries' Vanteloop (talk) 21:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment. Two academic references to International Conferences also added. Jcperezz (talk) 13:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to the several academic & reliable sources. Merging to another article would lead to this information being eroded/confused, this seems like its own distinct concept. Caleb Stanford (talk) 00:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect, somewhere. Content forking by slightly different perspectives. Probably Anarchism#Gender, sexuality, and free love per Iskandar323 --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Anarchism and issues related to love and sex. No brainer. Anarchism#Gender, sexuality, and free love is basically the same thing, but since there's a main article, it needs to be the target. Merge is needed as the article is short and unlikely to be expanded. Oppose redirect as there is content not found elsewhere worth preserving. Other proposed targets are bad. — Alalch Emis (talk) 10:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See de facto merger for an illustration of the argument: diff. Pinging SmokeyJoe who was unsure about the target. — Alalch Emis (talk) 11:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hooks Mill, Virginia

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

I doubt this is a community. This is the only Newspapers.com result, and I very much doubt it applies to this place: https://www.newspapers.com/image/315531643/?terms=%22Hooks%20Mill%22%20Alleghany%20County&match=1

There looks to be a road named "Hooks Mill Lane", so this might just be a mill that got a road named after it. wizzito | say hello! 03:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. The typo in the original article title threw off my attempts to find Google search results. The correct title does indeed yield multiple reliable sources.

(non-admin closure) Taking Out The Trash (talk) 14:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Dg nanoha okiku

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

Absolutely zero hits for this subject in a Google search. Likely a

WP:HOAX (though CSD was contested). If this subject does indeed exist, they must be under a different name. I note that there are three "sources" for the article, but since none of them show up in a Google search, I can't be sure if they are authentic or not. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 02:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 23:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anshula Kant

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

Fails

WP:GNG. Most of the sources are PTI reprints and are not independent. Appointment at World Bank doesn't grant automatic notability. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

I respect your opinion. But from what I know, you can get anything published through PTI if you are willing to pay. Hence, I am concerned with independence when it comes to PTI. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 20:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have evidence that the news agency isn't independent and reliable? pburka (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See in a Quora discussion here [32] - seems to be a common knowledge that there are paid routes for PTI. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 21:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RSN. pburka (talk) 22:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I think if they would fact check etc, they would at least write 'edited by' and put a staff writer. But yes, there is no clarity at PTI thing. This should be discussed. Also reading Deccan Chronicle article - very clearly a rewritten piece of supplied information. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you're right about the Deccan Chronicle piece, it is rewritten and by-lined. The newspaper clearly thought she was notable enough to spend time doing that. pburka (talk) 14:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Unit of time#List. There's clear consensus that this isn't notable and is functionally just a definition. There is good cause for a redirect, but it's currently an even split. Rather than extended for a week just to settle the redirect issue, since I'm not sure if a cross-wiki redirect is viable under policy and there's a viable regular target, I've selected the unit of time.

If individuals want to further discuss that on the redirect's talk page (or another appropriate forum) then, subject to policy, that's fine. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quadrennium

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

Per

WT:AFD, nominated pro forma on behalf of the above IP by Extraordinary Writ (talk) at 03:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

🌀 01:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Happy with this. There's a brief section on Quadrennium at Olympiad#Quadrennium, but probably shouldn't redirect there given that the term is not exclusively used for the Olympics. Also happy for the term to be replaced with plain english where it just means four years and doesn't have the technical sense that the Olympics apparently uses. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 02:46, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus that neither NPROF or NAUTHOR is met. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neil H. Baum

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

No significant coverage per

WP:PROF, SL93 (talk) 01:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was no consensus.

No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America1000 02:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Grigor Danielyan

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

nothign more than a basic resume, doesn't meet

WP:NENT or anything else. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment By a quick Google search in Armenian language, I can see significant coverage that demonstrate his notability, But article was written in resume format which is not suitable for a encyclopedia.
    talk) 20:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Although there is not too much news, he meets
    WP:ENT by being in several Armenian TV shows and Series. I also removed a big chunk of un-sourced material. Webmaster862 (talk) 02:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 23:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of minority governors and lieutenant governors in the United States

List of minority governors and lieutenant governors in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yet another of these political holders

WP:LISTN (the only coverage I can find is of how the US has elected only two Black governors [34]; which, beyond not even matching with the article as it stands, is not enough to create a list of them or support the rest of this); and because it is found nowhere but on Wikipedia, it is OR by definition (are there some missing? is everyone's ethnicity here properly recorded? ...) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere is lack of diversity more evident than in governors’ mansions across the country. Today, only two of the 50 states are led by someone who identifies as non-White: Hawaii, where Okinawan-American Dave Ige is governor, and New Mexico, whose chief executive is Michelle Lujan Grisham, a Latina.91011 There are currently no African American governors, which has been true for most of American history. There have been only four Black governors, and just two—Douglas Wilder of Virginia and Deval Patrick of Massachusetts—were elected. The other two, including David Paterson, who served as New York’s governor from 2008 to 2010, assumed the job after their predecessor was pushed out of office.

  • That's not enough to contextualise anything but a list of African American governors. So as I said, there's coverage of African-American governors, but not much of the others, and the African-Americans are few enough that they don't really warrant a list which will be limited to only a couple of entries. And ethnicity, if it is really the important, can be mentioned in the relevant pages at Category:Lists of state governors of the United States (if it is non-obvious from the picture). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some points in response:
  1. The use of US Census categories is not discussed in the article or sourced. Nor is this definition used in the sources you provided. I also think this is a fudging of how race is recorded and anachronistic to apply this changing category to historic figures (never mind BLPs).
  2. As explicitly stated by the US Census, individual’s response to the race question is based upon self-identification. We have no way of knowing how people identified and this is problematic for BLP. Also quite funny to think Wiltz, who fought in the confederate army, would have self-identified as non-white.
Who said anything about Louis Wiltz being non-white? He is listed in the article because he was Hispanic (who can be of any race, including white), not because he wasn't white (for the record, he was white, and Hispanic). And it is the U.S. Census, and myriad federal employment, education and discrimination laws, that deem African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, etc. to be racial or ethnic minorities. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. The Talk I linked to names several Sephardic Jewish people who would be eligible such as George Allen. Do we need to wait until his census is released before we add him?
4. Sources provided here are not adequate and mostly speak about Africa American politics which is a different topic altogether. Vladimir.copic (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You conveniently ignored my Wikipedia policy based arguments, and made an appeal to wokeness to keep the article, despite multiple people explaining nothing like this article exists in the real world (so fails
Trivial cross-categorisation article is the haunt of many socks, and grossly lacks reliable sourcing or any real-world equivalent. Newshunter12 (talk) 21:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
  • None of these sources discuss minority governors and lieutenant governors though? Like I said above, maybe we could instead create an article about African-American or Hispanic and Latino American governors and lieutenant governors which are actually spoken about in sources. Better still just use the sources to improve
    WP:BLP. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
What do you mean none discuss minority governors, they do. They discuss, respectively, the racial makeup of governors, the history of African-American governors, and the absence of women people of colour (ie the presence of men POC). But, wait, there's more: There has been little diversity among US governors: "Historically, there have been remarkably few minorities to reach that height in politics — only four African American men and two non-white women. There have also been a number of Hispanic, Asian-American, and two Indian-American Governors." Can We All Get Along? Racial and Ethnic Minorities in American Politics NB p.181 which has discussion on minority elected officials at state level. Contemporary State Lieutenant Governors: An Initial Review see LIEUTENANT GOVERNORS: DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION pp.105-115 which includes a column on racial background on all LGs since the 1970s. As I said at the outset, I agree the title is not the best, but that is not the point of AfD. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is that the sources you previously quoted spoke about individual identities that are often grouped under “minorities” in the US and don’t use the term “minority”. To use these kind of sources to demonstrate notability of this topic is
WP:FIXABLE one. Vladimir.copic (talk) 12:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I think the issues your raise would be more apposite if we were discussing an article rather than a list. Nevertheless, allow me to acknowledge your genial, collaborative response. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean I am basing all this off
WP:NOTCATALOG which explicitly advises against 'non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as 'people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y'". To me that last quotation makes it a pretty open and shut case. The topic would be better served as an article or section in another article rather than a list. Vladimir.copic (talk) 02:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Let me finish your quote from
race in America, I think this list passes that hurdle, no? (If not, what would?) -Tiredmeliorist (talk) 16:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Are people really thinking of politicians like John Garamendi (who appears on this list) when they talk about US minority politicians? Vladimir.copic (talk) 20:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They might not be, but even if they are not, that has no relevance in determining whether to delete the list. Demonstrating that a list has areas of uncertainty (as against a list which is entirely ambiguous on inclusion) is not a reason per se invalidating the list. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but add U.S. Census definition of minority to the introductory section. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe such a statement is already at the top of the article? -Tiredmeliorist (talk) 16:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 13:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, based on the discussion above. More broadly, this list article is high quality and notable. Caleb Stanford (talk) 00:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Reywas92. I sympathize with Killuminator's comment that The usage of the word minority here, and arguably in a wider American context, is very fatuous, but this doesn't matter here. Wikipedia and AfD are not the place for original social critique. It is what it is. This is not a non-encyclopedic cross-categorizaton and NLIST is met. — Alalch Emis (talk) 12:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Azerbaijan–India relations. Daniel (talk) 23:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of India, Baku

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

Fails WP:GNG. Embassies are not inherently notable. This article merely confirms it exists and lists previous ambassadors. LibStar (talk) 02:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as article passes GNGTEST and SNG. State/Country level government organizations as well as Embassies are inherently notable and unique.--AbhiSuryawanshi (talk) 04:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Embassies are not inherently notable and lacks third party coverage to meet GNGTEST. LibStar (talk) 04:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is inherently notable unless and until sources are provided. Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia,
no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability (WR:ARTN). Self-published sources can be primary, secondary, or tertiary sources. Apart from official site, Embassies do get local news coverage and most of them are notable.--AbhiSuryawanshi (talk) 07:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
SNG test
As per SNG
Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:
  1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.
  2. The organization has received significant coverage in multiple
    reliable sources that are independent
    of the organization.
Let us discuss these two criteria in details -
The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.
This article is about a diplomatic mission of India to Azerbaijan. By default topic is international in scale.
The organization has received significant coverage in multiple
reliable sources that are independent
of the organization.
Embassy information comes from the official government site as well as other notable media organizations.
As per WP:NEXIST, Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article.The absence of sources or :citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article.
In short, article passes SNG test and is notable.
--AbhiSuryawanshi (talk) 07:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:As per the support due to reasons as stated above.Utkarsh555 (talk)
  • Delete: per nominator, fails GNG and is unnotable. - Kevo327 (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. the list of ambassadors to Azerbaijan–India relations, but other than that, the embassy building is not notable. There is certainly no guideline or notion in Wikipedia that embassies are inherently notable. Geschichte (talk) 07:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
you cannot !vote twice in an AfD. LibStar (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck duplicate !vote above, only one allowed, but feel free to comment all you'd like. See
    WP:AFDFORMAT for more information. North America1000 00:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 14:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 23:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hearns Crossroads, Delaware

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

All had original prods removed ten years ago under the mistaken belief that anything in the GNIS is automatically notable. These are named intersections, not notable communities [48]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 14:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 14:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Springfield Crossroads, Delaware, site of St. John's Methodist Church, a church listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Djflem (talk) 17:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The NRHP registration form for the church says its location is "Southeast Corner of Springfield Crossroads". This indicates it's just an intersection, not that it's a community or a notable place. Reywas92Talk 21:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree. That usage in the NRHP document does not suggest it is not a community. Other usage in the NRHP document suggests it is in fact a community and/or notable place:
        • From the NRHP document: "St. John's Methodist Church and cemetery is located in Indian River Hundred, Sussex County, Delaware on the southeast corner of Springfield Crossroads about three miles southeast of Georgetown. The surrounding area is farm land and has been for over two hundred years. The crossroads consists of the church complex, a house and a small, frame, nineteenth century store." (emphasis added)
        • From the NRHP document: "They meet in private homes and in the school that was located near Springfield Crossroads."
        • From the NRHP document: "An acre of land was purchased at Springfield Crossroads in July of 1852."
        • In the bibliography in the NRHP document it is given as a location of publication: "Moore, J. Everett Jr. A History of St. John's Church. Springfield Crossroad, DE, n.d. Collected manuscript."
--Doncram (talk) 02:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yet none of these say "in" as you would for an actual community like a village or town. Of course you'd be "at" or "near" or "on" an intersection. If there's just one church, one house, and one store, that is not a notable place. It takes more than one family to be a notable community. Reywas92Talk 02:57, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There was more than one family, suggested by statements of multiple homes. And who do you think attended the school and the church, and who patronized the store, and who was the post office for? The fact that it is documented there were a church, home, and store at the crossroads itself in 1989 suggests to me, given general trends of depopulation in rural areas, that previously there were more homes and other buildings at the crossroads directly, and more nearby as well. User:Reywas92, you clearly disagree about notability of this place; you do not need to repeat yourself again and again by replying to every statement that does not agree with you. It is tedious. --Doncram (talk) 01:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your quotation with emphasis added "The crossroads consists of the church complex, a house and a small, frame, nineteenth century store" is not a statement of multiple homes. The "private homes" are not said to be in (or at) this supposed community, it says the school was "near" the crossroads. Who attended the church? Maybe the folks who lived at the crossroads of Springfield Ave and Park Ave to the west. Who went to the store? Maybe those who lived south on Gravel Hill Road toward where it crosses Zoar Road. Rather tedious that people think that because people lived in the vicinity of an intersection that the intersection is notable and we need an article to state where a church exists. Reywas92Talk 17:59, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep I'm seeing quite a few results in the archives about people who were from Springfield Crossroads, indicating that it is a community, as well as being the location of a notable church. Grace Brimmer was a resident of Hearns Crossroads. The others I haven't examined to see if they are actual settlements, but in any event deserve to be nominated individually. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 00:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It literally says "of Hearns Crossroads, Laurel..." and "She was a lifelong Laurel resident." So it was a location of reference or even neighborhood but I don't see automatic notability. Reywas92Talk 02:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - All fail
    WP:GNG. Sources only use these crossroads as landmarks or to tell us where someone lived; I'm not finding any coverage for the locations themselves. Although NRHP-listed buildings are presumed notable, the places where they're located are not. –dlthewave ☎ 12:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep a church listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Lightburst (talk) 01:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, we're aware of that, but an intersection does not inherit notability from a building located on it. Reywas92Talk 01:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • See above response about what the NRHP document actually says. It is a place and a community. --Doncram (talk) 02:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Intersections that fail
    Avilich (talk) 02:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is the suggestion that Springfield Crossroads, Delaware be redirected to that target?. Not ideal, but acceptable. (Shame about bundled nominations, which make things confusing.)Djflem (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes I missed the other items but yes. – The Grid (talk) 12:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, redirecting to the church doesn't make sense. It is a community which includes the church and more: As of 1989, the date of writing of the NRHP document, "The crossroads consists of the church complex, a house and a small, frame, nineteenth century store." --Doncram (talk) 02:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So one single family lived in this house? I laugh at the idea that this is a notable community then. A locality, whatever, but not worthy of an article. Reywas92Talk 02:57, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to St. John's Methodist Church (Georgetown, Delaware) for Springfield Crossroads, Delaware, delete the other 3 for clarity. – The Grid (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close: The bundling of these nominations makes it kind of inconvenient to participate here, since it requires four separate searches to be done, and I am not coming to the same conclusions about every article. jp×g 23:37, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hearns Crossroads: undecided, there are at least a couple articles referring to it as an inhabited place ("Ten Churches Involved". The News Journal. Wilmington, Delaware. 1952-10-06. p. 26. "Mrs. William T. Ward". The Morning News. Wilmington, Delaware. 1970-01-12. p. 5.).
    • McDonalds Crossroads: two results, both in in huge lists of place names, no indication that it was ever inhabited or notable.
    • Springfield Crossroads: a whole lot of results referring it to as an inhabited place, of which I will link only two for the sake of saving space ("Gunner Accidentally Shot". The Morning News. Wilmington, Delaware. 1909-11-16. p. 6. "E. Grace Brittingham". The News Journal. Wilmington, Delaware. 1997-10-11. p. 4.).
    • Whaley Crossroads: at least one article with SIGCOV, being about a guy who lived there and had a sled dog team ("Only sled dog racing team in Del. is winner". The Morning News. Wilmington, Delaware. 1974-01-02. p. 4.) and lots of people are from there ("LeCates Service". The News Journal. Wilmington, Delaware. 1995-02-01. p. 14.).
  • I suppose that, if I had to say something, I'd say to delete McDonalds Crossroads and keep the rest, but there's no way for me to make three separate "keep" arguments at once without turning the page into an impassable wall of text. jp×g 23:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think the arguments that these require separate nominations is doing closers a bit of a disservice. Four related items isn't that many; closers are quite capable of assessing different outcomes for each.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 19:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Enough of this BS bias that substubs can be mass-produced with zero content or substantive sources but must be discussed one at a time. Reywas92Talk 02:57, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's the ordeal with trying to delete multiple entities at once regardless of how they were created. – The Grid (talk) 23:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Based on usage in the NRHP document (see excerpts above), Springfield Crossroads is a community and a notable place. --Doncram (talk) 02:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • And per above, it's risible that one house is a community in the first place. Reywas92Talk 02:57, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • See my statement above disagreeing that there was just one home, and commenting that I find it tedious and unhelpful in AFD discussions for an editor to make kneejerk replies to every statement disagreeing with them. --Doncram (talk) 01:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
info also reiterated in Zelby, Frank R. (1947), Churches of Delaware (PDF), p. 291:Meetings were first held in private homes and later in the Springfield schoolhouse near Springfield Crossroads. Djflem (talk) 07:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus at
Wikipedia:PLACEOUTCOMES and other AFDs would suggest otherwise. Djflem (talk) 18:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
database listings, and not gazetteer entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FOARP (talk • contribs) 15:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan Parkway (Detroit area)

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

Per

WP:GEOROAD
: " Topic notability for county roads, regional roads (such as Ireland's regional roads), local roads, streets and motorway service areas may vary, and are presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which contain significant coverage and are reliable and independent of the subject."

Searches for the name in the Free Press turned up only businesses and trivial mentions at best. The other names were little better. The only source currently in the article is a case study which does not convey notability to the road itself. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Having grown up in the area, I know that this was one of the most significant thoroughfares going from east to west in the northern Detroit suburbs. Part of the difficulty in searching for sources is the myriad of names by which it is known. Detroit columnist Bob Talbert in 1999 wrote about the confusion surrounding the many names by which it is known:

    Many cited 16 Mile Road ... as the ultimate in confusion. It is Quarton in Birmingham, Big Beaver through Troy and becomes Metropolitan Parkway farther east." See here.

Fifteen years earlier, another columnist made a similar comment about the difficulty in navigating Detroit, citing "the six names for Sixteen Mile Road (Metropolitan Parkway, Sixteen Mile, Big Beaver, Quarton, Walnut Lake and Buno)." See here. Cbl62 (talk) 05:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looking at this situation, and the analysis provided by Cbl62, I support keeping this article but by a very narrow margin. This is a very significant road to the area -- there's also at least one notable place located on the road -- Brooks Farm. Looking at this I'm confident sourcing exists somewhere, though given the type of routine coverage that exists around roads and the road's numerous names it is very difficult to locate. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this seems
    WP:Notable, or at least borderline enough not to delete. The material in the article as well as discussion above support notability. Caleb Stanford (talk) 00:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to

List of Woody Woodpecker theatrical cartoons. Clear consensus not to retain, but per Piotr, redirects are cheap. Daniel (talk) 22:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Puny Express

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

This is one of a very large number of articles on individual Woody Woodpecker cartoons, almost all of which were created by a user who was indeffed in 2015 for repeated copyright violations and sockpuppetry Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Oanabay04. See also [49] and [50] for similar deletion discussions on a similar series of articles for Pink Panther cartoon articles. These discussions closed with a consensus to redirect them all to the appropriate list article, and I believe that redirecting all of these Woody Woodpecker cartoon articles to Woody Woodpecker filmography is called for here.

For this particular article, I could not find anything more than run of the mill coverage. The book cited here that is available online only shows very brief coverage of this particular cartoon, just a voice credit and nothing else. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Donaldd23: The subject of the article has a less than 1 sentence mention in Who's who in Animated Cartoons, that's it. That hardly counts as sigcov. See here: [51]. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, THREE books is significant coverage, in my opinion. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:03, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand SIGCOV. It doesn't matter how many sources have passing mentions, we need 2+ non-passing ones. And we don't have this here, the cited books are barely a sentence or half mentions, some of them are just mentions in the list. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; could not find
WP:SIGCOV. There must be substantial reference to the subject to be counted to GNG. It does not matter if there are a million books that mention the topic, if they all just mention the topic once in a very brief sentence. DonaldD23 does not convince me. Second choice would be to redirect to a list article. Sennecaster (Chat) 13:01, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. As Sennecaster rightly notes, brief mentions in multiple books does not satisfy any applicable notability standard. The two books listed and a few more I found do nothing more than provide one-line listings or credits or a brief sentence fragment. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to
    List of Woody Woodpecker theatrical cartoons. Like most WW cartoons, it has no stand-alone notability but redirects are cheap. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Daniel (talk) 22:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Coimbra

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

Doesn't meet

WP:ARTIST. Aerin17 (t • c) 23:43, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the claim the subject doesn't meet GNG is disingenuous, at best; frivolous, at worst. There are at least 6 reliable independent citations to his work, and at least one major interview where personal details are drawn from. That is enough to consitute "significant coverage". This seems more like an "I don't know who this is" AFD than anything.IcarusATB (talk) 16:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_November_6&oldid=1055976363"