Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 December 7

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< December 06 December 08 >

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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 22:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Watson (Turks and Caicos Islands footballer)

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

Fails

WP:NSPORTS Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

2022 Girls' U17 Volleyball European Championship Qualification

2022 Girls' U17 Volleyball European Championship Qualification (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just a results listing of qualification stage for under 17s. No coverage in independent sources. Also nominating:

LibStar (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/redirect all, Wikipedia is not the place for raw data on youth sports results, even if international. Reywas92Talk 04:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure about redirect, I don't think "2022 Girls' U17 Volleyball European Championship Qualification" would be much of a search term. LibStar (talk) 04:09, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

(non-admin closure) jp×g 22:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Sustainable Bolivia

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

Not a notable company, little to no other (non-primary) sources online TheManInTheBlackHat (talk) 20:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 23:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okiki Dft

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

This BLP lacks in-depth and significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. The four sources: two is about an endorsement deal, the other is an interview. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:LISTCRIT. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 23:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

List of cultural icons of Australia

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

Following the deletion of List of cultural icons of Scotland (AfD), I'd like to see if there's consensus to delete this whole family of articles. The same arguments made in the Scotland AfD apply equally to all of these; the term "cultural icon" is so vague, so subjective, and so widely and variously applied, that these lists can never be encyclopedic. Either they include every object, person, place or concept which has ever been referred to as a "cultural icon"; or else editors must engage in an unacceptable amount of original research in deciding which items to include. (For at least one of these articles, List of cultural icons of England, an editor once attempted to devise an objective selection criteria – the resulting list had just seven items, and was even more arbitrary than before.) We can, and do, provide readers with well-sourced, encyclopedic articles on the culture of Australia, culture of England, etc., but this is simply not a subject which can be boiled down into a list.

Previous AfDs
* WP:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of England (2012) – Group nomination of eight "cultural icon" articles; closed as keep (despite an 8-4 numerical consensus to delete)
Sojourner in the earth (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 23:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sober musicians

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY. List is not notable or verifiability. Sources included are also pretty outdated given the topic. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Renate Reuss of Köstritz

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

A purely genealogical entry. I have not been able to find any other coverage. I am nominating this for deletion because

Wikipedia is not a genealogical database. Surtsicna (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Heinrich I Reuss of Köstritz

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

A purely genealogical entry. I have not been able to find any other coverage. I am nominating this for deletion because

Wikipedia is not a genealogical database. Surtsicna (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete per nom—blindlynx 19:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no claim to notability made. ITBF (talk) 00:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we're going to refer to the present-day Hank Reusses as "Princes" in wikivoice (and apparently we are, when we're reporting #14 calling #13 a crazy old Nazi, and so forth), then I think we need a bit more context for their genealogy and such, notwithstanding the legal abolition of their titles. Otherwise such references are mystifyingly out-of-context, Accordingly, best to merge this content to Imperial County of Reuss (with or without a redirect, no strong opinion in that), or some other such article, in line with the situation on :de. Absolutely no evidence of independent notability, so certainly shouldn't be a stand-alone article. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 06:59, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 08:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the subject's son, Heinrich XIII, has been in the news lately. But I don't see this as contributing any notability. Maproom (talk) 09:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (changed from 'merge') - the contextualising dynastic information is constructive for the Heinrich XIII and House of Reuss articles, but there's no separate indication of this guy's notability. That said, I might have a source; I'll check. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:57, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ETA: I've now looked at his wife's page, and she's just about notable (last member of her dynasty, centenarian, involved in a contretemps of actual royals) so as long has her page clearly states who he was, this page is entirely redundant and there's nothing to merge. There is literally nothing about Heinrich I that isn't better covered in articles about his son, his wife, or his family. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:18, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article may not be great and he may not be notable for much of any reason other than he is a minor "noble" and has an infamous son, but it seems like as applied in practice the threshold of notability on Wikipedia is pretty low. Nogburt (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Being a minor noble and having a infamous son confers zero notability and this article on it's own merits fails
    WP:BIO. Cakelot1 (talk) 12:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tidal wave of Deletes. Liz Read! Talk! 06:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Schlichter

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

PROD declined,

WP:BIO; notability claims based on a photo appearing at the Austin airport and interviewing Tommy Chong." LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 17:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by nominator. UtherSRG (talk) 01:41, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Suzann

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

NN business with promotional sources. UtherSRG (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - UtherSRG (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant secondary source coverage apparent. 162 etc. (talk) 17:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, among the citations are two articles in
Quartz, one in Cup of Jo, and an EconTalk interview. All of those appear to be specifically focused on this topic with in-depth coverage. That's not nothing. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Point taken; struck vote. 162 etc. (talk) 18:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The references mentioned above by User:BarrelProof are real. The concept behind this company appears significant even if ithe business did get shut down due to COVID. The sources that commented appeared to think that the company was making a point about the economics of women's clothing. EdJohnston (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary reports about Adolf Hitler's death

Contrary reports about Adolf Hitler's death (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

POV fork of Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to move this out of mainsapce while that's happening?—blindlynx 19:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My opposition would be that the contrary reports are just that, and are generally not invoked by conspiracy theories that I'm aware of. As it doesn't reproduce much material, I don't think it's actually a fork (having been spun off instead from The Death of Adolf Hitler). Although some of it could be summarized within other articles (such as those for various eyewitnesses), I don't think that’s imperative, with the main point that this article isn't about conspiracy theories; it simply also revolves around discussion of Hitler's death. UpdateNerd (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the commenter above is the creator of the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)\[reply]
Much of the lead's second paragraph might be usable in a section summarizing the eyewitness contradictions. Details related to the Soviet disinformation campaign should already be pretty well covered. UpdateNerd (talk) 22:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So you admit that the article you created almost entirely overlaps with a previously existing article. Why, then, did you create it? (I think I already know the answer, but I want to hear what your reasoning was.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that. UpdateNerd (talk) 02:11, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's what your comments so far amount to. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:18, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Although it overlaps with some other articles, no others cover the extensive discrepancies between eyewitnesses. UpdateNerd (talk) 03:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to believe that inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony is an indication of something wrong. In fact, there are always inconsistencies between eyewitness accounts. People actually get suspicious when eyewitness testimony is too consistent, because it points to possible collusion. This article is nothing but conspiracy-minded trivia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Seem to believe", etc. That's your interpretation. The article cites RS & points out how historians explain discrepancies. It's 100% up to the reader if they interpret the conflicting reports otherwise. UpdateNerd (talk) 22:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Yadaman (talk) 10:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic P-06

Sonic P-06 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Not notable (unreleased fangame) Yadaman (talk) 14:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator, reasoning is self-evident. Attempted to do a reverse 'Pokemon Test' to determine merge-ability, but due to the name of the page, searchability is difficult, ranging from ~36k results to possibly 44 million (inclusive of irrelevant results). Further determination of merge-ability would require some way of determining the absolute number of relevant search results, which is more trouble than it's worth. Yadaman (talk) 05:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I count three sources from what I'd call reputable sources. In general, fangames represented on Wikipedia are things like Pokemon Uranium or AM2R that are historically notable. P-06 barely gets around 15,000 results on Google, and all three of the sources I noted are editorial fluff pieces. I fail to see how P-06 rises to the level of historical importance or relevance to be kept on Wikipedia, rather than at best being merged into the main Sonic 06 page. Yadaman (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to tell what you're referring to without listing what three sources you mean (which itself is technically enough the meet the GNG), but I think you need to do to a closer cross-check with
WP:VG/S, the community's current consensus for what sources are considered reliable. Sergecross73 msg me 03:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I looked over all the sources. We have:
* Kotaku article from 2019, appears to be a filler piece
* Engadget article from 2019, fails to demonstrate anything newsworthy or notable about the game itself, is more of an editorial about the game's development
* TeamXbox interview, about Sonic 06, not about P-06
* GameInformer article, about Sonic 06, not about P-06
* Vice article, about a different, canceled Sonic 06 fan recreation, not about P-06
* GameZone article, about the same different, canceled Sonic 06 fan recreation, not about P-06
* VK social media post, about ANOTHER different, canceled Sonic 06 fan recreation, not about P-06
* Twitter post by the creator of P-06
* Promotional YouTube video by a contributor to P-06
* The same source a second time???
* GameRevolution article, appears to be a filler piece
* Promotional YouTube video by the creator of P-06
* Siliconera article, appears to be a filler piece
* Promotional YouTube video by the creator of P-06
* Promotional YouTube video by the creator of P-06
* Promotional YouTube video by the creator of P-06
* YouTube video by The Completionist, BRIEFLY mentions P-06 once.
I count 12 out of 17 sources actually being about P-06, down to 5 if we don't count promotional posts(!). Kotaku, Engadget, and Siliconera I'd count as reputable sources, and even then the Siliconera article is a three-paragraph blip about a new demo release. I've never heard of GameRevolution, but checking they do appear to be on the list, my mistake. The Completionist mentions P-06 *once* in the video in the sources, only to briefly compare it to Sonic 06 itself. The Kotaku piece is almost as short and insubstantial as the Siliconera piece, and is again a blip about a demo release. The Engadget piece is the one I'd call the most substantial, but one or two good sources I wouldn't call a good basis for an article's notability. Yadaman (talk) 08:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG, perhaps somewhat stricter but your criteria of historical importance seems vague IMO. VickKiang (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I just think that 'two substantial articles from a reputable source' is a fairly low bar to clear to demonstrate relevance/notability. If that's the standard the community has set, so be it. I'll probably be opening a merge request, because it still eludes me why this deserves its own entire page. Yadaman (talk) 03:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how you're trying to just handwave some of these sources away. Like the GameRevolution article. What do you mean "filler piece". It's a detailed, lengthy write up that goes over a ton of the aspects of the game. Same with the "Engadget" article. Your assessment is "fails to demonstrate anything newsworthy or notable about the game itself, is more of an editorial about the game's development. How would a lengthy editorial from a reliable source somehow not count as significant coverage? There's a complete disconnect here between your views on reliable source coverage/notability and the community's accepted views currently. Sergecross73 msg me 21:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With the statement "I fail to see how P-06 rises to the level of historical importance or relevance to be kept on Wikipedia" OP seems misinformed on what GNG actually means. Importance is proven solely by the existence of significant coverage in reliable sources, not any one editor's subjective judgement. And the sources do in fact clearly exist. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems well sourced and well written. I don't see what we would gain from deleting this. Nythar (💬-❄️) 04:04, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See what I said above. If not an outright deletion, I think it should be merged into the page for Sonic 06. Yadaman (talk) 08:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you open up an AFD then? And not even mention merging in the nomination? Sergecross73 msg me 12:00, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because, at the time I hadn't considered the possibility of merging it. If the consensus is to not delete it, I'm suggesting a merge as an alternative. Yadaman (talk) 03:50, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.

(non-admin closure) ––FormalDude (talk) 06:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

SSS islands

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

This is just an unofficial name that has no standing. There are articles for each of the 3 SSS islands. Each can include a note there they are collectively called the SSS. This should be nothing more than a re-direct. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Where would you propose redirecting this to? I'm open to that but don't see a good target. The ABC islands (Leeward Antilles) are also an unofficial name for nearby islands, and this seems to also a reasonable way to describe the island grouping. There are a number of book and news results in English and Dutch about these together. Reywas92Talk 15:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since you asked, if redirected it would be to Dutch Caribbean. You can read below that this is not an option I support. No need to answer, your opinion is clear and I respect your opinions! Just thought it would be nice if someone would answer the question. gidonb (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:31, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Hang Seng Freefloat Index Series

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

Does not appear to meet

(talk) 14:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrillisation of English

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

Also included:

Because these articles were all created around the same time by

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS basis. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:LISTN is the applicable criterion here, and substantive evidence has been provided that this topics meets the criterion. Those arguing to keep are quite correct in stating that NLIST does not require every list entry to be discussed in reliable sources, only the group as a group. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:02, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

List of video game soundtracks released on vinyl

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

I understand that there may be information about the rise and popularity of issuing video game soundtracks on vinyl (as discussed in the History section), but that information can be incorporated into Video game music. Aside from that, there is not really a need for a list to include albums with such a trivial intersection. Of course, you can always claim "coverage" in the form of routine announcements (e.g., "X Game's Soundtrack Releases on Digital and Vinyl"), but that would set an unneeded precedent. Otherwise you could have articles such as "List of vinyl reissues" or "List of movie soundtracks released on vinyl" which both could have just as many "reliable" sources. The last nomination had fairly poor keep rationales (such as "vinyl releases are interesting these days"), so I am renominating. Why? I Ask (talk) 11:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Given the amount of coverage there is for every entry on the list (too much on a few if you ask me but that's another matter) and how reliable it all appears to be, I think notability overrides this concern about necessity here. The publications care a lot about reporting on these vinyl releases and it's hard to call that indiscriminate. Could use some cleanup and especially some
MOS:MAJORWORK attention but otherwise I don't see anything wrong here. QuietHere (talk) 13:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Delete: I agree that video game albums released on vinyl is a trivial intersection. This may work better as a category, but it is not really a defining characteristic either. I do not think "lots of reliable sources" is a good argument in this case to justify notability, when items on the list are mostly supported by run-of-the-mill routine announcements. RS can report on itmes we deem unimportant and trivial as well. Information about vinyl and video game music can be kept, but I do not see the necessity of keeping the list. OceanHok (talk) 14:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets
    WP:LISTN: the subject "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Sojourner in the earth (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment: While
    WP:LISTN is fairly vague, I don't believe that the criteria of has been discussed as a group or set has been met. There are sources discussing the concept and practice, and there are release announcements. I'm not seeing sources that actually attempt to tabulate a list of video game soundtracks on vinyl. Why? I Ask (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep the list is focussed and has focussed criteria for inclusion - see
    WP:LSC Lightburst (talk) 02:54, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Meets
    WP:LISTN - concept has been discussed as a group in secondary sources. ResonantDistortion 10:41, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. It's an indiscriminate list, type x of music release on type x of physical media. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:54, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per arguments in the first AFD, and per
    WP:LISTN
    criteria, and there are sources in the article that discuss the broader concept more generally. To make it easier on others; some of the specific sources currently cited in the article that I feel meet the criteria of discussing the concept as a group or set include (but are not limited to) the following:
    • Napolitano, Jayson (23 May 2012). "The Sound Card 007: Game music on vinyl". Destructoid. Retrieved 16 April 2016.
    • Diver, Mike (22 September 2015). "Vinyl Fantasy: How limited edition records are taking video game soundtracks to the next level". thevinylfactory.com. Retrieved 16 April 2016.
    • Beaumont-Thomas, Ben (27 August 2015). "Music: The Megadrive megamix – how classic videogame soundtracks went from background noise to cratedigger gold".
      theguardian.com
      . Retrieved 16 April 2016.
    • Greenwald, Will (30 March 2017). "The Wide World of Video Game Vinyl". Geek.com. Archived from the original on August 22, 2017. Retrieved 21 August 2017.
~
problem solving 18:16, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Nope, those sources really don't. Obviously, an article about video game soundtracks on vinyl is going to have examples, but that does mean they have been discussed as a whole set. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage doesn't need to be a whole collective set though. We've got all sorts of video game library lists like List of PlayStation 4 games even though there's no other reliable source on the planet that lists all of the 1000s of released games. Why? Because there's no shortage of sources discussing its library in a general sense. Same applies here. Sergecross73 msg me 20:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not really comparable; the are tons of lists of PlayStation 4 games, not just articles that mention examples of games. And in this case, it would be more similar to "List of digital PlayStation 4 games", divided by medium. If it was just a "List of video game soundtracks" that just had a column listing the available mediums, that would be better. A lede discussing the use of each medium would be better too. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From
problem solving 05:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
That's not discussing them as a group. It's simply name-dropping examples. And also from
WP:NLIST: there is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") which is what this is. Citing that as a be all end all is not helpful. For such a cross-categorization of "X of Y", there needs to be further proof that a list is justified. Why? I Ask (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
@Then what would you look for in determining if something discusses something as a group or a set? How are you interpreting that criteria? ~
problem solving 16:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 09:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Urowoli Hazel Kimberly Tesigiwa Oburoh

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

Fails

WP:NAUTHOR declined at AFC multiple times but tendentiously moved to main space by creator. Theroadislong (talk) 11:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:33, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1994–95 Santos Laguna season

1994–95 Santos Laguna season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Season-article without any sources for the season itself The Banner talk 09:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me Mister
1994-95 Santos Laguna season and you reviewed during autumn, now The Banner and his friends wants to delete the article even it is properly sourced. Can you post that the article is not unsourced?. Thank you. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 20:40, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The article was reviewed by
1994-95 Mexican Primera Division season and RSSSF states: "You are free to copy this document in whole or part provided that proper acknowledgement is given to the authors. All rights reserved." Acknowledgements properly included. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 16:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

*Keep - nomination is flawed, articles can and do meet GNG - as this one does.The structure of the article only follows the RSSSF.com reference https://www.rsssf.org/tablesm/mex95.html said that, The Summary description of the campaign is based from the RSSSF.com link of 1994/95 Mexico Regular season, it clearly shows the path of Santos Laguna round by round, plus the table for subsection called regular season, the subsection called table Overall season, and the Matches subsection of the article is from the RSSSF reference mentioned above. In an aggregate for this article in Statistics the reference Source: http://yalma.fime.uanl.mx/~futmx/MFL/Mex95/News/norte29my95b.html it clearly showed the performance of players during the 94/95 season. The other references clearly mention Ramon Ramirez was transferred out to Guadalajara along Forward Daniel Guzman. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - nomination is flawed, articles can and do meet GNG - as this one does.The structure of the article only follows the RSSSF.com reference https://www.rsssf.org/tablesm/mex95.html said that, The Summary description of the campaign is based from the RSSSF.com link of 1994/95 Mexico Regular season, it clearly shows the path of Santos Laguna round by round, plus the table for subsection called regular season, the subsection called table Overall season, and the Matches subsection of the article is from the RSSSF reference mentioned above. In an aggregate for this article in Statistics the reference Source: http://yalma.fime.uanl.mx/~futmx/MFL/Mex95/News/norte29my95b.html it clearly showed the performance of players during the 94/95 season. The other references clearly mention Ramon Ramirez was transferred out to Guadalajara along Forward Daniel Guzman. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - nomination is flawed, articles can and do meet GNG - as this one does.The structure of the article only follows the RSSSF.com reference https://www.rsssf.org/tablesm/mex95.html said that, The Summary description of the campaign is based from the RSSSF.com link of 1994/95 Mexico Regular season, it clearly shows the path of Santos Laguna round by round, plus the table for subsection called regular season, the subsection called table Overall season, and the Matches subsection of the article is from the RSSSF reference mentioned above. In an aggregate for this article in Statistics the reference Source: http://yalma.fime.uanl.mx/~futmx/MFL/Mex95/News/norte29my95b.html it clearly showed the performance of players during the 94/95 season. The other references clearly mention Ramon Ramirez was transferred out to Guadalajara along Forward Daniel Guzman. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to repeat yourself three times when protecting your own article. The Banner talk 17:31, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RSSSF Reference is useful to structure the article, including two tables linked to
1994-95 Mexican Primera Division season and the Matches round by round, also the link is useful to create the crutial "position by round" table. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
User:GiantSnowman, Jogurney has found added a couple of SIGCOV to the article, and listed below. And I've added some other supporting references, and flushed out some of the irrelevant references and material in the article. Can you review your vote? Nfitz (talk) 04:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up! GiantSnowman 18:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've showed and explained the sources one by one, the references are journals, TV stations, the structure of the article, the links and now they created a new term: "coverage", maybe tomorrow they will create another one to delete the article. My article was reviewed and approved by wikipedia users now is censored using unknown terms. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 20:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted AfD per DRV
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Mexico. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:03, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delte. No one has provided enough significant coverage to demonstrate notability here. I don't see that the article meets GNG and therefore deletion is appropriate. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 13:44, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm watching Nederland crushing the "U.S. masculine team soccer" 3-1 with my friends Nfitz (talk · contribs) and comments arouse about why U.S. and Nederland did not want to play in Russia 2018, They were really scared about Putin. Articles that pass NSEASONS (which is a guideline) should provide reliable sources to meet GNG; but unlike athletes, it's not like they must. As it does pass an SNG it doesn't need to meet GNG explicitly - at least not immediately. But I don't know why anyone would think that seasons articles for teams in the best league in North America in a football-mad country wouldn't meet GNG. Looks like that many rank this league 9th in the world currently, compared to 15th for MLS. There's no doubt that the calibre of teams in this league is higher than MLS. And yet we seasons articles for all but two of the 1996 MLS teams (the first year of MLS). The main sourcing issue is access to media from Mexico in the pre-Internet age over 30 years ago. If this was a lower-ranked league like the 1994-95 First Division with teams like 1994–95 Reading F.C. season and 1994–95 Sheffield United F.C. season, we wouldn't be having this discussion - there are 22 seasons articles for the First Division that season. 187.156.98.86 (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - sources provided do not discuss this particular Santos Laguna in any great detail Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:31, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As
    Fram (talk · contribs) wrote "Which is not an Afd reason, and needs perhaps some indication of where the text is copied from? Otherwise you are accusing an editor without any evidence, which isn´t a good look..." 2806:108E:24:B52A:1C07:1F23:7285:39BC (talk) 01:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I'm not accusing anyone of anything, I'm simply pointing out a simple fact, which is that there is no evidence of significant coverage for this season. RSSSF doesn't count. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:40, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yet again, sources lack the quality or quantity to justify this page. Delete this trivia! The sheer number of these pages demonstrates that this is too specific and obscure. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 21:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I don't think there's much of an argument that the closes violated settled procedure; plainly they didn't. But I think we can agree now that they were bad outcomes, and that this nomination was very likely just as tainted and pointy as the other similar AfD cases The Banner filed, all of which have closed (or will soon do) as overwhelming Keeps. We have two choices here: to do the right thing and restore the articles -- not simply relist the AfDs -- or just wash our hands of The Banner's now-obvious bad faith and worse judgment (and for which he's about to be community tbanned from the AfD process generally). That the community needs to do a better job at AfD has been manifest for years now, and that's a problem beyond the scope of this DRV. Correcting this error is within our grasp, and it should be done without further delay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2806:108E:24:B52A:D1E:13B8:E16F:4B0E (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Concern: The unsigned keep !vote is suspicious-looking given that (1) one user has tried to cast multiple !votes, (2) the unsigned user has responded to this entire set of AfDs, and (3) the unsigned user has nothing else in their contribution history. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind that the bastard is doing so with my words, which come from the DRV that relisted this AfD. Ravenswing 00:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As Inomyabcs (talk · contribs) wrote to Ravenswing: "I want to thank you for keeping an open mind and doing due diligence... with Hugo. I also went back and looked at the AfDs and I believe Hugo had a point. I added my review of the AfDs for the ones that are still open and was able to locate sources to satisfy the main complaint in three of them; [2] , [3], and [4]. I really do hope that your admonishment gets through to some of the editors there. To lose an editor (201-articles-Hugo) that was trying to operate in good faith and with a wealth of edits is a real shame." 2806:108E:24:B52A:1C07:1F23:7285:39BC (talk) 01:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. And (4) I just saw the one who'd tried to cast multiple votes has been blocked indefinitely for abusively using multiple accounts. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion was previously placed on hold. Relisting to enable a full week of discussion to take place.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WaggersTALK 10:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have just reopened and relisted this discussion following my close yesterday due to a request on my talk page. For reference, here is my closing statement:

The result was delete. This discussion seems to have become quite heated, perhaps due to events elsewhere on the project. It's sad to see that there are lots of accusations flying around, bordering on personal attacks. My role as closer is to ignore that and find arguments that relate specifically to the matter in hand.

The central question in this discussion is whether the supplied sources are sufficient to demonstrate that the subject satisfies the General Notability Guideline, i.e. multiple sources providing significant coverage of the subject. Those preferring deletion - and there are more of those than keep !votes - assert that the sources do not provide significant coverage of the subject itself. Those preferring keep talk about the format of one source in particular, and talk about the behaviour of the nominator elsewhere on the project, but do not refute the assertion that the coverage in the sources fails to meet Wikipedia's requirements for significance.

So despite the apparently contentious nature of this discussion and the commentary on various other issues within it, the overriding consensus is quite clearly in favour of deleting the article.

The request on my talk page pointed out that this discussion has been on hold to allow a related DRV to take place, and asked for it to be relisted to allow a full week for discussion to take place.
As observed in my statement above, some of the comments on this discussion so far have fallen short of our
civility policy. I hope that improves in the discussion below; please be warned that I (and/or other admins) will likely take firm action if it does not. WaggersTALK 10:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Note: This discussion has been yet again been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Mexico. Nfitz (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nfitz (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to 1994–95 Mexican Primera División season. I like keeping team season articles where the team is sufficiently notable for inclusion. Such season articles must be supported with multiple independent reliable sources which directly detail the subject. Sources surely are available somewhere. Not seeing that here. Fine with a redirect to the season or the team itself. It is indeed a "real shame" User:HugoAcosta9 got themselves indef blocked for sockpuppetry. That has nothing at all to do with my assertion here. As an occasional closer, I'm sympathetic to Waggers's comment above. If it's not accurately sourced, it might as well be pure fiction. BusterD (talk) 23:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most of what's here is already sourced to a reliable source that directly deals with the subject - see [7]. The
Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation is pretty much the gold-standard for such references. What's your concern with that User:BusterD - it's bog standard for many, many, articles. Nfitz (talk) 23:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
My concern is that such a work by itself does not constitute multiple independent reliable secondary sources which directly detail the subject. IMHO the link you provided consists of accumulated routine sporting results, a tertiary source. I didn't say the page was fiction. I said without adequate trusted sources, it might as well be fiction. I asserted that sources must exist, but that's my opinion. And I've also asserted that a merge redirect is fine with me. BusterD (talk) 23:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's the (more than) adequate source though to prove it's not fiction. I'm confused why you believe that sources must exist, but you vote delete. That seems to be against the policy of
WP:ATD which requires improvement rather than deletion if the article is believed to be notable. I'm about to go on a deep dive or sources; can you tell me User:BusterD where you have already looked, to save me the trouble? Thanks - Nfitz (talk) 00:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The article's existence (obviously) doesn't hinge on the RSSSF reference. BusterD expressed a concern that "if it's not accurately sourced, it might as well be pure fiction". The general consensus for an article for the season of a team in one of the top leagues in the world is that there exists suitable references to meet GNG. How,
WP:NSEASONS such as 1994–95 Crystal Palace F.C. season which contain less prose, and far less references, than this one. The only difference I can discern is that team is English. Nfitz (talk) 00:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Amount of prose and number of references are irrelevant if there isn't any SIGCOV of the topic. The other sources cited in the article are worthless for notability since none of them contain SIGCOV and only the database ones even mention the season at all. So, considering RSSSF has been the only source proffered since the relist, it does appear the article's existence at AfD hinges on it, and I am pointing out that it does zilch to address the reason for deletion. JoelleJay (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As you are aware, AFD isn't based on the sources that are in the article, but the sources that could potentially be in the article. As I mentioned above I'm doing a deep dive into the sources. Can you tell me User:JoelleJay where you have already looked, to save me the trouble? I've already removed and replaced those (lousy) references that didn't mention the season. BTW, why do you think there wouldn't be significant coverage for a season of a team in one of the top leagues in the world, given how football-mad the Mexican media is? How is this different than, say, Crystal Palace ... we have scores of teams each year in England that we think are significant - even though significant sources are frequently not listed in articles. Thanks - Nfitz (talk) 03:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why would I presume coverage exists when a BEFORE didn't turn up anything for me, or you, or anyone else in two months? AfD is where sources are supposed to be produced, and nothing was forthcoming until Jogurney searched some archives that you yourself failed to find anything in. That said, I don't see how coverage of preseason activities is in-depth treatment of the topic of the article, which is the actual season itself...? JoelleJay (talk) 08:32, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the thought that the coverage of the pre-season tour of Colombia may not actually be about the season, however I think it is. When I read coverage of sports club seasons (not just football), there is always discussion of arrivals and departures of players and staff and there is always discussion of the pre-season tours. Also, I wouldn't discount the Medio Tiempo coverage of the play-offs. Note that each of these articles were written years after the conclusion of the season (so it's apparent that the season was noticed outside of routine/contemporaneous coverage). I'd like to find a recap of the portion of the season prior to the play-offs (the club finished top of its group which is an achievement), but I haven't spent more than 10 minutes looking yet. Jogurney (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And see the references below - SIGCOV is met. Nfitz (talk) 04:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I quickly found this in-depth coverage of the Laguneros' performance in the quarter-finals. If I can have a day or two more, I'm quite certain there is in-depth recaps of this season elsewhere. Jogurney (talk) 03:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's a good one - I'll add it to the article. I'm doing some major work on it. I remain puzzled on why some think there wouldn't have been significant coverage. Nfitz (talk) 03:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is an in-depth recap of the club's pre-season activities, including discussion of player arrivals and departures and a pre-season tournament in Colombia. It's solid enough with the Medio Tiempo article to get to SIGCOV on their own. El Siglo de Torreón covers Santos Laguna regularly, so a stroll through their archives will certainly uncover more in depth coverage of the season. Jogurney (talk) 03:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing work! I'd found their archive, but I wasn't having much success mining it. You are a lot more proficient at this than me! Nfitz (talk) 04:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
El Siglo also had in-depth coverage of the club's managerial change during the season here. This piece does a brief recap of the first of the season as well. The unfortunate thing is El Siglo's online archive isn't working, so I had to manually search to even find that article - everything else that's available is from the 2000's or later. Jogurney (talk) 16:57, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I am inclined to keep the article, it has some sources on it, I tried to find sources for football player transfers, but alas, didn't do very well. Had a go at a little cleanup, it still feels a mess. Mexican football really isn't my thing know. But it feels like it passes the mark for general GNG. Govvy (talk) 14:10, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added a few more sources to the article and did some copyediting so it's not as much of a mess. I don't like some of the prose, but it's more NPOV or based on the sources now. Jogurney (talk) 03:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources added. GiantSnowman 18:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hey. Thanks to all those cooperating in sourcing this page. It looks much more anchored by independent RS now. BusterD (talk) 11:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per improvement by various editors. Meets GNG. Nfitz (talk) 19:44, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per improvements made Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:15, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is interesting to see how links to the Spanish language Wikipedia are used to hide red links. The Banner talk 10:39, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 09:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emmy Rose Cuvelier

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

I have not found any in-depth coverage of this subject in reliable sources. Yes, there exists an essay (

WP:NBEAUTY) claiming that Miss World participants are presumed notable. But given the lack of coverage, I believe that this presumption of notability would be wrong. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:47, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Procedural close, nomination by a sockpuppet and no support for deletion of this article. Liz Read! Talk! 19:42, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lou Hill

Lou Hill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article has a link to a dead/unfound webpage as its only reference; tried moving the page to draftspace but that was reverted, so this seems to be the proper avenue. WeWorkGuest (talk) 08:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)(sock strike Liz Read! Talk! 19:41, 8 December 2022 (UTC))[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tantrumedia

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

Promo of the dead company; no RS Benedikt Gerendeg (talk) 07:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC) striking blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find much reliable sources that cover this company. Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing but nothing in GNews, only SEO sites found in regular Google. Oaktree b (talk) 03:18, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Although the article was recently edited from "is" to "was" and the rationale describes it as a "dead company", it appears to be still in operation (site), providing website development and support, etc, AllyD (talk) 07:58, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect: The best of the given references is the Eurogamer short article (2004) but its focus is founder
    WP:ATD. AllyD (talk) 12:18, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nominated by a blocked sockpuppet with no remaining deletion proposals.

(non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Heaven Hai

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

Not sufficient reliable source, notability questionable. Delete Benedikt Gerendeg (talk) 07:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)SOCK STRIKE Cielquiparle (talk) 09:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject is prominently known for hosting numerous media events in Taiwan, has plenty solo articles on them in their Mandarin native language, particularly in Taiwanese media. A simple search for their English name on Google also shows up substantial results, including on notable Asian media databases. The subject was also previously nominated for Taiwan's leading TV industry awards. Hence, there's no question on their notability at all.
@Benedikt Gerendeg, I have also noticed you are a relatively new user with less than 100 edits and account created less than 6 months ago. Are you sure you are familiar with notability guidelines, or you are just randomly picking articles to put up for deletion without sufficient knowledge about article subjects, and deterring good-faith contributors in the process?
Treysand (talk) 02:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hockerty

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

Moved to mainspace by a new user. Reads like promotion Benedikt Gerendeg (talk) 07:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. MER-C 18:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article was made by a sockpuppet so that doesn't help. Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
no reason who is the author. the notability is being checked here. 77.251.59.79 (talk) 17:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
it's a red flag at least. Oaktree b (talk) 03:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The French articles look like PR stuff, from a website called masculin.com, which is mostly pop-up ads and click bait stuff. Feels promotional. Oaktree b (talk) 03:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all I find are articles about how to "Look Like Gatsby" or wedding attire this or that, listing one or two products by the company. Nothing about them. Even limiting it to .ch websites, it's all only their own that comes up. Oaktree b (talk) 03:24, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per numerous reliable sources with in-depth coverage and the notability established by independent reviews or mentions in national relialbe newspapers and magazines. Here I picked some: La Vanguardia - gives a report on Hockekrty and its history [8], El Periódico de Aragón made a good coverage on company in 2011 which was named back than as tailor4less [9]; Expansión (Spanish newspaper) analyses the startups and chose Hockerty as one of examples; French magazine Masculin made a deep review of company and its products: [10]; another review on Modern Fellows [11]; a decent coverage on Fashin Network [12], Okdiario provides a good coverage [13]; ABC (newspaper) praises the company saying “it’s one of the firms that does it best” [14]; Vanity Fair (magazine) gave a coverage on Toledo shoe production [15] having featured the company as it's favorite week choice. However the page has many promo blogs/site which must me removed. 多少 战场 龙 (talk) 12:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please point to any of those references (paragraph number?) that contains "Independent Content" as per
      HighKing++ 20:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Delete - undisclosed paid-for spam, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ejikela. Not a good faith contribution to the encyclopedia. MER-C 15:27, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it was undisclosed paid-for spam. Not only that, none of the sources meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Rather than showing an analysis of all the sources in the article (overkill) I'll focus on just those put forward by 多少 战场 龙 above.
    • This from La Vanguardia is a puff piece. All of the information has been provided by the company and their execs. Every paragraph attributes a quote to one of the founders. There is no
      Independent Content
      clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated with the company, fails ORGIND
    • This from El Periodico is based entirely on an interview with the founder, fails ORGIND
    • This from Masculin.com is primarily a review of their made-to-measure shoes and the website configurator. This website also produced a similar review of other clothes and although the website accepts advertising and affiliate marketing, it is unclear which parts are truly independent. Putting that aside for now, the article in question fails NCORP criteria. It has a small paragraph (2 sentences) in the opening section that simply regurgitates the standard description of the company (i.e. Created by 3 friends in 2008...). There is no in-depth information here *about the company*. Fails CORPDEPTH.
    • This in Modern Fellows is a puff piece that is marked as "including affiliate links". It is essentially paid marketing, fails ORGIND. Even if we ignore that, this article also regurgitates the standard company origin story and then focuses on a product, not the company. Also fails CORPDEPTH.
    • This in okdiario.com is another puff piece, very similar to the piece in La Vanguargia (and only a month between them in date). It also relies on information/interview with one of the co-founders and does not have any in-depth "Independent Content" on the company, fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. For example, the announcement about $20m in future sales appears in this announcement.
    • This from Sumum is another puff piece, fails for the same reasons as above (information from the company and execs), fails ORGIND
    • This from Vanity Fair is a mere mention with a total of 4 sentences, not enough to meet CORPDEPTH.
The references are advertorial and/or purr pieces. None meets NCORP criteria.
HighKing++ 20:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nominated by a now blocked sockpuppet with no remaining deletion proposals

(non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Bellabeat

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

appears it doesn't meet WP:NCORP and RS are not there. I may be wrong though. Reads like advert Benedikt Gerendeg (talk) 07:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC) striking blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As Bellabeat has been a notable company on the market for over 8 years now and received numerous public mentions, I believe it is not suitable for deletion as the page represents a company that is notable and is according to the wiki policy. Gh2022 (talk) 09:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 02:29, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

StairMaster

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

No sources to prove WP:NCORP. Online websearch did not help much Benedikt Gerendeg (talk) 07:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)SOCK STRIKE[reply]

Strong Keep. There is an abudance of academic literature where the company's work is a key part of the study. Some quick examples follow:
  1. BUTTS, N. K.; DODGE, C.; MCALPINE, M. Effect of stepping rate on energy costs during Stairmaster exercise. / Effet de la vitesse de montee de marches sur les couts energetiques lors d ’ une epreuve de montee de marches sur le stairmaster. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, [s. l.], v. 25, n. 3, p. 378–382, 1993. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=s3h&AN=SPH342407&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 8 dez. 2022.
  2. RYAN, N. D.; MORROW JR., J. R.; PIVARNIK, J. M. Reliability and Validity Characteristics of Cardiorespiratory Responses on the StairMaster 4000PT®. Measurement in Physical Education & Exercise Science, [s. l.], v. 2, n. 2, p. 115, 1998. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=s3h&AN=7598275&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 8 dez. 2022.
  3. SCHAUMBURG, L. von et al. Submaximal Testing to Estimate Aerobic Capacity Using a Matrix C5x Stepmill. Journal of Human Kinetics, [s. l.], v. 83, n. 1, p. 121–129, 2022. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=s3h&AN=159009024&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 8 dez. 2022.
This company is way beyond the minimum threshold for corporate notability. CT55555(talk) 16:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Coverage has been found of this well known exercise machine. The article needs some work though. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1997/03/19/bummed-out-on-the-stairmaster/6e4f1aca-a808-4a3a-9faa-4a12f678efdb/ shows an entire article written about whether or not it gives you a larger butt. Dream Focus 18:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable exercise product - I am hoping that some terrific editors help put the references in the article: that way we will not be back here again with an AfD. I have only added one Smithsonian reference to an unreferenced paragraph. It may be beneficial to just erase the unreferenced paragraphs which I have tagged with [
    WP:TNT style. I have had to do that with several product articles like this example Gibson ES-175. Lightburst (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Product line has sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very well-recognized brand and product in the fitness space (for decades!), to the point where it verges on being genericized as a shorthand for any sort of aerobic machine. Thoroughly satisfies our notability standards; we just need to improve the article. – The Fiddly Leprechaun · Catch Me! 22:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Normally I wouldn't say that a page should be kept because "everyone's heard of it" but...everyone has heard of stairmaster. There are enough references out there to show that it's culturally significant. The improvements to the page have already gone a long way towards fixing any sourcing and POV issues. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nominated by a now blocked sockpuppet with no remaining deletion proposals

(non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 23:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Kuvera.in

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

Not sufficient sourcing according to WP:RS and not meeting WP:NCORP Benedikt Gerendeg (talk) 06:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC) striking blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 don't think the situation will change with an additional relist so I'm closing this as No Consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 05:39, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Global Alliance for Banking on Values

Global Alliance for Banking on Values (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a bit of an unusual case. This organization clearly exists, and has been active enough for long enough that it would normally be no-brainer 'notable' by Wikipedia standards.

However, the current page is obviously not acceptable; if I remove the unsourced statements, the material sourced only to their own website, and the outright fabrications (this company clearly does not have more employees than Toyota or Coca-Cola), it would literally mean blanking the page. I was hoping to clean it up or at least replace it with something sourced to reliable sources, but I'm finding no reliable sources at all; just assorted bits of coverage clearly sourced to press releases.

If someone can find some way to salvage this I'd be delighted and obviously would withdraw this nomination. As I say, it's probably a topic which should be covered on Wikipedia, but I'm really not finding anything at all that would constitute a reliable source by Wikipedia's definition.  ‑ 

Iridescent 07:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please assess changes post-nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, Clearly improvemnts have been made which deal with the reason for nominationTheLongTone (talk) 15:53, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iridescent on the article improvements.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

@
Iridescent 07:09, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
It's precisely sources 1 and 2 that demonstrate notability. Sources do not have to be freely available online, but Google Books displays them for me: [17] and [18] along with others.
Phil Bridger (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Brighton Beach. Liz Read! Talk! 05:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disco Freddy

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

Seemingly non-notable figure. The only non-primary sources cited in the article do not focus on him. A

WP:GOOGLE search does not turn up sufficient secondary sourcing about Disco Freddy. CJ-Moki (talk) 05:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The "Jews of Brooklyn" book has a couple of short paragraphs describing him, which is OK. The "The Future of Folklore Studies in America: The Urban Frontier" paper, however, is, as far as I can see, nothing more than a namedrop that does not actually describe or discuss him at all, and is certainly not significant coverage. Doing some searches for both of the names the article states he performed under turned up very little, and that one OK-ish book source alone is not enough to pass the
    WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 17:56, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of the press in China

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

Per

WP:OVERLAP. Everything in this article is already covered in censorship in China and mass media in China. At best, pieces of this article could be moved into those two, but there's really no purpose for a stand-alone article. Amigao (talk) 05:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:21, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, without prejudice of building consensus in the article talk page for a merge, which can happen without AFD. MarioGom (talk) 10:13, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a something that would likely be of interest to many people searching on Wikipedia. If there are concernes that the article is too short/unsourced, a discussion to redirect or merge the article can be started later. Unlimitedlead (talk) 13:33, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BD2412 T 02:20, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crungus

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

AI "creature" similiar to Lobe. Barely any info on it and it could possibly be redirected into that article. Pyraminxsolver (talk) 04:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article is well sourced and some of the sources are in depth. This passes GNG.`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 23:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I checked the sources. They point to conversation on twitter, but such as it is, there is media coverage of some guy talking on twitter about this AI art experience. That passes GNG. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neuron Robotics

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

Small company covered only by brief mentions in a couple local newspapers. Rusalkii (talk) 04:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Driving Licence (film). Liz Read! Talk! 05:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Selfiee

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

Fails

talk) 04:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:27, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Chamis

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

Does not appear to meet

WP:NACTOR. A "before" search shows passing mentions as a cast member, but I was not able to find anything in depth about her. No apparent significant roles in multiple notable films, or other productions. Archer1234 (talk) 03:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Can't find much sources that prove the actor's notability. Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:26, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Skyscraper Brewing Company

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

Fails

WP:CORP. No significant coverage. Only existed for 5 years. LibStar (talk) 03:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Can't find sources that prove the article's notability. Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the same as above. No reliable sources to help the page. --多少 战场 龙 (talk) 12:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Some breweries, even local ones, are notable; this is not one of them. BD2412 T 02:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:26, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beaten Track Brewery

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

Fails

WP:PROMO. LibStar (talk) 03:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mutchmor Public School

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

On the

WP:NSCHOOL as well. `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 03:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

This is the oldest public school in Ottawa. That is notable. 65.94.103.54 (talk) 03:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to say public elementary school. 65.94.103.54 (talk) 03:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That doesnt make it notable even if its old, there are countless wikipedia articles that have been deleted even if they are from the 1900s.`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 03:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - to
    SCHOOLOUTCOMES. If indeed this is the oldest school in the province or country and reliable independent secondary sources can be found for that, this !vote will become a keep. 174.212.227.224 (talk) 20:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion as there is an assertion of notability for this school.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The building is a registered heritage site, under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act [19]. Template perhaps needs updating. Oaktree b (talk) 03:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which is already indicated in the article, but without sourcing. It has a link to the historicplaces.ca listing at the bottom of the article, but needs inline citations. Oaktree b (talk) 03:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If one was so inclined, you could poke around the by-law section of the City of Ottawa's website and get a copy of the by-law that would explain why it was registered; I've dealt with many municipalities in Ontario and the by-laws are easily found. Ottawa's seem to be hidden, or "they are somewhat digitized, but not entirely so". I wish you luck if you take this particular route. Oaktree b (talk) 03:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just did some light editing and sourcing. Other stuff I found, about which I'm insufficiently sure to put in the article now: this newspaper article from its 50 year anniversary, which I cannot find anywhere except this one website; this article from either a community newspaper or someone's blog (can't tell which) claiming they switched buildings with another school in 2015. ℰmi1y⧼T·C⧽ 09:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 03:29, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Landon Huffman

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

Doesn't meet

Wikipedia is not a database - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (c/t) 01:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:32, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No coverage where they talk about this person found; some sourcing for his father it looks like. Sources are mostly confirmation of the races he did, so are simple statistics like time it took him to finish the race. Long way from GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I was content to let the discussion run its course, but with a second relist, I think it's fair to ask Frank Anchor which sources he was referring to earlier. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 20:47, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 4 and 5 (which is the same article picked up by multiple outlets so counts as one) offer significant biographical information, ref 7 indicates that he will start for another driver (far from a routine event in NASCAR) in addition to some routine coverage allowing it to go past the GNG threshold. Frank Anchor 13:24, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wildcat, Clay County, Kentucky

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

A former post office that is not on the National Register of Historic Places? And one that "served" a creek? Sources, not surprisingly, are sparse. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Many of the Kentucky placename articles mass-created by this user are not notable, and this appears to be no exception. Post offices are not the same as notable communities. Reywas92Talk 15:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I find some reference to this as a place, Birth, Birth, but Reywas92 is rarely wrong about these geoland fails. I do not see any RS we can use to write an article and I do not see that this is a populated place on a map. Lightburst (talk) 16:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 03:28, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FIBA Under-15 Women's Oceania Championship

FIBA Under-15 Women's Oceania Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

WP:SPORTSEVENT. No third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 01:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Feel free to create a redirect from this page title to an appropriate target article. Liz Read! Talk! 04:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Chris Folino

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

Non-notable director with only two films, BEFORE shows no coverage or critical discussion of the person. Could perhaps redirect to "Sparks (film)", his more notable work. While they don't appear in the article, Rotten Tomatoes shows reviews of the film in Village Voice and a few other publications, so it would pass GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 01:04, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I wasn't able to find any in-depth coverage either—just the occasional passing mention in the press. I suppose one could argue that he's notable under
    what the notability criteria are all about. And although I'm not averse to a redirect, I'm not convinced it'd be helpful given that Gamers: The Movie and Sparks (film) would both be plausible targets. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 03:26, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 South American U18 Women's Basketball Championship

2022 South American U18 Women's Basketball Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

WP:SPORTSEVENT
. No coverage in third party sources. Also nominating:

LibStar (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Liliana Domínguez

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

Basically unsourced article, tagged as such for a decade. Absolutely no Google news hits, a general Google search returns not much more (and nothing really reliable). Fails

WP:SIGCOV. LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 00:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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/2022_December_7&oldid=1127530633"