Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 May 31

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Government Centennial Model High School, Battagram (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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 17:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete  – Neither qualify WP:GNG nor WP:ORG. Nothing significant came up with Google search. Unlike the last AfD, now secondary schools aren't deemed notable merely due to their existence. Radioactive (talk) 15:17, 1 June 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 20:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2023–24 EFL 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)

Hi, my reason for suggesting this article should be deleted for now is that it is too early to say anything meaningful about the 2023-24 EFL Championship given that the 2022-23 EFL Championship hasn't started yet. Thameslinkrail (talk) 18:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and England. Shellwood (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Football. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as TOOSOON. GiantSnowman 06:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as TOOSOON. Rillington (talk) 11:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as TOOSOON. We haven't even started the 2022-23 season yet, so there will be literally nothing to say about the 2023-24 season for nigh on a year -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:20, 7 June 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the postage stamps of Jamaica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The billionth one of these infernal "list of people on the postage stamps of X". No sources, no assertation of this being a valid topic per

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Jamaica. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there are nearly 200 countries in the world that could all argue they deserve a similar list. It would be incredibly difficult to verify or track this info which makes it basically useless. The lists of notable people from a certain country probably sees a ton of overlap with this list as well. Lindsey40186 (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; all available evidence tell us that these people were depicted on stamps because they are important to the history and society of their country. Thus, these lists are more reliable and useful to an encyclopedia than List of people from Port Antonio, Jamaica and other totally unsourced lists that are all over wp. Bw --Orland (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? In what way was Diana, Princess of Wales, important to the history and society of Jamaica? Athel cb (talk) 08:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When she married in 1981, she became crown princess to Jamaica. That was a easy one. I’m more surprised about Eleanor Roosevelt; but some seemingly strange incidents doesn’t disturb the overall policy. Bw Orland (talk) 08:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And what impact did this women from an ocean across being given a mostly ceremonial title have on Jamaica? She doesn't even appear to have visited the place, fwiw. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? This is not a discussion about «what good did the British royalty ever do to Jamaica!?», is it? I was merely giving a rational to why the state of Jamaica chose to depict the royal wedding. Bw --Orland (talk) 11:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a discussion about what did the post-1980 British Royalty do if you want to assert that they are impactful. She never even was in Jamaica, she created no policy, her husband was not even the monarch during her lifetime, so yes, this seems to be a clear sign that she was not impactful, and thus your claim that only people impactful to Jamaica are included is not backed by actual facts, let alone sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop, John. You are making up strawmen to fight against. There is noone here claiming that Diana or Charles have been "impactful" in Jamaia. We are merely pointing out that the crown prince's wedding are considered a significant event within a monarchy. Quite as expected within a national stamp policy. Bw --Orland (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A listing on a stamps sale website is in no way a source of any useful information for Wikipedia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The available evidence tells us some people are depicted on postage stamps because the government involved thinks they will lead to the selling of more postage stamps. We have no source here that treats the subject of the article as a group topic. We need a reliable source that supports all inclusion, not just one that supports a few entries in the list. If there are not sources that cover the whole topic specifically and only the whole topic (thus a catalog that lists every stamp Jamaica has ever made, without singling out people for special consideration) is not a source that shows such. Elenor Roosevelt being on the list shows that the claim that people on the list have specific meanings to Jamiaca is just plain bunk. Beyond that, what source tells us people are depicted on posage stamps because of their importance to a country. In the US we have depicted child art contest winners, who are in no way notable, we have depicted Jean Baptiste Charbonneau, just because his mother took him as a bady on a major jorrney of exploration and commerce expansion, we have depicted people who were painted by a famous portrait painter to honor that portrait painter, and we have on at least one occasion accidentally depicted a total nobody because someone got confused between that person and a family member. Being on a postage stamp is not a sign of notability, it is not a sign of special connection to a place. Beyond this, no one has ever producted one reliable source that shows why people is a special topic, more so than decisions about what animals, what buildings, what cities or other settlements, or what abstract designs one puts on a postage stamp. The sourcing does not justify this article, and we do not create lists based on a vauge notion that it is notable, we need specific sources to support the list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The fact that Wikipedia started in 2001, but this list is only claimed to be complete through 1985 (based on what source though?) does not suggest it is truly a notable topic. If the list was never possibly less than 16 years out of date, it suggests it is not a topic people care enough about to keep up to date.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article dates back to 2005. So when it was created it was allegedly 20 years out of date. If there is anything on this topic worth saying, I still do not see why it cannot be said in the article Postage stamps and postal history of Jamaica. For example it appears that, if this list is actually correct, we could say "while Jamaica was a colony the only people pictured on the stamps were either the ruling monrachs or their consorts" and be done with it. There is no particular reason to tell which years particular monarchs were depicted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do not get me started on why that article gives only one unsourced paragraphy on the topic in the 60 years of Jamaica's indepdence. I personally think all those articles are subpar because they over emphasize stamps and under emphasize the structures and infastructures of the postal system. John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Johnpacklambert: this last remark was very interesting. You seem to think that stamps are uninteresting, and gets too much attention. And that seem to be the reason for this series of deletion proposals. There are many things on this very planet that are overrated, in my personal opinion. (rap musicians, ski jumpers, tram stops, etc) Still, I am proud to say that my personal opinion in these matters never led me to deletion proposals. Bw Orland (talk) 14:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did not make this series of deletion proposals, so what I think does not effect them. The fact of the matter is list articles require sourcing that covers the list topic as a whole and is a reliable source, we lack that in this case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because "People on the postage stamps of Jamaica" does not appear to meet
  interesting to a limited number of dedicated enthusiasts. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Let me remind people we still have no sources that cover more than 3 people here. The fact that someone thought 3 certain people being on postage stamps was worth covering in an article somewhere in no way shows the list as a whole is notable. We for example have 0 sources on Princess Diana being on the list, let alone sources that give analysis as to why Jamaiaca chose to portray her on a stamp. We do not even come close to having the sources to justify this list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No sources appear to be available that discuss this topic as a group or set, thus it fails
  WP:LISTN. Just because the individuals depicted on the stamps are notable does not automatically mean this topic is. Rorshacma (talk) 23:26, 6 June 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the postage stamps of South Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The billionth one of these infernal "list of people on the postage stamps of X". No sources, no assertation of this being a valid topic per

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and South Africa. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article is a mess. I remain unconvinced the topic meets inclusion criteria at all. If we absolutely must include it, we need to organize by year, not by alphabet. South Africa has such a huge change in government in the early 1990s that seeing any continuity before and after that makes no sense. However as said there are no sources, this artice has existed for over 17 years with no sources, articles should not exist over 17 days without sources, and to justify a list we need reliable sources that treat the subject of a list as a topic, not just sources from which the facts of a list can be extracted. Not everything that can be organized into a list needs to be. I think one issue is some editors see these lists as a way to monitor which of these people have articles, lists on Wikipedia are not meant for monitoring content creation, they are meant to group together things that people see as important groupings, and I see no evidence that people on postage stmaps count as such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because "People on the postage stamps of South Africa" does not appear to meet
  interesting to a limited number of dedicated enthusiasts. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Another stamp-related list that has no sources discussing the topic as a group or set, failing
  WP:LISTN. Rorshacma (talk) 23:27, 6 June 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eve of Destruction (miniseries) (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)

Deprodded with claims of sources, but they all turned out to be false positives. Only one hit on ProQuest, all GBooks hits were for unrelated content. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Canada. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Review at Radio Times [1] DonaldD23 talk to me 19:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent
  reliable sources
  .
  1. Freer, Sloan. "Eve of Destruction". Radio Times. Archived from the original on 2022-06-06. Retrieved 2022-06-06.

     The reviewer game the film a one-star review. The review notes: "A tiny plot is stretched beyond breaking point in this interminably dull and slow-paced disaster movie in which a prospective new power source has deadly repercussions. Favouring unnecessary padding over character and story development, the cut-down TV mini-series ends up mainly talk and no drama, as boffins Steven Weber and Christina Cox seem to bore even themselves ..."

  2. Foster, Tyler (2013-07-16). "Eve of Destruction". DVD Talk. Archived from the original on 2022-06-06. Retrieved 2022-06-06.

     Based on the discussion in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 47#DVDTalk and DVD Verdict, DVD Talk is a reliable source. The author of the piece is a member of the Online Film Critics Society according to his biography. The review notes: "Beattie's screenplay also stumbles when it comes to character drama. One of the big scenes in the film is two female scientists sniping at each other about sleeping their way up the corporate ladder, which is lazy and plays to stereotypes in all of the worst ways. The script avoids moral complexity by lifting the true responsibility for the destruction off of Karl and Sarah's shoulders, giving that work to a more villainous character that the audience is free to dislike. ... Director Robert Lieberman is fine at delivering spectacle with clarity, but some of his decisions are strange and detract from the tension. One of the most baffling is his decision to reveal a bit of information right before the break between the two halves of the show that would create tension had he left it ambiguous."

  3. ""Eve of Destruction": Reelz miniseries pits Steven Weber vs. global disaster". Channel Guide Magazine. 2013-04-12. Archived from the original on 2022-06-06. Retrieved 2022-06-06.

     The review notes: "I won’t pretend to fully (or much less than partially) understand the science behind it all, but it’s undoubtedly a topic ripe for the disaster-movie pickings. ReelzChannel gets the ball rolling with the two-part Eve of Destruction, which stars Steven Weber (Wings) as Karl Dameron, a brilliant but singular-minded physicist who — along with his partner Rachel Bannister (Christina Cox) — is thisclose to realizing his dream of creating a machine that will “harvest a limited pool of dark energy, and serve to power our world forever.”"

  4. Covey, Ryan (2014-01-21). "Blu-Ray Review: Eve Of Destruction". CHUD.com. Archived from the original on 2022-06-06. Retrieved 2022-06-06.

     The review notes: "Eve of Destruction (2013) is a disaster movie, and it’s the worst kind of disaster movie: a shot-for cheap, Canadian, made-for-TV, two-part mini-series, starring people who were moderately famous more than ten years ago, disaster movie. ... There’s a lot of good actors in this. Steven Weber, Christina Cox, Treat Williams, even American Mary and Ginger Snaps’ Katherine Isabelle turns up in decent sized role as one of the eco terrorists. ... The plot alternates between nonsensical psuedo-science and soap opera bullshit and neither one does much to captivate attention. ... Eve of Destruction is a classic example of one of the worst sub-genres of junk-food TV that people only watch when there aren’t Ice Road Truckers reruns on for some reason."

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

  Cunard (talk) 10:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Where the hell do you find this stuff? Ten Pound Hammer • ⁽What did I screw up now?) 16:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I de-prodded because there were many sources, but it immediately came here anyway. Thank you Cunard for laying some of them out so we can see it meets GNG. Keep. Jacona (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per sources identified by Cunard. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep
  WP:GNG passed with sources found by Cunard, along with Broadway World & Albuquerque Journal. WikiVirusC^(talk) 21:41, 6 June 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.

Lil Waggy (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)

let's just put this nonsense out of it's misery, this is nonsense created by yet another vanity spam sock, previously under Lil Snoop, Turna (musician), Draft:Tykiid and about 12 other names. This is basically a hoax with a dash of vanity spam. PRAXIDICAE💕 17:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and South Africa. Shellwood (talk) 17:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  let's not use such words as nonsense, Your a grow up. Cranky Savage (talk) 17:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable, no citations. Could probably be a speedy delete too. CT55555 (talk) 17:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could be but SPI is backlogged and the socks are relentless, so time to put this and whatever other name he's decided to use out of it's misery. PRAXIDICAE💕 17:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Why AfD instead of BLPPROD? Dark-World25 (talk) 17:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Please do not delete the article. I will add references in a few moment. I am still busy expanding the article and adding relevant information, this article doesn't have any reference because it has been created not so long ago. Give me time to improve it by not deleting any of my work🙏🏼 Cranky Savage (talk) 17:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Cranky Savage: So this is your sole aim of editing Wikipedia? Creating articles about yourself and associates? Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:02, 31 May 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 two issues with this article. 1) This seems to be an outdated statistic, as the adoption of the DH by the NL this year will render pitcher batting obsolete, excepting pitchers who bat for themself, like Shohei Ohtani. 2) This does not seem to be an official MLB statistic, thus most of this article is original research sourced from baseball-reference. I am only able to find one RS discussing the most "home runs hit by pitchers", the SABR ref in the article. Natg 19 (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball and Lists. Natg 19 (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Disclosure: I've been editor that took this list from a small list to what it is now. I believe the statistic to be relevant, even with the universal DH implemented, as it still generates interest. Eventually, the "active" section will disappear, but the rest will always be historically relevant. It DOES seem odd that this is a stand-alone home run by position list, so there really needs to be a list for each position for this to be fully relevant. I have a rough draft of the Catchers list, but I do find that constructing it encroaches on original research. Just need to find some lists published by SABR and other verifiable sources. I haven't had the time in years to dedicate to building and editing, so others would have to step up.Neonblak ^talk - 18:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you know of sources that can demonstrate interest in this particular statistic? I do think that there is interest in all time home leaders for other positions, but not for pitchers specifically. Natg 19 (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the fact that pitchers will only rarely be batters should have no bearing on whether or not this remains an article - notability is not

list is notable. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• We'll have to wait and see if the sourcing is there, but I want to second Barkeep49's observation that notability is not temporary.
  LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• FWIW, thirding Barkeep49's comments regarding WP:NTEMP and that a rule change does not render the subject's history obsolete. But yes sourcing would be nice. Echoedmyron (talk) 00:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as
  WP:OR....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment The relevant guideline is
  Stathead and the like can easily help fill in the rest of the list and ensure that it is comprehensive.—Bagumba (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Meets
  WP:LISTN
  with grouping discussed in the following sources of significant coverage:
  1. "Career Batting Records From Great Hitting Pitchers" (PDF). SABR.
  2. "This is each position's top home run hitter". MLB.
  3. "Which Pitchers Hit the Most Home Runs in MLB History?". Sportscasting.
  4. Seventh Inning Stretch: Baseball’s Most Essential and Inane Debates. pp. 26–27.
  5. "Extra! Extra! Read All About It! Pitcher Hits Triple!". The Hardball Times.
  6. "Pitchers Dig the Long Ball (At Least When They Are Hitting)". Spring 2012 Baseball Research Journal.—Bagumba (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

     I've integrated some into the article.—Bagumba (talk) 08:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - meets GNG and NLIST. That the DH has been adopted does not make the history of pitchers hitting non-notable (notability is not temporary in any case) and being an official statistic is not an element of notability. Rlendog (talk) 12:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Passes NLIST per the SABR piece and sources cited by Bagumba. Cbl62 (talk) 15:03, 7 June 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. ✗plicit 23:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Limerick, Illinois (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)

Survey says that this was a 4th class post office on the same farm that's still there. The placename origins book calls it a village but I don't give that a lot of weight. Mangoe (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 17:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I expanded the article. This was a populated place, and is recognized as an unincorporated area by the county. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As previously pointed out, it is an unincorporated community in Bureau County, Illinois. Lindsey40186 (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's definitely not an "unincorporated community" unless the latter is a euphemism for "two farms whose buildings are on opposite sides of the road." As for the county's "unincorporated areas", upon rereading the county website I don't see it as claiming that the places named are settlements or even "areas", which is to say, there's no indication that each name is a formally recognized unit unto itself. The whole section is a verbose, bureaucratic, overly spelled-out way of saying what the first sentence already says: that if you aren't in a municipality which has its own zoning, you have to go through the county for building permits. I've already looked at a bunch of the place names listed, and while a few of them are indeed obvious small towns, plenty of them obviously aren't. It's clear in context that "unincorporated areas" means "all of the county which isn't in an incorporated municipality". Mangoe (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Um...sure...the county website must be wrong to call Limirick an unincorporated community. Any issue with this settlement having a meeting house, post office, store, blacksmith, physician, Methodist church, and about 15 to 20 dwellings? Magnolia677 (talk) 23:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The county website does not call this an "unincorporated community". It doesn't way anything about what it is at all, except to state that it's in the unincorporated part of the county.

I'm willing to go with "former town", since there isn't a town there now. Mangoe (talk) 02:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep appears to have some coverage and a number of houses but no census data. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:27, 3 June 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.