Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 January 5

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!} 23:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Gunter

Jack Gunter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article about an artist that doesn't meet

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and United States of America. Jamiebuba (talk) 10:30, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being featured at a tulip festival is hardly wiki-worthy. Zero hits on this person, lots of hits on anyone with his name. Oaktree b (talk) 15:47, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Page doesn't qualify for wiki. It reads like a resume or self-promotion. Wikipedia Community (talk) 01:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC) Striking sock vote. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let me state for the record that I have no

WP:COI

relationship with the subject. I only admire his art.

The article is currently a newly created stub. Help appreciated on improving the article. PK-WIKI (talk) 03:05, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable northwest artist; citations show significant coverage in major reliable sources. PK-WIKI (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I added some information from the Washington State Arts Commission, but the subject still fails

WP:NARTISTS. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:NARTISTS qualification "The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument". PK-WIKI (talk) 03:25, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I hardly think that his mural being part of one of the top ten attractions in a US county is the intent of criterion 4(a) of
  Phil Bridger (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I'm not finding anything that would meet NARTIST nor GNG. There are some articles about him in a local paper but nothing with a broader audience. I note also that his books are self-published. Lamona (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainable Urban Development Network

Sustainable Urban Development Network (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:ORG. All articles on this topic were generated by the parent organization. No significant independent reporting seems to exist. BruceThomson (talk) 09:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:45, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I couldnt find any other sources as well, fails GNG and NCOMPNAY.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 02:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: The topic is noteworthy, however the tone is promotional and might be improved. Obtains

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Anyone who knows of independent coverage of the topic should post links. BruceThomson (talk) 11:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Killing Winston Jones

Killing Winston Jones (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 film was shot back in 2012 with a release date set for 2014. That never happened and no reason was given. There's an

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Mike Allen 20:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete Fails

  WP:NFF with no indication it will ever be released. Doubletiberius (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  • Delete Jaydoggmarco (talk) 05:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect to List of abandoned and unfinished films. --Shivertimbers433 (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not enough significant coverage to pass
  WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom, consensus and reasons above. The Film Creator (talk) 11:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete Fails

  WP:NFF Equine-man (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2023 (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. Does not meet speedy deletion criteria, but I read the most detailed comment as an unstated delete, or at least as "I looked and failed to find evidence of notability", which comes to the same thing. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Truevision3D

Truevision3D (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. There are no independent sources. Mdggdj (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with literally 0 sources can't it meet speedy requirements?

Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I deproded the article in 2022 on procedural grounds (previous prod/deprod) with no opinion on notability. I didn't find any reliable sources about the article subject - few mentions only. If there are reviews in specialized press, I was not able to find these. As of speedy deletion, I don't think any of the ciriteria are useable here. Pavlor (talk) 08:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Bleasdale

Heather Bleasdale (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)

Credits (and media notice) seem rather too thin to satisfy

Delete Well, the article starts out by saying she's only ever had minor roles, so that's a good indication of non-notability. She's done a ton of acting work, but IMDB shows it's only ever been one-offs, she was in East Enders and Coronation street, playing the same character at most for 6 episodes. I can't find any discussion of her beyond simple cast lists or her social media. She's not attained ACTOR or GNG I'm afraid. Oaktree b (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Her Rotten Tomatoes bio is about as bare, so no critical attention found about any character she's played. Simply one of many actors doing her craft. Oaktree b (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the article had no sourcing beyond the unreliable imdb, so should have been BLPPRODded a long time ago. I've now added her BFI listing, so we do at least have a reliable source for her filmography, but I could find nothing about her beyond routine listings. PamD 09:33, 6 January 2023 (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!} 17:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Naga Bhargavi

Naga Bhargavi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not seeing sufficient sources to pass

The sources are all leaning on Youtube so far, and the creator has a declaration on their user page that may be relevant. ASUKITE 18:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, and India. ASUKITE 18:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't find any sources. What's given here is Youtube videos and cast lists. Nothing for GNG. She's still young, likely TOOSOON. Oaktree b (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And the photo's likely been copied from her instagram feed, uploaded by a red-linked user with no proof they took the photo submitted. Further red flags in AfD, based on my experience here. Tagged the photo as a copyvio. Oaktree b (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the picture is not copied from instagram feed and is shared with creator of the article personally upon request Santoshpratheek1 (talk) 05:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

well it's been tagged as a copyright violation, I can't handle it further, it will be dealt with there. Oaktree b (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She is a credible celebrity in telugu film circuit. Its not toosoon per say to include her on wiki as info about her is readily available on google and not just youtube Santoshpratheek1 (talk) 05:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She is a supporting actress and hence the lists are casting lists and I request to consider not deleting the page for i have added more sources for google apart from youtube videos Santoshpratheek1 (talk) 05:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Andhra Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more references and sources from google and other articles that were interviews of the same person. Kindly review Santoshpratheek1 (talk) 05:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from Youtube there are also references that are added on the article which are sources from google and other websites. Santoshpratheek1 (talk) 05:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One movie review that doesn't mention her very much helps a little bit, the other article is about the casting couch, both are weak sources. Still not enough to keep the article, the rest of the sources are still youtube and a model profile page. Oaktree b (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No coverage to support
  WP:NBIO — DaxServer (t · m · c) 15:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom fails
  WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. I wish we had better standards to follow. Bearian (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2023 (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!} 17:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 12

Windows 12 (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)

Moving this to AfD since PROD failed. This article clearly violates WP:Crystal, as it's 100% speculation and rumors, regardless of the source of the rumors. Following past precedent, articles about Windows versions have been deleted prior to an official announcement, including Windows 8. This article is not encyclopedic. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 17:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To add on, prior precedent from here and here can be applied. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:CRYSTAL. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete The 'sources' for this are spec articles and Google-bombed junk, along with non-surprising things like
  Windows 12 is expected to have new features not seen in Windows 11. Also recommending this be locked from re-creation until proper sourcing exists. Nate • (chatter) 20:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  The first source is literally just whoever wrote the article guessing based on a Windows Central report (which I doubt is actually associated with Microsoft) and also the Deskmodder source was referring to a Tweet that was deleted and revealed to be a joke (shows that you can't trust everything you see on the internet) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, see
  WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. No source, no announcement, the TechAdvisor source does not mention Windows 12 releasing. Additionally, Windows 12 could just be Windows 11 24H2. --HolyNetworkAdapter (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete since it's only rumors at this point and not people writing about how notable these rumors are. Skynxnex (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment To add further evidence, the draft for this article has been rejected 8 times and experienced vocal opposition before the page was published.Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 02:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's also been rejected, all the more reason to delete it. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as premature crystal. There is nothing here other than speculation, and even the name might change to something like "Windows 2024" or some later date. --Mvqr (talk) 11:06, 10 January 2023 (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!} 17:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Razaque

Abdul Razaque (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. I've found instances where the user who started this page attempted to add themselves as giving a reaction as a notable figure in the Qandeel Baloch page. It is also wise to suggest the user Chrisbroad34 is also him. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Chrisbroad34) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Qandeel_Baloch&diff=1131599620&oldid=1128133866

Don't ask why I am being so militant in this. I'm just that bored and I go to this school.

• Note: This discussion has been included in the
  talk) 17:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete seems not notable. CT55555(talk) 18:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails to meet
  WP:NPROF, student awards and certificates doesn't make him notable. 4 out 5 references in Bibliography not making compatibility to each other. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete a case of
  WP:TOOSOON as he fails to meet NPROF. These citations are in a very high citation field. --hroest 03:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:V. On a very basic level, the sources to do match the claims. Bearian (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2023 (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 South Tyrol#Demographics. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Southtyroleans

Southtyroleans (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)

Poorly translated anti-Italian propaganda piece with terrible sourcing. I can't find much evidence that the article title is used in English, so it doesn't appear like a useful potential redirect. —Kusma (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Europe and Italy. —Kusma (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that (re-)draftification doesn't really seem like an option as the author already has two more drafts on this topic:

Draft:South Tyroleans and Draft:Südtiroler. —Kusma (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment. I agree the translation is poor and the tone is not neutral, but I suspect that the Sidtiroula may well be a "thing" i.e. an ethnic or nationalist group that are sufficiently notable to be mentioned either as a separate article or a section in one of several existing articles - see Category:South Tyrolean nationalism. What the editor needs is help in creating that in a neutral way that reads properly in English. As to the title, if there isn't a suitable English term such as South Tyrolese then we just use the native name and explain it. Some of his sources appear WP:RS e.g. Die Welt is a respectable German national newspaper. Bermicourt (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Have a look at my analysis of his sources on the talk page - the Welt article does not support his contentions. Surely there might be South Tyrolean identity and nationalism, but it is not based on the premise of a South Tyrolean "language" as the author supports, and I've seen no evidence that "Sitiroula" is a term used any differently than the German "Suedtiroler". Maybe South Tyroleans exclude Italians when they refer to them that way, but the same would be true in German.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The Welt article is at best anecdotal evidence for the claim, not a usable source. Other articles are more opinion pieces than factual reporting, essentially unusable for a contentious topic like national identity. —Kusma (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to
  redirect) is the common demonym for the region, but to construe an "ethnicity" out of a regional population requires reliable sources that actually talk about a distinct "South Tyrolean" ethnic group, and not just the personal opinion of an editor on a campaign in various WP projects ([1], [2]). –Austronesier (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to South Tyrol#Demographics, per Austronesier. There's nothing in that article that can be saved.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to South Tyrol#Demographics, per Austronesier. Don't see any other option.--Pfold (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to South Tyrol#Demographics. I agree with the redirects above, but a very condensed version of this article should be merged.  // Timothy :: talk  11:49, 12 January 2023 (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.

Yoel Drubin

Yoel Drubin (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)

Claim of importance appears overstated and cannot be verified via English language sources; no article in Hebrew Wikipedia. There is a passing mention of him in a book but no details about him as an "important founder" for Rishon LeZion. Support draftifying for interested editors to work on because notability claims cannot be backed up at present. Kazamzam (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Kazamzam (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: also some discrepancies with name spelling make the search for sources more difficult. I have seen Yo'el, Joel, Yitzhaq, Drobin, etc. Kazamzam (talk) 15:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment a Google book search for “ יואל דרובין ראשון לציון” shows a number of results that look promising, though it would need a Hebrew reader to say whether they amounted to in depth coverage or not. Also found an English reference here and a passing mention here which suggests there may be more for those who know where to look. Mccapra (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, that's the passing mention of him in a book that I mentioned. I can ping WP Israel and see if anyone wants to take a crack at it but otherwise I think this is a draft candidate since promising potential sources do not equal sources on the article itself. Kazamzam (talk) 14:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Regardless of notability, the article overstates the subject's importance versus the biography at the Rishon Museum. Since there is not much information other than importance, the article is best
  WP:BLP concern. gidonb (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. I have added the birth and death year and the first reference since this article was created, just over 15 ago! gidonb (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you so much!!! We at the Unreferenced articles project appreciate it greatly!! Kazamzam (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure! Thank you for your kind words!!! gidonb (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Bilu as ATD. Mccapra (talk) 00:57, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable role in the history of Jewish settlement in Palestine.--Geewhiz (talk) 11:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While I found this article in such terrible shape that
  WP:BLP concern! gidonb (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep with thanks to Geewhiz. Mccapra (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lithuania. gidonb (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Also added a first image to our article. The article sets by now an example of how historical biographies should appear on WP. gidonb (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2023 (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 Louth County Council and then redirect. Clear consensus against a standalone article. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dundalk Municipal District

Dundalk Municipal District (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination

)

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

As I suggested before, municipal districts don't satisfy

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Ireland. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Not unlike the nominator, I'm not sure what this article is "for". The lead (confirming that the municipal district exists and is a sub-set of
  Dundalk_Municipal_District#Councillors_by_electoral_area is outdated. And redundant to 2014_Louth_County_Council_election#Results_by_Electoral_Area. The "Cathaoirleach" table isn't supported by the linked refs. And the table down the end seems redundant to the same table in Louth_County_Council#Local_Electoral_Areas_and_Municipal_Districts. To my mind, the article is largely redundant to other titles, and the title could easily be redirected Louth County Council. (I note that the only "keep" recommendation in the previous AfD suggested that a merge/redirect would unneccessarily expand and complicate the Louth County Council article. But, it seems to me, that most of the content is actually already there anyway...) Guliolopez (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Merge/redirect. Several (if not all) of the
  WP:GEOLAND (which provides for a subset geo article to be covered in the superset article...). Guliolopez (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete - Municipal districts should not have individual articles. Spleodrach (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, we know what you think from the bolded "delete". The question is why shouldn't they? Surely they fall under

  Phil Bridger (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Fails

WP:NGEO, and are better as apart of relevant council area. Spleodrach (talk

)

But why do you think that they fail

Phil Bridger (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep - The article's subject meets
  WP:NGEO, because the current guideline doesn't support that assertion. - Aoidh (talk) 05:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  The town of Dundalk is a populated place, but is covered by its own article. Dundalk Municipal District is a subsidiary of County Louth. It's not a subdivision in the way that counties in Ireland were formally divided into second-tier urban and rural districts, which operated separately from the county-level local authority, (with rural districts dropped in 1925/1930, and urban districts becoming town councils in 2002). There were separate elections to the UDCs/RDCs/TCs. This is not the case for municipal districts: there's an election for Louth County Council, and those elected for the two Dundalk local electoral areas meet regularly in their local Dundalk Municipal District, as well as the County Council. To take the legislation that created them, s. 19 of the 2014 Act, "Subject to subsection (4), every county and city and county set out in Part 1 and Part 3, respectively, of Schedule 5 shall have 2 or more districts", and the wider context of that Act, the municipal districts act as internal units within the local government area, rather than separate entities in themselves. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 08:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I struck my above comment because while it does meet

WP:GEOLAND. - Aoidh (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Redirect - I was going to suggest Keep, as, per
  WP:NGEO, as far as I can see. However, as pointed out by Guliolopez, the contents here seem to be largely redundant, un- or poorly cited, and/or out-of-date. Better to have a properly maintained Louth County Council article rather than several poorly maintained LEA ones. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete per nom and also a very strong agreement with @
  WP:NGEO
  , I think that this area is a "place" only in the absolute loosest of definitions. Moreover, it states that these places are typically notable, not always.

Xx78900 (talk) 11:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also I don't think it's a necessary redirect tbh Xx78900 (talk) 11:41, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Most of the information here is a duplication of information on
  WP:CONTENTFORKING. What do we think of the list of Cathaoirligh? Is it significant enough to warrant inclusion at all (I'm not necessarily convinced, again given the hierarchy of the municipal district compared to the county council)? If so, could it be a standalone article, short at first, but one that would be expanded? It could then also be expanded backwards, to include Cathaoirligh of the old UBC and Town Council, as we have for pages in Category:Lists of mayors of places in Ireland. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 09:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Not really necessary or

  WP:DUE? Ultimately it's nothing more than a sub-committee of the relevant county council, not much different from, say, their transport committee, housing committee, etc. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:18, 9 January 2023 (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.

Future Station (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, and the only source is a youtube video. Artem.G (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Artem.G (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the Edmonton LRT article. Nothing found for a stand-alone article, interesting fact in the Edmonton LRT article perhaps. Oaktree b (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Merge to
  Edmonton Light Rail Transit Meters (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • No need to merge this as the entire content was also added to List of Edmonton LRT stations. Meters (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The nom is being misleading about the "Youtube video". It's from the
  WP:GNG. Jumpytoo Talk 20:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I agree that there's nothing wrong with the Edmonton Journal YouTube video as a source. And I'm open to keeping this, but it needs to be clarified. It's really not a station with future usage planned as List of Edmonton LRT stations claims. It was envisioned as a future station and it was partially built, but it was never a completed station, there are no plans to ever complete it, and the space has been reallocated. Meters (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This station has never been operational or been a part of the Edmonton LRT system. While its existence can be verified, there's no indication that it's in any way notable. This can adequately be covered in a sentence or two at
  Edmonton Light Rail Transit. 162 etc. (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2023 (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 Warhammer 40,000#T'au. ✗plicit 14:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

T'au Empire

T'au Empire (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 lengthy plot summary with some comments about related miniature games, but the topic sadly seems to fail

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Games. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to main WH40K article, just unnecessary plotcruft. Dronebogus (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - to Warhammer 40,000#T'au. The sources I could find are all about the wider Warhammer 40,000 IP and this article's subject is discussed as an aspect of that wider subject, such as reviews of their specific Codex (rulebook) or the faction being included in games. I'm very familiar with 40K and there are wikis like Lexicanum that go into more in-universe detail than would be appropriate at Wikipedia (T'au Empire and T'au) so there are already websites where this level of cruft is appropriate and appreciated, but per Wikipedia's notability guidelines it doesn't warrant a standalone article on Wikipedia. - Aoidh (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. BOZ (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. Topic seems to fail
  WP:OR. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Raza Bukhari

Hassan Raza Bukhari (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)

Was deprodded without improvement. An impressive h-Index of 1 and a total of 3 citations and no in-depth coverage certainly certainly meets neither

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 11:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not pass NPROF. Too junior to be notable. Mccapra (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Far
  WP:NPROF, no sign of other notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Student awards explicitly do not pass
  WP:PROF and there appears to be nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Does not meet
  WP:BIO, also Awards and Research section references are not compatible to the content. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 15:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete does not pass
  WP:NPROF. Not yet notable. Bruxton (talk) 15:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. This is an
  ordinary university student. Bearian (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emad Khatami

Emad Khatami (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)

He is only the son of former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami and does not confirm the Wikipedia:Notability NameGame (talk) 11:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. NameGame (talk) 11:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it’s being PRODed in fa.wiki too for lack of notability. Mccapra (talk) 14:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes it is true. plus the admin fa:کاربر:Sunfyre deleted it by WikiFa users' decision in 2020: fa:ویکی‌پدیا:نظرخواهی برای حذف/سید عمادالدین خاتمی - NameGame (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Son of any Head of State doesn't passes
  WP:GNG. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 11:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:NOTINHERITED. "As of 2009, he was out of public spotlight." Party officials, especially nepo party chairs, are not notable. He has not been in the media. The parent of a head of state, if involved in their education, can be notable, but not the child. Bearian (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carrot Stix

Carrot Stix (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 company doesn't appear notable, the best I could turn up on a

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Sports, and Canada. BuySomeApples (talk) 09:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I found a few mentions in mags such as F&S but nothing in-depth that would meet
  WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 11:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Delete and wow promotional. I find this link in the Smithsonian but it talks about the material [3] the fishing rod is made from, not for the company itself. Oaktree b (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: good find! I wonder if there's enough about the material to make a separate article about that. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There might be, I didn't look that far. It's an interesting concept, carrots to plastic. Oaktree b (talk) 12:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you know, it already exists! I think there's room for improvement though. BuySomeApples (talk) 07:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - undisclosed paid-for spam. MER-C 04:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:NCORP. Having studied and written on hunting licenses and fishing, and that my domestic partner owns a dozen fishing rods, I'm somewhat familiar with the brand names. I never heard of this. Bearian (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was redirect to Prokop of Moravia with the option of merging worthwhile content. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:50, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

George of Luxembourg

George of Luxembourg (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)

There don't seem to be any

• Note: This discussion has been included in the
  Fram (talk) 09:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete due to a lack of an assertion of notability. I would also note that he's been present as a link from
  WP:BEFORE perusal of those it might be fruitful. --(loopback) ping/whereis 10:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Just adding I'm also ok with a merge presuming we can get some source of his existence beyond the master's thesis. --(loopback) ping/whereis 18:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'll agree that I did source this article inadequately - I used the one reference I had quick access to after translating the unsourced Czech article. Fwiw, the thesis cites Moravský markrabě Jošt (1354-1411) by Václav Štěpán for the claim. Searching 'Jiří Lucemburský' (Czech for George of Luxembourg) yields some more hits, such as in Lucemburkové by Jan Bauer, which states "Poslední Lucemburk po meči byl zřejmě Jiří Lucemburský, nemanželský syn markraběte Prokopa, který zemřel jako benediktinský mnich v klášteře v Monte Cassinu". (My search was picking up text from a cs.wiki mirror, whoops!) As for notability, I assumed being the last living member of the very notable House of Luxembourg was worthy of inclusion. Mbdfar (talk)

  Best I can find digitized is another thesis that states George was a bastard of Prokop who became a monk and died in Augsburg in 1457, citing Lucemburkové: česká koruna uprostřed Evropy by Šmahel and Bobková (2012) for the claim. Unfortunately, I do not have direct access to either Lucemburkové or Moravský markrabě Jošt mentioned above. Anyway, I'm sure the only son of the

  Margrave of Moravia was notable to contemporaries, but it seems few sources mentioning him have been digitized. Mbdfar (talk) 14:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Redirect to Prokop of Moravia where all the content in this stub already exists. Mccapra (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Prokop of Moravia. Srnec (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Prokop of Moravia. This article contains a little on this subject's career, which would be worth adding to that article. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment whoa whoa whoa a master's thesis isn't a reliable source? Then why do we have Template:Cite thesis? Don't professors usually engage pretty heavily with theses submitted with their names referenced as "advisor," which is kinda like a peer review except it's a boss review? I'm so confused. jengod (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Please see

  Fram (talk) 08:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Comment 2 I guess merge is fine but isn't being an endling of a family they named a whole country after kinda inherently notable? jengod (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Fram (talk) 08:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Comment 3 I'm also concerned we're exhibiting bias against non-English-lang sources here. Here some articles we have about noble-born monks or nuns who were not otherwise particularly famed for their accomplishments etc: Paweł Dembski, Andrzej Spot, Catherine of Portugal (nun), Joan of Navarre (nun), Princess Charlotte of Monaco (1719–1790), Ferenc Farkas (Jesuit priest), Jīva (nun), Louise of Savoy (nun), Bridget of York, Mary of Woodstock, Princess Seishi, etc. jengod (talk) 00:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No such bias on my part, I use such sources all the time. But no good sources have been presented here, English or not. And

  Fram (talk) 08:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  OK well you do you. jengod (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2023 (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.

King Gug

King Gug (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)

Declined at AFC moved here by creator, I can find zero significant coverage anywhere, clearly fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 08:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Ohio. Shellwood (talk) 10:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. None of the sources are sufficient to pass NSINGER. --(loopback) ping/whereis 10:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails
  reliable sources. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  What is wrong with somebody self publishing? I think you are referring the music being self published, if you are saying I am King Gug I am not. MaxAvery1999 (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Please do not remove the banner until the discussion is closed. You are not neutral and this is disruptive. Star Mississippi 23:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt to enforce AfC. NO evidence found that they currently meet N:MUSIC/BIO. Star Mississippi 14:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• delete paid for garbage, sourced to self published puff pieces and blackhat SEo.PICKLEDICAE🥒 22:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MaxAvery1999 is now open. Star Mississippi 14:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  and resolved, thanks to @Girth Summit. The master was editing about Gug as well. I leave it to someone else whether this is enough for a G5 as I have already !voted. Star Mississippi 16:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article's creator, MaxAvery1999, is a CU-confirmed sock of ArianaRaykotto, who was blocked for spamming about similar subjects last year. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:24, 7 January 2023 (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!} 07:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18 Philosophies

18 Philosophies (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 encyclopedic el.ziade (talkallam) 08:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. el.ziade (talkallam) 08:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails LIST and GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I would say redirect to Ayyappan but it seems like a very uncommon term for this ("18 steps" seems by far the most common). It does look like Ayyappan could be expanded with a bit more information about the tradition of the 18 steps. Skynxnex (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was redirect to List of slave ships. Bit of a messy discussion. There is clear consensus against a standalone article. Redirecting to Bloom (ship) has some support, but isn't a policy-based option when only one of the three ships listed there would continue to have a standalone article. Some arguments for outright deletion suggest a merger isn't needed because the content has already been merged; but best as I can tell, that's true for Bloom (ship), not the list; and we've determined that Bloom (ship) is a poor target. One argument recommends deleting this and a list, but it's unclear which list is referred to; if it's the DAB page, that doesn't change anything; if it's the list of slave ships, that's going to be a very hard sell. As such I'm redirecting to the only other target mentioned here per ATD-R, and leaving open the option of merging, but I will note that this discussion does not preclude future retargetting after a talk page discussion or RfD. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bloom (1789 ship)

Bloom (1789 ship) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination

)

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

No evidence found of any

• Note: This discussion has been included in the
  Fram (talk) 08:20, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. The slave-voyages website offers
  WP:ATD there is a merge option here: Bloom (ship). Desertarun (talk) 09:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • It's a database, not an actual text about the ship. And merging a non-notable ship to a list of three non-notable ships is not a useful ATD, it's just an attempt to keep this at a different place even if it still suffers from the same issues.
    Fram (talk) 09:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Comment: The slave voyages site itself sources some information cited to a secondary source, History of the Liverpool Privateers and Letters of Marque with an Account of the Liverpool Slave Trade (London, 1897) by Gomer Williams available here. There's three pages (606-609) that deal with the Bloom, including working out what the average sale price of the slaves worth, profit to the boat's owners and some other background. Don't believe it meets GNG but its more then just a database so I felt the need to mention it as part of a
  WP:BEFORE hunt. --(loopback) ping/whereis 10:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@

Fram (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Excellent catch! So back to the BEFORE search turning up... zero sources. Changes this from a comment to a Delete. --(loopback) ping/whereis 11:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Bloom (ship) per the precedent at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_(1806_ship). The outcome there was "redirect to List of slave ships with the option of merging any encyclopedic content" and the eventual result was that the content was merged to James (ship), which was the better merge/redirect target. The same outcome is appropriate here. Jfire (talk) 04:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Bloom (ship) List of slave ships. I did find a paragraph in a book about the slave trade. This book has a page and a half that shows the investment shares and earnings for a slave-trade voyage. The information in these is probably not enough for a stand-alone article but will provide a solid basis for a section in the Bloom ship article. Lamona (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There are statements in the article that are not in the sources, as far as I can tell. For example, the Elder book has three very brief mentions only. There are statements of fact with no sourcing like "A French privateer captured King Grey in 1793." In addition, I'm not at all sure what that is doing in this article. Lamona (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

My understanding, @

Fram:, was that the dates refer to specific voyages, not different ships. If that understanding is correct, then it's easily handled in the Bloom (ship) article. If we can establish that it was a different ship, then at best this information would be appropriate in the list of slave ships (actually not a bad idea, since it doesn't appear there). Lamona (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

If the 1789 isn't a different ship than the 1781 ship, then it should be redirected there. But it seems to be a different ship, and all sources about pre-1789 voyages are not about this one.

Fram (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete -- also the 1781 ship article and the list. All no doubt verifiable, but all NN. There were 1000s of merchant ships of the period, and it would need there to be something special about any one of them to make it notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no indication of notability for this ship. It is sourced entirely to databases or primary sources. A merge is irrelevant because there's already sufficient information at the proposed target. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2023 (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!} 07:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Air Show

Bangladesh Air Show (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)

In September 2020, the government issued a press release saying they would put on an air show the next year. Then they held a launch event in November for a website for said show, rescheduled for February 2022. Then in September 2021 they announced that it would be postponed again because of COVID-19. My searches found no evidence that it has taken place or is currently planned.

At each step the press has dutifully parroted the official announcements, but without adding any analysis, evaluation, or interpretation. There are no truly independent

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 07:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete while announcements of the event are reliably sourced, the event hasn't happened and so isn't worthy of a page. This can all be covered in one sentence on
  Cox's Bazar International Airport. Page can be recreated if the event actually happens. FWIW the original creator account is globally locked. Mztourist (talk) 03:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: Fails
  WP:NEVENT. ––FormalDude (talk) 11:57, 6 January 2023 (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!} 05:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Boy (upcoming film)

Bad Boy (upcoming film) (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 film fails all the criteria of

There is no

What was mistaken to be significant coverage in previous AfD, is actually press releases, and some promotional/paid articles. After doing some searching, there are no recent updates, or coverage about the film in reliable sources.

On other note, the creator of this article is blocked for socking, and for UPE. Some of their articles were related to film industry. —usernamekiran (talk) 06:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. —usernamekiran (talk) 06:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom or Draftify. This upcoming film that is postponed indefinitely fails
  WP:SIGCOV. VickKiang (talk) 06:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Fails
  WP:NFF with no indication it will ever be released. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, fails
  (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2023 (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!} 05:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mongsueprou Chowdhury

Mongsueprou Chowdhury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article about a political figure, not

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Bangladesh. Bearcat (talk) 05:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clear NPOL fail. Mccapra (talk) 08:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails
  WP:NPOL. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: Fails
  WP:NPOL. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 11:05, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per NPOL and
  there are so many of them. Bearian (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was redirect to Circle (Finnish band)#Discography. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arkades

Arkades (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination

)

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

Fails GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (music). I couldn't find any reliable sources on Wikipedia library or google. `~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 04:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Finland. `~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 04:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Circle_(Finnish_band)#Live_albums: the most I could find was this AllMusic review. Doesn't appear to be any other reliable coverage. Not very surprising for a random live album from a seemingly not-very-famous (though I have heard of them before) experimental rock band. QuietHere (talk) 07:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@QuietHere. On the Circle (Finnish_band)#Discography, all of the blue links in albums have 0-1 sources with no sign of notability, they were all created by the same person.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HelpingWorld (talk • contribs) 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - Many of the band's album articles could be redirected to their main article, after sitting around for years with deficient sources and little info beyond basic track listings. Someone could try that as a
  bold project, or discuss the others in their own nominations. This here discussion has to focus on "Arkades" for procedural purposes. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS
  )
• Redirect to
  WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2023 (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.

Discover Pakistan TV

Discover Pakistan TV (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)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:16, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:16, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep, I would not say that this article is quite promotional, but could use some better sources. Overall, weak keep. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 06:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a hotel room channel; unless somehow there's news and opinion programming on what is something designed to sell the country to someone already there, there's no
  WP:N that can be mined here as the programming loops and never changes, thus a native will likely only watch this network once. Nate • (chatter) 02:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Please have a look at other TV channel articles, Discover Pakistan TV is the official satellite tv Channel here is a list: https://theasiadialogue.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/list_of_licences_issued_stv.pdf
  I dont think so the article is promotional, Rest you guys can decide.
  Thank you. Ihaiders1 (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  https://theasiadialogue.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/list_of_licences_issued_stv.pdf

  Please See:

  https://www.techjuice.pk/discover-pakistan-pakistans-first-only-tourism-tv-channel-goes-live/

  https://www.nation.com.pk/20-Jul-2021/pemra-chairman-visits-discover-pakistan-channel Ihaiders1 (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Please note that editor User:Ihaiders1 has a Conflict of Interest for this topic. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That's true. Please double check if it promotional or not. Thanks. Ihaiders1 (talk) 03:14, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I used the program details mentioned on their website, ( Names of the programs ) but removed as source was not proper. I didn't mentioned about the Ex Prime Minister of Pakistan "Imran Khan" vision about this channel, please check this source. https://www.bolnews.com/tag/discover-pakistan-tv-channel/ Do you this this should be the part of the article? As I already tagged my self having an conflict of interest with this Channel, But I wanted to contribute to the encyclopedia because its "'First Tourism TV" in Pakistan & has a Significant Media coverage, I tried to provide all the information with available resources and Links.

I hope the community will improve it better. Thank you. Ihaiders1 (talk) 04:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The subject has some significant media coverage as the first tourist TV channel in Pakistan:

• Voice of America (Urdu)
• Daily Nawaiwaqt
• Newsflex

Insight 3 (talk) 13:04, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Has significant news media coverage in both English and Urdu languages. Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, an informative article having significant media coverage. Comply with the conditions regarding sources. Lillyput4455 (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I do have a conflict of interest with this TV channel, I read other articles on TV channels in Pakistan, and I feel Discover Pakistan TV should be on the encyclopedia. I still feel it needs some improvement. here are some sources which will help you guys understand. I am attaching links from Pakistan's Top New websites.

1- https://www.bolnews.com/tag/discover-pakistan-tv-channel/ 2- https://lifeinpakistan.net/discover-pakistan-a-tourism-focused-satellite-tv-channel-launched/ 3- https://beam.pk/discover-pakistan-tourism-tv-channel/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihaiders1 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I might be introducing my own opinion here but I'd like to see additional support to retain an infomercial infotainment channel. They are typically not considered encyclopedic because they are purely commercial.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Just want to give a small input, According to "Pemra" Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority. Discover Pakistan TV is an Satellite TV channel Falls in "Tourism" & Infotainment Category with Information & entertainment programs. Its not infomercial channel. https://pemra.gov.pk/uploads/licensing/stv/list_of_licences_issued_stv.pdf

List of television channels in Pakistan Ihaiders1 (talk) 12:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I will at least agree with this; it's not a paid programming channel but a promotional tourist information channel. There is a difference between the two types of channels. Nate • (chatter) 01:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was my mistake. I mixed up "infomercial" with "infotainment." Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I agree with Ihaiders1. Twinkle1990 (talk) 12:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per
  WP:HEY. In-depth coverage exists about this channel in English as well as in Urdu language sources as shown by User:Insight 3. 122.58.130.227 (talk) 11:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Notable article. 111.119.177.41 (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was redirect to Polish resistance. This AFD discussion is all over the map but I'm going to close it with the suggestion to transform the title into a redirect as an ATD. Should good sources appear in the future, the article can be recovered and improved. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leśni

Leśni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article (which is a target of the

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Poland. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Alternatively, redirect. Renata•3 04:48, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, per nom to Polish resistance. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 06:31, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - I would really prefer to see this rewritten into an article about Polish resistance operations in the forests, rather then see this disappear. - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Merge to the Polish resistance article might be a good idea, we can always do a split later if more and better info turns up. Oaktree b (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Oaktree b There is nothing to merge, all content is already in other relevant articles (or unreferenced). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Polish resistance movement in World War II. The only substantive material appears (perhaps more briefly) in its 1940 section. Possibly the explanation of the name of this article needs to be added to that one somewhere. It is the equivalent of the French resistance becing called Maquis (which refers to woods or scrubland, where they could hide). Peterkingiron (talk) 14:09, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. If Piotrus thinks it can't be salvaged, I am confident it can't be. Srnec (talk) 04:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are two different proposed redirects.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per nom's suggestion to Polish resistance as it appears to be a reasonable search term. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The term is not a plausible search term. The quoted meaning has possibly been invented by the author of one of the works referenced in the article. Content-wise, nothing to merge either. — kashmīrī ^TALK 03:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Polish resistance as a plausible search term. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2023 (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.

Danish Association of Chartered Surveyors

Danish Association of Chartered Surveyors (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 found online, fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Denmark. Shellwood (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick Google shows some sources in Danish, including academic sources. I think this article should be improved, rather than deleted. QuintinK (talk) 02:21, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:31, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, if no work has been done, it may not be done for some time. Someone should translate and get to work sourcing, if not, delete if we can't find more. Weak keep for now. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 06:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, There is no significant coverage, even in Danish. There are only one-line mentions in articles about something else. BruceThomson (talk) 05:20, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since there have been no additions to the article, if you know of sources to address the nominator's statement, please mention them here instead of just saying they exist in a Google search.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. There are a few poor arguments here: CSD#A7 definitely does not apply to a law firm, and when the sources cited as meeting SIGCOV have been challenged, a bare statement that the topic meets GNG doesn't go very far. Among the rest of the comments there seems to be genuine disagreement about the precise level of depth required for a source to count toward NCORP, but given the numerical tilt among those, and also two comments that stop short of saying "delete" but note weaknesses with the claim to notability, consensus here is for deletion. I would remind all editors that with SIGCOV or NCORP, each source being cited as counting toward a notability criterion needs to meet all the relevant sub-criteria; that is, we need multiple sources that are each, individually, reliable and independent and substantive. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ater Wynne

Ater Wynne (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)

Questionable notability - may violate

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Oregon, Washington, Law, and Organizations. sig QuintinK (talk) 23:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete reads like a business history, nothing substantial found for sourcing.Oaktree b (talk) 00:48, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Daily Journal of Commerce Oregon and Portland Business Journal seem like exactly the sorts of spots we'd expect to see NCORP coverage. The Oregonian is the city's paper of record. Coverage already extant meets NCORP and GNG, which suggests the parent organization's deletion may need to be reexamined. Jclemens (talk) 00:58, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that the article includes citations from legitimate news sources. My thinking is that it violates

  Wikipedia:A7, in that the article never claims there is anything per se notable about the law firm or its history. It was affiliated with some notable individuals, but there's nothing I see that's obviously notable about the law firm itself. QuintinK (talk) 01:39, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Notability is not that, as in it is not if the topic is famous, important, or popular, which appears to be your criteria. Instead, notability is when a topic "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I think it has, but that is a different debate than if they were involved in a famous case or "anything actually notable". Aboutmovies (talk) 09:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The article is a far cry for A7. Merely being a "law firm" with multiple partners and important clients is enough to dodge that speedy deletion criterion. Jclemens (talk) 17:07, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No assertion of notability, so fails
  WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - but I wrote the article. In sum, I try not to write non-notable entries. I research them first to ensure there is solid notability, unless they have something that makes them automatically notable like they are a state legislator. In this case, that included non open web-based articles, which totaled 6 out of the 21 sources. For those who are voting, did you look at any of those articles to be able to actually see if
  WP:CORPDEPTH was met on those articles? Did the nominator doing any independent checking of sources and look for more as we often require for notability purposes before nominating? Just like notability is not inherited, the fact that the firm that absorbed them was deleted has no bearing. Also, "They don't seem to be involved in anything actually notable" is not criteria and would be an inherited trait that we should not be using as criteria for inclusion as well. The fact is, as a project we have done a poor job of covering law firms. When I see a large firm that has been around awhile make the news and we have no article, I used to take the time to write one. As to notable cases, there are 297 cases in which their name appears in Lexis (my firm only has 69 such results), and another 132 results in Lexis' legal news results (I have added more to the article based on those). There is adequate coverage for notability when you do the research. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:10, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:30, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, we really should not be too jumpy just to delete things. This meets
  WP:GNG from what I can see. TY. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 06:42, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete This was a commercial organization therefore
  HighKing⁺⁺ 13:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Keep - The article cites good legitimate news sources HeliosSunGod (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2022 (UTC)sock strike[reply]

• Yes ... yes it does. Unfortunately though, they merely regurgitate announcements. Can you link to specific references you believe meet NCORP criteria?
  HighKing⁺⁺ 11:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• No those do not regurgitate announcements. No entity in their right mind would put out press releases that they settled lawsuits by paying money to the plaintiff(s), were being sued for malpractice, or were being investigated by a government regulatory entity for ethics violations. They might put out a press release after the news gets ahold of it, but that's different. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's really cute. The reality is that most professional "entities" (especially lawfirms) want to "take control of the narrative" whether it is good news or bad. Leaving that aside, if you read the sources it isn't very difficult to see the vacuous nature of the content, relying entirely on quotations and attributions to the firm or their executives. Tell you what. Point me to any source/paragraph which you believe meets NCORP criteria and we will take a look.

HighKing⁺⁺ 12:13, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Citing legit sources is insufficient if their coverage is only of a passing nature and not indepth. UtherSRG (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. @Aboutmovies: A general observation is that there is a writing problem here: As multiple editors have commented, the article seems to focus a lot on trivial, routine background information about a law firm, rather than making any kind of notability claim. For what it's worth, I've now added a notability claim (first law firm in Portland with a woman's name in its title), but that's based on one (local) source. If you have access to Lexis, one possible avenue for research is to see if you can find anything else about the firm's historical stance toward women lawyers/partners that is interesting. (And on that note, if the article is kept, it would definitely be worth adding a sentence or two on the late Carol Hewitt, who was a senior partner.) So far you've highlighted maybe one of the controversial cases that the firm was involved in (where they became a defendant), but there appear to be a few more of those that were high-profile and could help to make the case for (historical) notability as well, particularly if you are able to explain the specific role that the firm played within those cases, not just the fact that they happened to represent certain clients. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @

  WP:NNC. In articles we cover what people/entities do that is covered in RS. A politician is married and has kids rarely is notable in itself, but it is standard information you include in a biography. Most details in your run of the mill state legislator are not notable by themselves, same with what companies do. With law firms, who are the attorneys, what cases they handle (whether or not there is an article does not matter), what names have they gone by, and even where do they have offices is important information that should be covered. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  @Aboutmovies I was leaning toward "keep" before but given what you've just said, I'm now leaning toward "delete". Cielquiparle (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Good to see you take that personally and have that influence your decision instead of the actual criteria. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I actually was genuinely trying to help and no, I won't be !voting in this AfD. Peace. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Cases filed have nothing to do with notability. There is no independent, in-depth analysis by reliable media for it. No sources are shared in the discussion, which proves it is notable. Lordofhunter (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Lordofhunter: as noted above, your argument of "Cases filed have nothing to do with notability" is not what notability is on Wikipeida. For the love of whatever people pray to, notability on Wikipedia has never been about the notable things people/things did, such as the first this or that. It is about in-depth coverage of the topic in RS. Yes, typically people/things who do notable things end up being notable because the media then takes notes, providing the coverage/RS, but it never matters if the people/things actually do anything notable itself. "There is no independent, in-depth analysis by reliable media for it." Yes there are, but you have to look behind paywalls, as the firm was started pre-web. "No sources are shared in the discussion, which proves it is notable." Huh? While some editors do that, I instead do the proper thing of actually editing the article to include them. As to depth, I added a bunch last week that are behind paywalls that I doubt anyone has checked as access is limited. Several of them provided the depth needed. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Here are two more articles that are entirely about the firm's actions by Nigel Jaquiss, who won a Pulitzer Prize for work around the same time as these two articles:

  City Slams Ater Wynne

  Playing Both Sides?

  These were in the Willamette Week, which again, is a Pulitzer Prize-winning newspaper. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:17, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Both those articles are "coverage", both refer to the topic company facing a complaint and investigation by the bar over their conduct but the articles are simply regurgitating details of the complaint. This coverage is neither significant nor in-depth (
  HighKing⁺⁺ 11:47, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• We will have to agree to disagree, as per
  WP:ORGIND
  that you cite to: "A primary test of notability is whether unrelated people with no vested interest in the subject have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it." The Willamette Week is independent of the law firm, unless you think the law firm put out a press release that they were being investigate by the Bar? And I can tell you that Bar investigations that get to a formal complaint are not routine. There are about 5 attorneys per month on the naughty list in the Bar Bulletin out of 15k attorneys, and you only get listed there after discipline has been dished out. Now, are either 150 page books on the topic, no, but that is not needed.
• We will also have to disagree as to significant coverage as well, as you seem to want a 150 page book or something.
  "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Trivial mentions are as all of our guidelines cover, something like ... the company elevated Mr. Foo as the new boss, who has been with the company for 40 years and is a swell guy. The WW coverage is not trivial, and is significant (as are these: [4][5][6][7][8]). Not as significant as a book or a two-hour documentary on the law firm, but not trivial under the guidelines. Most articles blend both trivial mentions and significant coverage in order to flesh out an article. I use very brief mentions to help build details needed for a proper biography all the time, as some people are notable, but not notable enough for Stephen E. Ambrose
  to write a biography (if he were still alive).
• Lastly, The Oregonian is a regional, multiple Pulitzer Prize winning paper that is 170 years old. All the O articles have a byline by professional journalists, and since several are about things not exactly good for the firm, I think its safe to say those are actually independent. The PBJ, yes, some of those articles are reguritations of press releases (those typically do not have byline to a person so those are easy to spot), but again I think we can all agree the firm would not have put out a press release saying they settled a lawsuit filed against them. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response It appears unlikely we will reach an agreement based on your response. Nevertheless I'll attempt to provide an answer to the points you've raised but I don't intend to continue to respond to points which are more your personal opinion or wikilawyering than based on any of our guidelines.

• It isn't just ORGIND, it is the entirety of the relevant NCORP guidelines. For example, where precisely is the CORPDEPTH in any of the Willamette articles (that discuss the topic company in detail)? As to ORGIND in particular, it is very obvious that the information in those articles (mainly made up of quotes and attributions) is sourced from persons who are connected to the company and/or have a "vested interest" in the outcome of the dispute. Also, if you check the section right above ORGIND you will find
  WP:CRIME
  guidelines either. I also find it very un-NPOV to see that there's no mention in the article of the fact that the state bar dismissed the complaint. It is almost as if the author(s) of this article have an axe to grind don't you think?
• Your second point mixes up "quantity" with "quality". As per
  WP:SIRS
  , *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - we don't take a quantity of "coverage" and merge each part to form a new whole. Also, those are all based on company announcements, therefore not intellectually independent - in other word, once you remove the parts that fail ORGIND, the remaining content fails CORPDEPTH. But to address your question (and the obvious strawman), nobody is looking for a 150 page book either. We simply require an article which is significant/in-depth and contains original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. If a company is truly notable, somebody somewhere in some publication will have written something in-depth and intellectually independent about them.
• Your description of The Oregonian is the reason why it 1) the newspaper is notable and has its own article and 2) is considered a
  WP:RS
  to support the information/facts/etc presented within the content of an article, but the criteria for sources used to establish notability are very different, which is what we are discussing here.

I see the number of references has now risen to 37. The easiest way for you to convince others that references exist which meet NCORP criteria is to link your

HighKing⁺⁺ 12:49, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Response - I disagree. I think you are confusing significant coverage with being a very large amount of coverage, which is not what
  "... the notability guideline doesn't require that the subject is the main topic of the source material, only that it's more than a trivial mention."
  If you really study what we mean by trivial mentions, you will notice a theme: inclusion in lists (such as best of lists), a list of tenants in a new building, a mention in an article of people running for a political office, new destinations from a particular airline; end stop. But, if that list of the ten best new restaurants in foo in 2023 also includes two paragraphs of text discussing the cuisine, then it is no longer trivial. I know you would never agree, but that has always been my take on what trivial means. You disagree, I disagree, we all scream for ice scream. Bottomline, your interpretation of trivial is different than mine.
• As to three, I listed a bunch before, and I don't care about an essay. As to the reliability of The Oregonian, that was not attempting to directly state anything about notability. That was in response to your quip of "and it certainly does not provide any "Independent Content"". My point with talking about that newspaper and the Willamette Week was to say, no, those are independent per WP:ORGIND. There are few ways for one to get information about a company that did not start with something coming from a company. You want to know when it was founded, you can go to the Sec. of State (at least in most states) and look it up, but that piece of information started with the company filing some sort of formation document. How much in revenue, at some point that comes from the company's books. And that is why by independent we have never meant completely independent. The author of the news article can take the info from topic, and as long as the do some of their own research, then it is independent for reliability/notability purposes (which WP:ORGIND basically says). For the WW article "City Slams Ater Wynne" as it says, the author took info from the bar complaint, which was filed by the city which is independent of the topic. It then ends with "Ater Wynne's attorney Brad Tellam was unavailable for comment." That means, there was no input from the topic on the article, meaning WP:ORGIND would not apply. In the Oregonian article of "Ater Wynne law firm, Perkins & Co. accounting firm pay $14.65 million to settle lawsuit from burned Grifphon investors" the info came from the attorney who sued the topic, and while the topic did provide a quote, the author clearly went beyond just that info to make it pass WP:ORGIND. With the WW article Playing Both Sides?, again the author used information from the city in their article, making it pass WP:ORGIND. So, in a round about way, there are your three.
• "an axe to grind don't you think?" - You think someone has an axe to grind about a law firm that no longer exists? More importantly is the fact that it was dismissed has been in the article for like 8 years, ref #21 for those scoring at home (so who is grinding an axe?). And, since the firm did not do anything criminal (ethics violations and being sued for malpractice are not crimes, as in no one goes to jail, you just get sued or disciplined)
  WP:CRIME guidelines would not apply, besides that CRIME applies to individuals, which why it is part of WP:NBIO. Aboutmovies (talk) 03:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Response I'm really not confusing NCORP guidelines. Rather than arguing over how to interpret guidelines in a generic fashion, we can instead look to apply the guidelines in a particular and focused manner, with specific sources in mind, which is why I've asked you to provide a link to sources that you believe meet NCORP. Notably, you acknowledged my request but avoided providing an answer. There's nothing more to say until we can discuss specifics.
  HighKing⁺⁺ 16:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Comment Thanks @

  WP:INHERITORG. Many citations are also from trade journals, which aren't valid for WP:NCORP. Many small/medium-sized businesses fail notability and law firms are no exception. I agree that an argument based on the three best sources would significantly help clarify if this meets the GNG. QuintinK (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Comment - These last two posts prove editors have not actually read what was posted in response. As to @
  HighKing: I highlighted and italicized where I mention the "my best three" so you can find it since your edits above demonstrate an issue finding things. But again, we all know it doesn't matter to you, because you cannot even make a mea culpa over your accusation about an ax to grind (which violated AGF) about NPOV, an accusation the article history shows you were flat wrong about. Aboutmovies (talk) 02:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Response I've asked three times for you to point to sources *and* paragraph numbers - the purpose being that you had the opportunity to say "Look, this paragraph is a detailed opinion of someone who is not an interested party or affailiated in any way with the company and which contains in-depth and significant information about the company". Instead you're still making very vague statements about the entirity of each article. OK, you're therefore saying all three contain in-depth information, are significant and detailed, contain "Independent Content" and therefore meet NCORP criteria. I disagree. Here's why, in detail, those sources fail NCORP

• This Willamette Week source is 7 sentences. It is a report on the City of Portland accusing "founding partner Jonathan Ater" of a conflict of interest and includes quotes from a letter written to the state bar. There is no depth of coverage. CORPDEPTH defines deep or significant coverage as "an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis or evaluation of the company". This is absent from this article, so it fails CORPDEPTH. Not only that, you say "there was no input from the topic on the article, meaning WP:ORGIND would not apply" - that is incorrect. "Intellectual Independence" refers to "interested parties", not just the topic. A customer is an "interested party". This is also evident from the list in the section on "Secondary sources" which lists "customer testimonials or complaints" as PRIMARY sources. In order for this article to be a secondary source, the journalist must have provided their own "analysis, evaluation, interpretation or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts and ideas" taken from the primary source. This is absent from this article. Finally, you say WP:CRIME does not apply. Please check out
  WP:ILLCON
  which says it is possible that sources will exist that discuss a topic company's alleged illegal conduct and sources "that primarily discuss purely such conduct cannot be used to establish an organization's notability under this guideline" but however the orgnization may still be notable under different guidelines, e.g. CRIME. This article also fails ILLCON and CRIME. So in summary, this 7 sentence article which regurgitates a customer complaint on alleged illegal conduct is absent any in-depth information on the company (failing CORPDEPTH); is absent any "Independent Content" (failing ORGIND) and; has no content other than that primarily discussing allegedly illegal conduct (failing ILLCON). In other words, it fails NCORP criteria for establishing notability.
• The BizJournals source is even shorter at 6 sentences long. It is an article about a settlement. For pretty much the same reasons as above, it also fails. It has no in-depth content about the company (which would be difficult in 6 sentences anyway) (fails CORPDEPTH) and it has no "Independent Content" as it does not offer any "original and independent opinion/analysis/fact checking/investigation *about* the company (fails ORGIND). Arguably it also fails ILLCON.
• This next from Willamette Week is a longer article with 18 sentences. It also simply regurgitates the complaint (in more detail) referred to in the first article above without offering any original/independent opinion/commentary/analysis from the journalist. It also does not provide any in-depth information on the company. Again, for the exact same reasons as above, this article fails CORPDEPTH, ORGIND and ILLCON.

Since these were your best THREE and none are even close to meeting NCORP guidelines, you have not convinced me that this company is notable. While you may have a different idea of how to interpret NCORP guidelines, I think those articles clearly fail without leaving any wriggle room for an argument.

HighKing⁺⁺ 17:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]