Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 October 28

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< October 27 October 29 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge‎ to Ławki, Giżycko County. Liz Read! Talk! 20:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ławki PGR

Ławki PGR (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)

People familiar with Poland and the Polish language will recognise that "PGR" is the initials for Państwowe Gospodarstwo Rolne, or state agricultural farm. This is therefore just a farm. There is no listing for Ławki PGR in the sources.

The location is just across the lake from the village of Ławki, Giżycko County that this is obviously just part of. I don't think redirecting Ławki PGR to Ławki makes much sense, not least because Ławki literally means "benches", but it's still better than keeping this article around - however, I prefer straight-forward deletion.

This article was mass-created by the bot Kotbot, operated by retired user Kotniski. In excess of 40,000 other articles were created in the same way. FOARP (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland. FOARP (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two places with the name Ławki (wieś and osada) and one called Ławki Małe (przysiółek wsi) which is part of Ławki (wieś). The Polish article was moved to "Ławki (osada)" but I think this is different, it seems to be in the same area as Ławki Małe, probably part of it. Peter James (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean there’s one place called Ławki, but TERYT divides it up into a couple of different units. This is something that happens across Poland, you even see listings for “[Place name] A” and “[Place name] B” when in reality there is only one community called “[Place name]”.
    At any rate, there is no place called Ławki PGR in any of the sources. FOARP (talk) 06:37, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence that this is an recognised settlement; a map search finds it near Ławki Małe but that's just an unofficial hamlet in the village of Ławki. The other Ławki (osada) seems to be a manor house and estate with a few buildings on the heritage register; it's unclear whether this was once the state agricultural farm. Peter James (talk) 11:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or merge and redirect to
    WP:NOPAGE case. The village article should mention there was such a PGR nearby, maybe give coordinates and mention it has its own TERYT number - and that's realistically all the info that is out there and that can ever be here... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @Piotrus - I don't think the TERYT database can support a claim that Ławki had a state farm? I assume you're referring to the osada listed at Ławki (search SIMC ID no. 0767658 here) - but this is called "Ławki", not "Ławki PGR". I don't doubt there was a PGR at this site, but no source actually says that. FOARP (talk) 15:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @FOARP True. Here is a reliable source that confirms such an entity existed (1969 so no wiki error repetition chance). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perfectly happy to mention that at the main page for Ławki. FOARP (talk) 18:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Unlike the others, this one appears to need more discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:53, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Piotrus: - The article for Ławki now states that it had a PGR using the source (which appears to have been someone's memoirs), OK with a redirect? FOARP (talk) 11:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I did say I am ok with anything that is not deletion, I guess... @Stok if you care to comment. I have hard time imagining most PGRs are notable in the realistic sense of that concept. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ławki, Giżycko County as an AtD per Piotrus cmts above.  // Timothy :: talk  01:08, 4 November 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. Daniel (talk) 05:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NextView Ventures

NextView Ventures (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)

While the number of mentions is quite extensive, unfortunately I cannot identify any that would help meet the primary inclusion criteria for

organisations and companies. Most of them are essentially namechecks in terms of depth of coverage. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Have to agree with Alpha3031 here. WcquidditchWeirdNAnnoyed says the articles are "reliable and non-trivial" so SIGCOV is met and then goes on to say that the articles are "independent". Perhaps WcquidditchWeirdNAnnoyed is only considering the "functional independence" aspect of
HighKing++ 12:35, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@
HighKing. You mean User:WeirdNAnnoyed, not Wcquidditch! Rupples (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete. Needs more to pass
    WP:ORGDEPTH. I'll accept the WSJ article as counting towards NCORP notability requirements (thanks User talk:Alpha3031 for the link), though quite a bit is interview quotes with the company founders. Disgree that the Boston Globe (Boston.com) amounts to SIGCOV as little is independent coverage of NextView — that article discusses seed investing in general and another Boston company. The rest of the sources appear to be based on funding and investment announcements put out by the company with little independent editorial comment. Rupples (talk) 17:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

There is sufficient coverage in

reliable sources to allow NextView Ventures to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Klasmer (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An additional assessment of sources brought up in this discussion would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I'm being shut out of a number of the new sources put up by User:Klasmer above so I'm withdrawing my !delete vote as there may or may not be sufficient coverage to satisfy NCORP within those I can't access. I note however, that Klasmer has only stated the sources fulfil the GNG and has made no mention of NCORP's criteria. Rupples (talk) 02:50, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. The latter two WSJ articles seem to be from Dow Jones Institutional News again, thus available from ProQuest 2063287815 for "VC in 2015" and 2072224429 for "First Call". The other two are not on ProQuest or EBSCO, nor Gale that I could tell, but "Bullish On Boston" seems to be available as a Google AMP according to archive.is. Not sure about the second one, "NextView Captures $40M" though. Klasmer, was there anything specific in there beyond the funding announcement? Also, I was assuming, but was there anything other than the WSJ articles that you couldn't access, Rupples? Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/
    in-depth information *on the company*
    . "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.
The sources listed above are regurgitated PR and Announcements of funding, or relies on information/quotes provided by the company/execs. None of the sources listed above contain "Independent Content" as per
HighKing++ 17:09, 29 October 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 Keep league article, redirect teams‎. RL0919 (talk) 16:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom Pro Baseball League

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

Subject doesn't meet either the

WP:BUNDLE
, I am also nominating the following related team pages for the same reason:

Phoenix Prospectors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Goodyear Centennials (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Peoria Explorers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Prescott Montezuma Federals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Let'srun (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep league article, delete team articles. There are some sources out there that reference the league and it's status as a professional baseball league makes it worth having a historical article on. Spanneraol (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Wizardman 02:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the league article only, redirect the team articles to the league article. The league page has sources in it that are more than passing mentions, therefore passing GNG. Frank Anchor 22:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the league article only, then redirect the team articles to the league articles per above. None of these individually have WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV (found game recaps, mentions, database records), nothing that meets WP:N, but putting all these articles together they squeak past WP:N.  // Timothy :: talk  09:19, 4 November 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 keep‎.

(non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 00:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Pirro Mosi

Pirro Mosi (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)

Decently sourced, but the jury's now out on whether this subject can rise above run-of-the-mill status. (Surveyed as part of NPP October 2023.) Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 23:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • When I made a Google search to find sources, I found that Reddit post [1]. Idk if it is a canvassing attempt or not. Whoever comes here to !vote should be aware that the AfD is closed based on the weight of the arguments rather than the number of !votes.
    Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep: collected works are in the [2]
    WP:PHOTOGRAPHER #4(b).  // Timothy :: talk  22:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Clearly notable. I just added links to Google Translations to each of the six references. Most are independent, reliable references from Albanian media.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 16:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets
    WP:GNG with the sources currently in the article. Jacona (talk) 23:51, 2 November 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Crisis of faith

AfDs for this article:
Crisis of faith (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 has been nominated for deletion before. It is largely a WP:COATRACK composed of WP:OR that already is present in the criticism of religion article. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 20:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As per the nominator, this article is a
    WP:ATTACKPAGE against religion. desmay (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Religion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article was deleted in 2017. It was brought back without consensus. If any material was suggested, a redirect to
    WP:COATRACK of these articles. People lose faith in stuff all the time (politics, family, friends, spouse, sports, the future, culture, etc) and at the same time they acquire faith in the same stuff too. The lead is not even sourced well in defining the topic article and the scope seem incredibly broad without any academic source. Some of the material seems more appropriate in depression or pessimism or nihilism. On top of that empirical studies show that many things in this article do not impact their faith in any consistent fashion. You can lose faith in "religion", but retain strong belief in God and vice versa. There are many layers to this. People lose faith in marriage but they still date extensively throughout their lives. People lose faith in government and do not vote, and yet they retain strong belief in political candidates. An easy one is God, in that belief in God is not impacted by tragedies [4]. People get over it and move on. on top of this, the focus of the article is too much on religion and ignores the disillusionment among the nonreligious with secularism, many of which can be found in List of converts to Christianity from nontheism. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Keep — the article's main points and overall structure come directly from academic sources, namely, Robert C Evans, Sydney Eisen, and Jennifer Michael Hecht. I find it odd to say the article is an attack on religion because it is quite clear that strengthened faith is a common outcome of a crisis of faith. It includes the examples of Job, Julia Wedgewood, Ellice Hopkins, Søren Kierkegaard, Richard Rubenstein, etc. Jno.skinner (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Gonna have to divide my comment into two sections here:
    • On the article's topic — The concept is poorly defined, and there seems to be no real scope separating it from
      WP:COATRACK
      term's additional topics.... grouped together to make it appear as if they were all examples of the same thing. Any notable content already falls under another article. For these reasons alone the article should be deleted.
    • On the article's content — contains a plethora of personal accounts/testimonies that are reminiscent of r/atheism. While the people who wrote them may well be notable, that doesn't mean they need to collated in one place and hosted by Wikipedia, that isn't our purpose.They should remain in that person's article. So the entire "accounts" section is problematic. The 'outcomes section' isn't too great either, again largely relying on individual examples/accounts including in one place an account of a fictional character's thoughts. A few sociological citations don't justify a
      WP:TNT
      .
Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 02:12, 29 October 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. Daniel (talk) 20:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Svechkar

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

Does not meet

WP:GNG, having searched for sources in English and Russian. signed, Rosguill talk 23:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Russia. signed, Rosguill talk 23:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noting that additional sources were added but that they do little to establish a case for notability: [5] is a social media post, [6] is a local news source reporting that a seminar given by Svechkar was presented by Dynamo Vologda, his team, and provides no further analysis of Svechkar's biography or career. [7] is the same source, interviewing Svechkar for a brief comment on Dynamo Vologda's success, and [8] is an unbylined press release of Svechkar being hired at Dynamo Vologda. We are still entirely lacking independent coverage discussing Svechkar's life, play style, coaching style, or other biographic information that would justify an article. signed, Rosguill talk 15:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:17, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with Rosguill's assessment of the available sourcing and agree that this is some way short of
    WP:GNG. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete: per Rosguill's eval.  // Timothy :: talk  14:58, 4 November 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. Daniel (talk) 20:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Berto Ferrero

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

Does not meet

WP:GNG, having searched for coverage online in English, Spanish and Russian. signed, Rosguill talk 23:10, 28 October 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. Daniel (talk) 20:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Grant (footballer, born 1988)

John Grant (footballer, born 1988) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet

WP:GNG, no coverage available online other than mere-mentions in match writeups. signed, Rosguill talk 23:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Both articles are match reports; the first mentions his sending off, the second mentions goals scored by him. Coverage doesn't get more routine than that. The two articles do not contribute to
    WP:GNG being met. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • @Robby.is.on: If you're going to do that, then you need to delete every season article, every footballer article there is, match reports do contribute to GNG, to say they are all routine coverage is not a practical way to run wikipedia guidelines. Govvy (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let's delete the other articles with inadequate sourcing. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 15:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, we should start with deleting BLPs that don't meet
WP:BLP policy for strong sourcing, even if the subject played with balls, regardless of type.  // Timothy :: talk  15:31, 4 November 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 keep‎. Discussions about content and potential merging can still take place at the article and on its talk page. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Election denial movement

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)

"Election denial movement" is a phrase sometimes used in reliable sources to refer to

synthesises ideas from some sources that use the phrase, and many that don't, to propose an expansive definition that none of them directly support. In other words, this article substantially overlaps with another article, and where its scope extends beyond that article it does so by making claims and inferences that aren't supported by the sources it cites. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Conspiracy theories, Politics, and United States of America. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bogus AFD Keep and improve. I see this as a bogus AfD because the nominator has made no attempt at the article or on its talk page to address their concerns. Not one attempt. This is not a collaborative or collegial way to deal with this issue. I suggest they immediately withdraw this AfD and get their ass over to the article's talk page and seek to get this straightened out. Their concerns may have some legitimacy, but the proper way to deal with them are to start at the talk page before starting an AfD. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not how AfD work. The nom is saying that the concept itself Is not suitable for en.wiki as an encyclopedia. There's nothing, from their perspective, to attempt to fix.
    You sound like you are invested in the page and therefore it is understandable that you've reacted as you have. However, we all have a responsibility to assume good faith. In the context of an AfD discussion that means engaging with the process on its own merits and referring to the notability criteria. It certainly doesn't involve demanding that other editors engage in other work. JMWt (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    JMWt, I have no idea why you would think I am "invested" in this page. That's a weird thing to say, and you need to AGF. I clearly AGF ("Their concerns may have some legitimacy"), but believe this was a misguided and uncollegial approach to resolving the problem. While it's technically allowed to go directly to an AfD or other drama board, it starts a very disruptive process, in the sense that all drama board and AE processes are disruptive and time-consuming time sinks involving many editors. I believe it's better to first try the normal process of talk page discussion, and only when that doesn't work, to then progress to harsher measures. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me)
    If I thought this article was in any way salvageable, I'd certainly have started a discussion at the talk page, or just tried to fix the issues myself. But I don't think that (and hope I haven't given the impression that I do). Why would I begin a talk page discussion about an article that I think needs to be deleted, rather than using the designated venue for deletion discussions? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete So it's really only ONE election they didn't like the 2020 one. EVENT not met, we could redirect to the 2020 election, but that's all it's about and is amply covered there. Oaktree b (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I do agree it's a SYNTH. Could perhaps be a 2020 Election denial article, but, there are no other elections denied, so it's seems un-needed to be that descriptive. Oaktree b (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oaktree b, the nominated article has been edited to address the nominator's objection. Please reassess whether the latest edit has fully addressed those objections. If you change your recommendation, you can edit your previous recommendation by formatting any changed text with strike-through. Thanks. rootsmusic (talk) 02:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, the revisions definitely haven't addressed my (the nominator's) objections. The fundamental issue I raised in the nomination remains very much the case. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prob keep but needs considerable rewriting to avoid
    WP:SYNTH, I have no idea. JMWt (talk) 18:48, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @JMWt: I'd suggest that an article revised in the ways you suggest would be indistinguishable from an article that already exists: Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election. That article isn't perfect, but it's generally well-sourced and well-written, and its narrow focus on the 2020 election means it avoids making the unsubstantiated claims this article makes. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and rewrite to improve neutrality, refer to the phenomenon in other instances, by other parties. It is a notable topic. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 02:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with any new information with Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election. Then delete because this article is redundant but that other article is much better both in coverage and tone. Lamona (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lamona, the nominated article has been edited to address the nominator's objection. Please reassess whether the latest edit has fully addressed those objections. If you change your recommendation, you can edit your previous recommendation by formatting any changed text with strike-through. Thanks. rootsmusic (talk) 02:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election: There could be an article on Election denial movements (1960, 1828, 2020, etc in the United States, plus movements in other nationas) as a summary style article for the topic, but as this is written it an dup of the target article.  // Timothy :: talk  12:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @TimothyBlue, the nominated article has been edited to address the nominator's objection. Please reassess whether the latest edit has fully addressed those objections. If you change your recommendation, you can edit your previous recommendation by formatting any changed text with strike-through. Thanks. rootsmusic (talk) 02:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Organizations. rootsmusic (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- keep both. This article is about a long-term continuing movement that in 2023 is very active in many states in changing election laws for future elections. The other article is highly specific to a historic event 3 years ago. Rjensen (talk) 02:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What reliable sources claim that such a movement exists? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Several reliable sources in the article refer explicitly to "election denial movement." I would not have created the article without it. The article has been significantly altered in the past day. It's now a different article, so which version are we addressing now? soibangla (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm aware that sources use the phrase, as should be clear from the first sentence of the nomination. I was asking which of the sources make the specific claim Rjensen makes above. It's not a gotcha question or anything, there are 68 sources currently cited and they make a lot of varied claims. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would appreciate if editors would enumerate specific words, phrases or sentences in the article, unsupported by reliable sources, that warrant article deletion, particularly but not limited to assertions of POV soibangla (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Arms & Hearts: can you provide examples of how the article makes claims and inferences that aren't supported by the sources it cites, as you assert? soibangla (talk) 21:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    One obvious example would be the article's first sentence: The election denial movement often refers to a belief of widespread rigging or fraud in US elections with members of the movement referred to as election deniers. This doesn't follow from anything in the article body and isn't supported by any of the sources in the article. More broadly, though, I think you're missing that
    WP:BLUDGEON territory and would remind you that other editors aren't obliged to respond to your inquiries (the corollary of which is that you're free to draw whatever conclusions you wish about other editors' decision not to reply to you). If I'd been actively editing elsewhere, a degree of tetchiness about not receiving a reply would have been understandable, but in these circumstances you could probably have safely assumed I'd reply to you when I got a chance, and left it at one reply, not three.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    none of the three examples you cite here were in the article at the time you opened this AfD.[11] soibangla (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've noted the specific examples of possible synthesis that have been raised with an in-line synthesis template and removed the birther one altogether since it seemed to focus on a key figure (he's discussed in the key figures section now). I also flagged the recently-added 2000 and 2019 statewide races that could use a more direct connection Superb Owl (talk) 17:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- keep both. This article discusses a movement that is notable to the 2016 election, 2020 election, 2022 election, 2023 Speaker of the House election, 2024 election... and the common people, groups and ideas across these elections. Have reorganized the page to better reflect this and added links between related articles and addressed a number of the NPOV issues. Superb Owl (talk) 03:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What about renaming the article "Election denialism in the United States"? Superb Owl (talk) 16:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your significant edits in the past day have made it difficult for editors know to which version of the article we're discussing here now, perhaps leading some to conclude this "new" version should be deleted, rather than the version at the time of this AfD. I recommend you roll back your edits until this AfD is settled. soibangla (talk) 19:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not roll back. It is normal & desirable to improve an article while deletion is discussed, to correct weaknesses & lead to non-deletion. Kim9988 (talk) 18:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Do not roll back legitimate edits that seek to meet criticisms and improve the article. Do not roll back to a previous version. It has always been normal practice to improve the article during the AfD process. Right in the notice it says: "Feel free to improve the article." In fact, the ideal result of an AfD is that the article is improved so much it is saved and the AfD is withdrawn.
    Liz, please take note. Your rollback is totally against normal process and instructions. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand and have commented below, Valjean. Liz Read! Talk! 05:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Almost all of the article's content is already covered in Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election. While there were some claims of "STOLEN ELECTION!!!11!!!1" in the 2022 election cycle, they were nowhere near as widespread and were generally not taken seriously by the public (see 2022 Arizona gubernatorial election), because absentee voting, which Trump had consistently fearmongered about, was not as heavily utilized in that election. This is not enough to justify a standalone article. Partofthemachine (talk) 04:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Even though the attempts to overturn elections in 2022 might not have been as notable as they were in 2020, I don't think that is a slam-dunk for saying that there is not an existing undercurrent. Additionally, I'm not sure that the argument that the efforts were not taken seriously by the public isn't as strong of an argument when voter turnout — particularly in off-year elections — isn't super high. User:JusBer88 (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes reliable sources are studying the election denial movement: (1) Brookings Institute (Nov 15 2022) describes it : "The recent election was very bad for the election denier movement, and the election of Katie Hobbs as governor of Arizona completed the bad news. Hobbs...held the line against people who, like their leader Donald Trump, believed that there was massive corruption in the 2020 election. In the years since, they believed that by “fixing” the system, Trump could win in 2024. By sowing unfounded doubt about election administration in many places, they created a threat to democracy....we identified 345 candidates running on a platform of election denial.... Overall, 226 election deniers or 66% won their races." see online published statement (2) Also: "The election denial movement is the culmination of years of partisan wrangling over the rules that govern elections along with increasing skepticism about the reliability...." [from Sautter, Chris. "US Democracy Survives a Challenge." in Campaigns and Elections American Style (Routledge, 2023) pp. 33-51.]; (3) "The election denial movement began with the Tea Party’s formation around the time of President Obama’s first election, fueled by White Christian Republican fear of losing power." [Smolar, Andrew I. "How Group Identifications Have Contributed to Our National Discord." Group 47#12 (2023): 115-147.] Rjensen (talk) 21:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but improve and probably rename. To what, I don't know, maybe "Republican Party election denial movement". If the consensus is this article has to include all times that someone has ever denied the results of an election, then I don't really think that's notable as it's synthesis of many different, unrelated topics into one article, it could be a list article I guess. As it is, the title and to a lesser extent article content is very vague, when the focus and title of the article should be basically fully focused on the movement Trump initiated in 2020, primed by the background of him claiming he really won the popular vote in 2016 and all of his other conspiracy theories like birtherism (priming people to believe facts without evidence). All of previous to 2020 should be in a general "background" heading. At this point, the attempts to deny almost every single Republican election that is lost as "rigged" since 2020 probably deserves its own article beyond the very well resourced 2020 one, the 2020 article can't include all the details of elections like Kari Lake. Also, I don't understand why there's so much information about elections before and since 2020 but only a "see main" about the main event in this whole movement with no summary whatsoever.MarkiPoli (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MarkiPoli please see the version of the article that existed at the time this AfD was opened.[12] The article has been substantially altered since then. It is now a completely different article, and I again ask Superb Owl to roll back their major changes so everyone here is reading from the same sheet of music regarding this AfD dated October 14. Liz, because you relisted this AfD, I request your attention to this matter, as I believe this process has been corrupted such that we cannot know if editors are discussing the original AfD version or the current version that is substantially different. soibangla (talk) 04:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That version is *better*, although the first sentence arguably violates NPOV and is kind of clunky, it would be better just starting out at 2020 and going through the events since then and the movement it started. The eventual article should probably be closer to that revision than the current version in my opinion. My view has not changed, the article should be kept but improved and retitled, imo "Election denialism in the United States" is not specific enough to the fact this is a Trump and Republican party phenomenon. There's other party candidates that have claimed fraud/rigging such as Stacey Abrams, but at that point you would have to make it a list article as they are totally unrelated apart from the fact they claimed fraud, which you can do for any number of reasons, unlike the clear line you can draw between 2020, increased voting restrictions in red states, Kari Lake, coming up to 2024, etc. You can't do all of that on the 2020 overturning article, which is already too long. MarkiPoli (talk) 06:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral and potentially close — I have looked over the previous version and concur that Superb Owl has substantially altered this article's focus and thus this AfD is nullified. Further consideration will need to take place to determine if this article should be deleted. In its current state, this article is not up to a sufficient standard for Wikipedia and should be further worked on. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 06:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I received an email notification of this discussion so I feel obligated to say something. I briefly scanned the Oct 23 and current versions. I'm short on time today (sorry), so I'll just make a general comment. U.S. 2020 election denial is a massive topic. Because existing articles — Attempts to overturn..., United States House Select Committee..., various indictments — are already long and tend to focus on the actions of Trump's inner circle, we do need a "movement" article like this to describe the phenomenon more sociologically. Tens of millions of U.S. voters continue to put political faith in Trump, centered on their shared denialism of the 2020 election specifically or (it seems to me) on a more general affirmation that Trump always wins and thus elections aren't trustworthy and don't matter. (I don't have time to seek reliable sources to demonstrate that claim right now. I'm just imagining what this article could be about, were it to survive on Wikipedia and be expanded.) Yes, this "movement" is a relevant, significant topic. Keeping "United States" or "Republican" in the title is of course helpful. I don't immediately have any ideas about the best way to write this article, and I would defer to people who have already spent time thinking about it. Tuckerlieberman (talk) 13:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously strongly notable topic and equally clearly this is about more than just the 2020 presidential election. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes - *entirely* agree with those above that consider the current article worthy (for a variety of reasons) - and relevant - nonetheless - further improvements are ok of course - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 17:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as
    WP:Original synthesis. The current version has not solved the OR issues. The nominator is absolutely correct that the sources are connecting events across time into an original conception of an "election denial movement ". It's a convincing essay, and would be great as a college paper, but it is an original synthesis of events drawn into a larger picture than any one source provides. It could be draftified and retitled Denial of elections in the United States and rewritten in order to remove the original synthesis. It isn't ready for main space in its current state.4meter4 (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I'm still waiting for an editor to provide a concrete example from the article to illustrate that it is synthesis, original research, POV or makes "makes claims and inferences that aren't supported by the sources it cites," as opposed to, say...
    WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Just one example? Arms & Hearts? soibangla (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Soibangla Synthesis is about the whole and not just the parts. Please provide a single source that has an overarching narrative that reflects the overarching narrative of this article and ties all of the composite parts together in the way this one has. There isn’t one. Hence original synthesis.4meter4 (talk) 04:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
4meter4, are you arguing that our articles must have an overarching narrative supported by just one overarching source? you seem to argue that if I cannot produce one source that encompasses the entire article and ties all of the composite parts together then the entire article is invalid. is that commonly seen on Wikipedia? the overarching narrative of this article is that an "election denial movement" exists, and several reliable sources explicitly say so and discuss the phenomenon in a variety of perspectives and contexts. can you demonstrate there is an overarching "A and B, therefore, C" of synth here? can you demonstrate that synth exists in even an isolated case in the article, like a sentence or paragraph? soibangla (talk) 04:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the contagion has spread to state level races, and to other countries. It is the subject of journalistic and scholarly analysis. Abductive (reasoning) 19:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thus far editors have asserted the article is synth, OR, biased, POV, soapbox, a college essay, makes claims and inferences that aren't supported by the sources it cites, and propose[s] an expansive definition that none of [the sources] directly support, though the article contains several reliable sources that directly and explicitly reference "election denial movement" as a defined term. Editors have thrown the book at the article. I have asked three times for editors to provide concrete evidence to support these characterizations, yet none has been forthcoming. Nothing. Where's the beef? soibangla (talk) 20:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt any admin will delete this article. Abductive (reasoning) 21:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since opinion is divided and the discussion is still very active, I'm relisting this discussion again. Due to some complaints about participants judging this article based on its current condition versus the state is was at the time of nomination, I've temporarily reverted the article back to its original condition. By looking at my edit, you can see the entirety of the changes made. I've never taken this bold action before when reviewing an AFD discussion but I do see my edit as a temporary reversion that can be undone when this AFD is closed. I encourage those seeking deletion of this article to respond to questions posed to them about specific problems that exist or assert that the entire article is irredeemable. Because I've taken a bold action that some might view as problematic, I will not be closing this AFD discussion. I should also add that this article, unfortunately, has been moved during this discussion so its current name is Election denial movement in the United States. Moving during an AFD is discouraged as it complicates relistings and discussion closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Liz and apologies for my earlier editing on the page.

  • Keep.
1) this movement pre-existed efforts to overturn the 2020 election (2012, 2016, arguably origins in birtherism challenging Obama's legitimacy)
2) other election results have been denied (2022 AZ, analysts predict this will happen in future elections as well...)
3) it would be synthesis to assume everyone in this movement agrees with the goals (let alone methods) of those trying to overturn the 2020 election results. Just because there is overlap and the election denial movement appears to be being heavily recruited from for attempts to overturn the 2020 election, it's not a 1:1 equation. Superb Owl (talk) 19:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not roll back legitimate edits that seek to meet criticisms and improve the article. Do not roll back to a previous version. It has always been normal practice to improve the article during the AfD process. Right in the notice it says: "Feel free to improve the article." In fact, the ideal result of an AfD is that the article is improved so much it is saved and the AfD is withdrawn.
  • Liz, please take note. Your rollback is totally against normal process and instructions. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I stated that this was a temporary reversion and knew that I could be reverted. I've never taken an action like this on the hundreds of other AFDs I've reviewed. Besides this comment, I will not be taking any further action on this AFD discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Liz, your reversion seems to contradict Wikipedia:How to save an article nominated for deletion. WP says about editing the nominated article:

    One of the best ways to save an article from deletion is to make necessary changes so that the article no longer has the problems stated by the nominator and all others stating it should be deleted.

    An article that is proposed for deletion may be edited just like any other, provided that the deletion tag is not removed. Editing the article may be necessary to prevent its deletion. Making appropriate changes may help save it. One of the best ways to save an article from deletion is to make necessary changes so that the article no longer has the problems stated by the nominator and all others stating it should be deleted.


    If Superb Owl didn't follow WP's guidance, then please advise him/her what should be changed instead of rejecting the edits that were intended to address the nominator's objections. Thanks. rootsmusic (talk) 19:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I support the rollback. The editor who opened the AfD cited three examples from the post-AfD version as justification for deletion, not as improvements that might move us closer to resolving this AfD. We all need to be reading from the same page. This is the best alternative to closing the AfD because it has become corrupted. As this AfD is now on its second relisting, and I still don't see anyone addressing specific examples of the primary complaint here, that of synth at any level, I would not object to closure. soibangla (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think your restore prior to a response from Liz was premature, and I believe it clstrfks this process and I recommend an uninvolved admin/editor close it now. In any event, I won't participate here anymore. soibangla (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above concerns. It’s also worth noting that this article’s title implies a very general coverage yet its body suggests that election denialism is a uniquely Republican concept that was invented in 2020. Adding coverage of other instances of election denialism in the U.S. (such as regarding Trump’s 2016 victory and perhaps even some fringe movements before that) would be a good place to start on trying to salvage this article. Sewageboy (talk) 16:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and probably re-title. There have been many movements to deny official election counts, and an overview of them is useful. Nixon and his allies doubted the 1960 election. Democrats had doubts about Republican wins in 2000, 2004, and 2016, and Republicans doubted 2008 and 2020. Denials of different elections do have different details and may need their own articles. However they have in common the ideas that election offices can report the wrong results, that candidates or parts of the public express doubt until they are convinced or enough time passes, and that legal appeals are explored. Many articles have similar broad coverage of many somewhat-related topics: Electoral fraud, Transport, Computer security, etc. Furthermore, Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election says in the heading that it needs to be split into sub-articles. This could be one, so info from the bigger article can come here. If this grows to cover a series of denials of different election results, then denial of 2020 Presidential results may be a separate article. This kind of work needs to be decided in the talk page, not in a deletion page. Kim9988 (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I remain strongly for KEEP. The main original complaint was the concentration of the USA and the new title completely solves that problem. Denialism is a major force in US politics and it now pertains to future elections -- that is a new and powerful phenomenon in US politics. As far as I can see no prominent Democrats support it, but it does have some support among the rank and file Democrats. Polls show lots of independents do support it so its is not exclusively a GOP issue. Here is a 2023 scholarly study finding deep roots : "Among Republicans, conspiracism has a potent effect on embracing election denialism, followed by racial resentment. Among independents, the strongest influences on denialism are Christian nationalism and racial resentment. And, although election denialism is rare among Democrats, what variation does exist is mostly explained by levels of racial resentment." [source: Charles Stewart III, "Public Opinion Roots of Election Denialism" (January 4, 2023). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4318153 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4318153] (I am adding this quote to the article). Rjensen (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that all instances of someone saying an election was fraudulent or stolen should be in this article. If it is, then its a list article that should be titled "List of disputed elections in the United States" or something similar. This article should be solely about the Republican efforts led by Donald Trump since 2020, and the title should be something like "Republican Party election denial movement". At this point, this AfD has gone severely off the rails, the article is now much worse off (opposite of what AfD is supposed to do) and a bit of the old
WP:TNT might be needed to get it back on track. Although I do still think this article is needed and can take some word count off Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election. For example, the "background" section of that article could be condensed there and details put here instead. MarkiPoli (talk) 15:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@MarkiPoli list already exists at Contested elections in American history. rootsmusic (talk) 16:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. That article needs serious work as well. You could definitely expand that to cover other elections. You could have presidential elections as a heading and the individual elections as subheadings. Then you can have congress, governor, and whatever else. Anyway I think this furthers my point this article should only be about the current Republican Party efforts to deny the legitimacy of elections and voting. MarkiPoli (talk) 16:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have articles on electoral fraud, transport and computer security, but notably we don't have articles called electoral fraud movement, transport movement or computer security movement. Election denial exists (bracketing the question of whether it's a notable phenomenon), but this article makes the very different, and unsubstantiated, claim that an "election denial movement" exists. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, election denialism is a conspiracy theory that has been propagated by election deniers for many years. Unfortunately, election denialism is combined into Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election and contributes to making that article too long. Like @MarkiPoli commented yesterday, that article should split (WP:Splitting) off its sub-sections about conspiracies into a separate article. But discussions about that article should be redirected to its own Talk Page. rootsmusic (talk) 15:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with
    2020 US Presidential Election
    . this is a non neutral with Woke leaning point of view otherwise. The policy of wikipedia is neutral point of view

बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Reading through the nomination and following discussion, this is pretty clearly a content dispute, for which AfD is a poor forum. The dispute should be resolved on the various talk pages, where merging (or split/merging etc) can be discussed at length. —siroχo 03:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: editors should give strong consideration to a merge, looking at the unique conent in this article and its sourcing quality and how it will fit in the target.  // Timothy :: talk  15:35, 4 November 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. Daniel (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dennish Himawan

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

Does not meet

WP:GNG, no coverage in greater depth than mere-mentions in match writeups was available in an internet search. signed, Rosguill talk 23:07, 28 October 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

(non-admin closure) Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 17:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Kingpin (chess magazine)

Kingpin (chess magazine) (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)

None of the sources cited even remotely provide the depth of coverage necessary to meet

WP:GNG, and a search provides nothing of any real consequence either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 28 October 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 keep‎ per

WP:NEXIST. Adding the sources and other improvements to the article are highly desirable, but not required for AfD closure. RL0919 (talk) 00:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Rio de Janeiro–São Paulo megalopolis

Rio de Janeiro–São Paulo megalopolis (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:OR; no actual sourcing for notability/reliability in article, just a few passing mentions of the concept. lizthegrey (talk) 22:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Brazil. lizthegrey (talk) 22:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It seems weird to call it this a megalopolis when the image shows clearly how distinct Rio and Sao Paulo are with a big dark gap between them. The two urban areas are about 180 miles apart, similar to New York to Washington DC, but the Northeast megalopolis has Baltimore and Philadelphia in between too! This would need much better sourcing to even call it a megalopolis in the first place and then to establish notability. Reywas92Talk 04:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning Keep. While the article needs some improvement and expansion, the subject appears to meet
    WP:GNG
    .
  1. GNG is primarily established by the many pages of SIGCOV by Godfrey, Brian J. "Revisiting Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo". Geographical Review. [13]. One short keystone quote for the topic of this article:

    Even as Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo have sprawled to form the two main nuclei of an integrated megalopolis with a current population of between 30 and 60 million in southeastern Brazil, the two cities retain distinguishing characteristics.

    • The above paper references and critiques an earlier 1933 paper by Preston E. James from 1933 that seems to have discussed the idea briefly, note however that was prior to the modern definition of "megalopolis", so we rely on the above paper to provide necessary context.
  2. A solid chunk of coverage in Cities of the World: Regional Patterns and Urban Environments [14], which uses "megalopolis", "expanded metropolitan complex" and "conurbation" to describe the subject.
  3. Pages 24–28 of Mega-city Growth and the Future [15] covers this subject along with several other related ones.
  4. There's also mentions by Jean Gottmann (who literally wrote the book on Megolopolis[16]) in "Megalopolitan systems around the world" [17] and "An interview with Jean Gottmann on urban geography" [18]. While these mentions are shorter, the individual doing the mentioning gives weight.
  5. Further mentions in [19][20][21][22][23] help establish the accepted subject in name, as well.
—siroχo 09:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to reverse my nomination if those sources were added to the article rather than it being a bare almost-unsourced stub. lizthegrey (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. While I often do try to improve articles by adding sources and improving verifiability, for deletion discussions that hinge on notability, which is most of them, the general consensus is to abide by
WP:NEXIST. I will try to get to this one at some point but I am not sure when that will be. If you're not able to add the sources either, anyone else can, or is also free to copy any of this into a {{Refideas}} template on the talk page. —siroχo 01:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as
WP:NEXIST per siroxo. S5A-0043Talk 05:38, 2 November 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 speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn

(non-admin closure) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Kenneth Lutchen

Kenneth Lutchen (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 few sources not from the subject's institution do not establish relevance.

Also, its creator has only ever edited this page, which, per another editor's flag, reads very much like a resume.

talk) 22:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Withdrawn by nominator. I am persuaded by the comments of other editors with respect to the notability of the subject and withdraw my nomination for deletion.

talk) 00:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 23:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. GS citations [24] look healthy (top five 512,357,268,261,256 and four more >200; and ~21 further >100). Boston University university provost and chief academic officer might also be significant though it appears only a temporary appointment. There's also at least one elected fellowship: International Academy of Medical and Biological Engineering [25] and the bio there states he was president of American Institute of Medical and Biological Engineering. (His CV [26] might be easier to read than the article.) Espresso Addict (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with above that it was probably written in haste by some poor PR person, but it was properly submitted and accepted via AfC, so that should not influence us unduly. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:59, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The citation counts and #C1 (which are always tricky to calibrate for different fields) and the IAMBE Fellow title and #C3 (I don't know IAMBE well enough to judge how selective this is) are both suggestive but not definitive for me. But I think the AIMBE presidency is unambiguously a pass of #C6. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Subject does pass
    WP:NPROF. The current page needs to be redacted heavily as there is a lot of content based on primary sources and OR; however, AfD is not cleanup. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:55, 30 October 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 2022 Illinois gubernatorial election. Liz Read! Talk! 20:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beverly Miles

Beverly Miles (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

WP:BLP1E and should be redirected to 2022 Illinois gubernatorial election; a previous BLAR by Onel5969 was reverted. No apparent notability and coverage outside of her unsuccessful candidacy in the Democratic primary. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:36, 28 October 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! 20:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saydulla Madaminov

Saydulla Madaminov (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)

Primary editor has been banned for paid, promotional editing.

Also, notability of the subject is questionable (I am not qualified to assess the quality of all the non-English sources).

talk) 21:11, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete. This is an extremely weird article. I have checked the sources in Russian, almost none of them directly reference what is said in the article. Reference #3 is simply his picture during his study at the Aviation Institute. #4 Is just the list of all officers awarded a medal, with his name being on the list. #5 Is completely Irrelevant, its an article on Russian wiki about the rank of colonel. #7 Is a news article that does reference him, but again, completely irrelevant to the sentence it is referencing. #8 Is just his name in a list of Inspectors. The articles only source on him that actually talks about him in depth awas deleted twice because it was from a blog website. Looks 100% like a paid article F.Alexsandr (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verifiably commander of Uzbekistan's air force, which clearly makes him notable per
    WP:COMMONSENSE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. He holds the position of the commander of Uzbekistan's air force, a role that undeniably establishes his notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanwarner582 (talk • contribs) 07:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Being a colonel who commanded a small military division does not make the subject notable, this is stretching the guideline well past the point a subject can be presumed (and it is well known that 'a presumption is not a guarantee a subject will automatically meets notability). This BLP subject fails any presumtion in the absence of WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. F.Alexsandr did a source review and found nothing, nothing in the Keep votes above has sources, just opinions. AfDs are determined by sourcing and notability.
This is a WP:BLP and requires strong sourcing, BLP is policy and overrides any guidelines. BLP policy and lack of SIGCOV from RS mean this needs to be deleted.  // Timothy :: talk  08:59, 4 November 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 speedy delete‎. per

G5 - created by Abtach who are banned. SmartSE (talk) 12:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Little Bricks Charity

Little Bricks Charity (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

RS. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:58, 28 October 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 procedural keep‎. The article was significantly updated (improved?) during the debate, rendering a large number of the comments provided prior to the update as being less relevant. While some were updated, others weren't. Impossible to assess consensus here so procedural keep, can be renominated immediately should someone wish to. Daniel (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Velicham

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

Fails

WP:BEFORE. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:47, 28 October 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 keep‎. Guerillero Parlez Moi 16:23, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Khaleesi (given name)

Khaleesi (given name) (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 subject is not notable enough to be featured as a stand-alone article on the encyclopedia. At best, a blurb can be added to the page Daenerys Targaryen if necessary. The excessive provided sources state that Khaleesi and Daenerys became popular baby and pet names in response to the show, and that's it. In addition, neither image has encyclopedic value (a random cat and a random model). Overall, I am proposing Deletion of this article. TNstingray (talk) 01:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To amend my original suggestion, this article is a

WP:CRYSTAL as established in the discussion below. TNstingray (talk) 14:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Once again, the article is about usage of the name, not the character, and it is referenced and very clearly notable. I would object to a redirect too. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The usage of the name is exclusively derived from the popularity of the character. All of this would better serve the article and the encyclopedia to add a sentence or two to the Daenerys article. I think it is notable to say that the popularity of the character resulted in parents naming their kids after her. But Wikipedia does not need a stand-alone article to accomplish this. A redirect is a perfect compromise between unchecked inclusionist and deletionist tendencies. TNstingray (talk) 16:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am opposed to a redirect. It is referenced and it is notable. Thus far, yours is the only vote in favor of deletion. I'd add that I am an inclusionist. There is absolutely no reason to delete articles that are cited and are of interest to readers. But this particular article meets every possible criteria for notability. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree that the information itself is notable, but this is a
WP:REDUNDANTFORK that should never have been separated from Daenerys Targaryen. The value of the encyclopedia would objectively strengthen if the minuscule amount of relevant information included in Khaleesi (given name) and Daenerys (given name) were added back to Daenerys Targaryen
. The subjects are 100% exclusively tied to the character, and should never have been separated into their own articles. While I must assume good faith, it is possible that the voting majority just saw the sourcing without considering the subject material, part of a larger recurring problem with Wikipedia bureaucracy.
Imagine creating a separate page for "Frodo (given name)", diluting the encyclopedia rather than simply adding a sentence to Frodo Baggins to describe the character's cultural legacy, strengthening an existing article.
WP:NOPAGE At times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context (and doing so in no way disparages the importance of the topic) TNstingray (talk) 23:54, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
My comments on the Daenerys article apply here as well. This is an article about use of the name, not the character. When several thousand boys are named Frodo and the name gets a front page story in national media, the Frodo name article can be created too. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 07:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you want to defend an article that you created. But the names Daenerys, Khaleesi, and Frodo currently have absolutely no stand-alone value that warrants separation from the characters who inspired parents to name their children after them. The argument you are using now is in violation of
WP:CRYSTAL. In these cases, the usage of a name is 100% entirely, exclusively, intrinsically tied to the character. Such information should be used to strengthen the existing character articles. Currently, the only worthwhile, policy-based argument for keeping these articles is that they have sourcing, which I am completely fine with using to support and strengthen an individual point in the Daenerys Targaryen article. TNstingray (talk) 14:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I disagree not because I created the articles but because the article is about the history and usage of the names, not the character. Articles about names have merit in and of themselves. i continue to oppose deletion or redirection for both.Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Having both a
    WP:NOPAGE situation. I would suggest consolidating the information at a single page, whether that be the Daenerys Targaryen character article, an article about given names from A Song of Ice and Fire/Game of Thrones (or even popular culture more broadly), or some other article altogether. It is uncontroversial that popular culture influences what names parents choose for their children, and creating separate articles for each individual example is not exactly a good idea. I don't know that this is the best venue for discussing the issue, but insisting that a poorly-conceived article should be kept (as opposed to merged, or some other solution) because of notability is not particularly helpful and doesn't lead to the encyclopaedia improving. TompaDompa (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I wouldn't object to a broader name article that discusses the general popularity of the names from Game of Thrones, since several of the referenced articles mention more than one name that increased in use because of the books or TV series. i don't think deletion or redirection to the character article would be appropriate. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have copied text and sourcing from
WP:NOPAGE
. It is clear to me that in this case, the way to do so is strengthening one article rather than separating out redundant information into two incredibly weak paragraphs.
To condense these conversations and respond to your last statement in the thread above, this article about a name does not have merit in and of itself; as I have already mentioned, any "history and usage of the names" entirely involves the character. There is absolutely zero notability outside of the character, and as such, it should be listed there and redirect there. TNstingray (talk) 23:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to
    WP:NOPAGE: "Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article". No compelling reason has been given to fork this content into its own article, especially two different ones. --Mika1h (talk) 17:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notability is necessary but not sufficient for an article; where an encyclopedic article exists on a closely related broader topic, the need for a standalone page also needs to be demonstrated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 17:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: It may be worth noting that Khaleesi entered the list of the 1,000 most popular baby names in the United States in 2014 according to the Social Security Administration (you can search for it at the bottom of this SSA page). It 2014, it was the 758th-most popular name, and as of 2022, was the 662nd-most popular. It peaked in 2015 at 550. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:45, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is referenced in the usage section of the articles and was one of the reasons why I created the article. It has had some news coverage on the basis that it’s a top 1,000 name and has been consistently in the top 1,000 names for a decade. Both of these are articles about names, why they are used and how many real people are called by them. I think the statistics would appear out of place in the article about the character. I’ve been creating categories over the past few months for different names. For this one, I thought Given names inspired by popular culture was appropriate. There are other names in this category that are now top 1,000 names and/or have a sustained history of use past the peak of whatever book or show influenced it originally. See also
    Renesmee (name). Bookworm857158367 (talk) 03:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I would argue that neither of those warrant their own articles either. There's a significant difference between an article like John (given name) with its lengthy historical and cultural context, versus a name recently created for a fictional character with notability that does not extend beyond the legacy of said fictional character. The mere fact that parents have named their children after a character does not justify the existence of a separate article for the name itself. I am all for strengthening character articles to reflect their cultural legacy, because we have not reached a point where the name has outpaced the character. The articles for Anakin and Renesmee should follow the same precedent established at these AFDs for Daenerys and Khaleesi. TNstingray (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We still disagree. These are articles about names, separate though related to the character articles, and should be included under the related categories or a See Also. They should not be merged or deleted. We could spend the next week arguing these points, though, and I don't have the time. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still prefer that it have a separate article or that there be a separate article on Game of Thrones names. it will look out of place to include statistics and some of the level of detail under the character article. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Daenerys Targaryen looks fine with this information added. TNstingray (talk) 13:18, 1 November 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 keep‎. Daniel (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leysingi

Leysingi (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:1S. See also Thrall § Society. Jay D. Easy (t) 17:32, 28 October 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

(non-admin closure) Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 17:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

2031 Cricket World Cup

2031 Cricket World Cup (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:TOOSOON for an article. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 16:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • At least the participants have to be announced to have its own article. But, not even the teams participating in
    Wikipedia:TOOSOON for 2031 Cricket World Cup. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 12:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @Vestrian24Bio, I'm not sure I've seen a written rule that says At least the participants have to be announced to have its own article before. That would be pretty awkward for sports championships, because the participants are often not known until days before the event. Is this your own (good) advice, or an actual rule that other editors have formally agreed to? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I am trying to point out that, there is no significant coverage available as for now to have its own article. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 02:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would tend towards redirect to Cricket World Cup. Future events in **cricket** are rather more likely to end up being cancelled or changed than in other major sports in my experience. Given the little we know about the event, that can be summarised perfectly well at the CWC article - the article currently has four sources, one of which is very brief (abplive) and two of which address this tournament very briefly indeed - basically dealing with it along with a bunch of other prospective tournaments. The Hindu is then partially paywalled but appears to do more of the same from what I can see. I looked for news sources myself, but the majority of what I got was simply dealing with broadcasting rights - I didn't spend ages doing this but given that the 2027 article has a total of five sources, of which four are identical, I'm not hopeful that there's very much more out there just yet. Both have identical statements about "Points Carried Forward" that I can't find any source to verify - this has tended to be a feature of this sort of article at this sort of stage I'm afraid. In these circumstances and for *this* tournament and in the light of WP:OSE, I'm of the view that it's too early in this case for a dedicated article. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • See man one of the ct in 2021 got cancelled but others usually dont, and main world cups never will. they have been going on for decades and the bids have beend decided also. The page lets people know about the coming future tournaments, where its happening and how will it happen etc. If you check the cricket wc page, you will see that the formats which were identical are out, so thats not a worry. Wikipedia is not going anywhere, and the page as it is will be rapidly edited as the tournament comes closer. This can also have its own talk page being active so that it can stay for long till 2031. Pharaoh496 (talk) 11:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I see. That's annoyingly vague - I imagine that 2031 might well be effected by what happens in 2027 as well. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not to ignore the fact that various discourse has been expressed by many about the longevity on the ODI format itself! I sincerely think this article might be propagating unclear/undecided information. 2402:E280:3D3D:4C8:55BB:5396:DE45:A50 (talk) 13:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This page may not be deleted. ICC had made an official announcement regarding this event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karthi2705 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 4 November 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 keep‎. Whether or not certain fan theories are credible or well-supported by source material is not relevant with regards to establishing notability.

(non-admin closure) Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 17:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Homosexuality in the Batman franchise

AfDs for this article:
Homosexuality in the Batman franchise (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 existence of this article doesn’t seem justified. It seems to be fundamentally based on certain affirmations by one single psychiatrist, Fredric Wertham. But Wertham proposed quite flawed and controversial theories about comics, and claimed that Batman had homosexual subliminal messages, among other things, in order to support his theory that comic books were perverting children. The rest of the article seems to be a collection of quotes from different people linking homosexuality and Batman, for different unrelated reasons. In addition, the end of the article states that there are several LGBT characters in the Batman comics, but that is not uncommon in comics in general nowadays. This aspect does not seem something specific to the Batman franchise, nor seems linked to previous information contained in the article. As a character that has existed for over 80 years in comic books, TV series, films, and all kind of media, it would be possible to write all kinds of articles in the format “Topic X in the Batman franchise”. It would be also possible to propose a link between any other major comic book character and homosexuality by following the same strategy of cherrypicking information that, on the whole, does not associate or relate in any meaningful way. If the creator of the character, Bob Kane, had been homosexual and had said that he created Batman with the purpose of subtly expressing that, we would have a strong case to support this article. But as it is, the connection between the topic of homosexuality and the Batman franchise seems forced and not justified, because the only aspect of the Batman mythos that could have consistently suggested an homosexual understone is simply that Batman and Robin are two men living together. It is not enough. (JohnMizuki (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC))[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
    Talk to my owner:Online 15:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Sexuality and gender. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:29, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The argument in this deletion justification reads to me as "This article isn't notable, it's just (insert list of the same things that make this article notable)". The fact that the theories are flawed does not make them not worth examining, as several sources have by your own admission dedicated paper and ink to this subject. Otherwise, we might as well delete the pages on e.g.
    WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. Deletion reasoning feels inherently flimsy. KaiEnTai-DX-Fan (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep - notable and well-referenced. The nominator says
  • The existence of this article doesn’t seem justified. It seems to be fundamentally based on certain affirmations by one single psychiatrist, Fredric Wertham.".
Fredric Wertham, is in fact cited in the lede:
But then the article cites (with 59 references) many subsequent discussions over the years in popular culture and the entertainment industry. Even the guy who played Robin acknowledged this issue. I doubt many of these people ever heard of Fredric Wertham.
This is a long article: 32,000+ bytes[29] that's been edited by 342 editors[30] over 14 years. It was nominated for deletion once before and kept–and that was when it was half the size and had half the references it has now.
Finally, ask any cynical male teenager and they'll tell you, "of course he's gay–everybody knows that".
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 18:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bonus pic: Batbed.png
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 18:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the only evidence from the classic comics that keeps being provided to support the theory is 1 single decontextualized comic book panel, says it all. On the other hand, the evidence for a heterosexual Batman is overwhelming. JohnMizuki (talk) 09:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is notable and worth keeping. The OP's reasoning is fatally flawed.Historyday01 (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Well sourced at the beginning, then veers off into non-RS near the end. I'd perhaps rewrite, but seems notable. Oaktree b (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The example image was drawn in a different time and Harley Quinn isn't that old a series. Maybe stop jumping the gun like this and instead focus on topics with some mileage behind 'em. If you're interested in writing about queers, Homosexuality in the Inca empire has, undoubtedly, SCADS of reliably-sourced articles written on it. There, go nuts. Americanfreedom (talk) 13:50, 31 October 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 soft delete‎. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Hamza Zarei

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

A non-notable person, fails

WP:GNG, WP: Notability (people). Doesn't cites references as well, therefore should be deleted.Zimidar (talk) 03:10, 28 October 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 14:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cardinals–Mets rivalry

Cardinals–Mets rivalry (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)

These two teams are not historical rivals. There's a lack of historical coverage to justify the article's existence. The information found in this article can be found elsewhere. Nemov (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball, Missouri, and New York. Nemov (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article does not demonstrate a "rivalry". It is a history of matchups between the Cardinals and Mets. Similar pages could be created for all possible MLB matchup histories. With the exception of genuine rivalries, these articles would be
    WP:ROUTINE coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    What constitutes a genuine rivalry? There are a few sources in the article that call it a rivalry. I am not a huge baseball guy so I could be missing something. ULPS (talk • contribs) 16:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't consider any of the sources in the article to be from reliable sources, as they are mainly blogs or from unreputable websites, but that is just me. Let'srun (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What's wrong with the WSJ and KSDK articles? ULPS (talk • contribs) 20:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with @ULPS, there is definitely enough history and reputable source coverage of said history between the Mets and Cardinals to call it rivalry, and that is coming from a guy who is a big baseball fan. 76.117.162.190 (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The sources are a mix of ROUTINE or unreliable. Outside of what's in the article, this is the only thing I could find that is remotely close to GNG are this one: [31]. Everything else is FNACRUFT. Conyo14 (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There does seem to be some coverage of this rivalry from pre-2000, as seen in [[32]], [[33]], [[34]] (part 1), [[35]] (part 2), [[36]] (part 1), [[37]] (part 2), and [[38]]. Would like to hear what others think, but I think there is enough GNG level coverage here. Let'srun (talk) 15:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Per
    WP:FANCRUFT. Nemov (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Disagree with that assessment. It fails to cover the rivalry beyond a passing mention, when multiple reliable sources such as the Associated Press have given
    WP:SIGCOV. NOPAGE asks the question "Do related topics provide needed context?", which the Mets article fails to do, in my opinion. In totality, this article should remain as a Keep. Let'srun (talk) 14:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    What is included in this article that's not included elsewhere? There's already articles dedicated to the playoff series between the two clubs, extensive history articles, and articles on individual seasons as well. What context is this article bringing? Nemov (talk) 14:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is well written and details important moments in Mets-Cardinals history. A rivalry is implied by a storied and tense history, which these teams undoubtedly have with each other. If anything, it needs to be updated to include more recent developments in this rivalry, such as the brawl between the two teams on April 27, 2022.76.117.162.190 (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. You can write an article like this for every team matchup that has faced each other over many years... doesn't mean we should. To be worthy of it's own article it needs more long term and cultural significance.. for example Yankees/Red Sox, Dodgers/Giants, Cubs/Cardinals are significant historical rivalries.. this one is not. Spanneraol (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These "rivalry" articles are getting out of hand and starting to take up way too much space on the team pages. Only sustained rivalries are notable enough to warrant entire articles, and this is not. The Mets had (past tense) a brief rivalry with the Cardinals in the 80s and that's it. The article even admits as much. That's hardly noteworthy enough to dedicate an entire article to the topic. Delete. TempDog123 (talk) 01:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG. Reviewing the sources posted earlier, Belleville News-Democrat is an interview with Ozzie Smith, an employee of the Cardinals, therefore not independent Red XN; Newsday describes one incident of a player getting hit by a pitch and does not describe the teams as rivals, only using the term "rivalry" once in the intro (in a way that can describe any pair of teams) Red XN, The first St. Louis Post-Dispatch and The Herald-News are almost exclusively content from interviews of Cardinals and Mets employees so not independent Red XN Red XN, The second St. Louis Post Dispatch has some independent content describing "bad blood" between the two clubs and can possibly be considered GNG, Question? but that article alone is not enough gfor a GNG pass. Frank Anchor 12:30, 3 November 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 soft delete‎. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 17:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Raima Khan

Raima Khan (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)

Looks a Non-notable actress with non-notable roles in some TV Shows. Even the subject is not mentioned in the cast section of the Shows they did. Fails

WP:GNG -- Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 14:57, 28 October 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 soft delete‎. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Kolongastenna

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

Does not meet

WP:PLACEOUTCOMES. No notable source. Hongsy (talk) 14:53, 28 October 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 keep‎. RL0919 (talk) 17:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dasht-e Sar-e Gharbi Rural District

Dasht-e Sar-e Gharbi Rural 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)

Does not meet

WP:PLACEOUTCOMES. No notable source. OpenStreetMap doesn't make it notable. Hongsy (talk) 14:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment: Reference #2 is the official
    WP:BEFORE
    .
Thanks,
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Basically per the sources on FA wiki. FOARP (talk) 10:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it seems to be a local government district which are normally notable per
    WP:GEOLAND. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:20, 31 October 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 14:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ganj Konar

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

Does not meet

WP:PLACEOUTCOMES, same xls source as the other Iran AfDs. Hongsy (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment: Reference #1 is the official
    WP:BEFORE
    .
Thanks,
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:29, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@A. B. - same comment as elsewhere regarding the history of creation of these articles and abadi being explicitly excluded from GEOLAND. FOARP (talk) 10:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails
    WP:V. There is simply no way of verifying the existence of this "village" provided in the article. This is listed in the census as a abadi, which Carlossuarez46 negligently interpreted as "village", when in reality abadi are often just named location around which Iranian census takers count the census, meaning that many of them are actually bridges, pumps, factories, etc. FOARP (talk) 10:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:22, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete easy call for all the reasons others have mentioned above. Delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 20:54, 31 October 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 14:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kahur Abbas

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

Does not meet

WP:PLACEOUTCOMES, same xls source as the other Iran AfDs. Hongsy (talk) 14:37, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment: Reference #1 is the official
    WP:BEFORE
    .
Thanks,
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@A. B. - This is an abadi article created by Carlossuarez46. See particularly this discussion where 13,157 of them were deleted and the ARBCOM case related to this. Abadi are explicitly excluded from GEOLAND. FOARP (talk) 09:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails
    WP:V. Simply put, no source is provided in the article that would allow you to confirm the existence of this "village". Listing as an abadi in the Iranian census is not evidence of being a populated place since Iranian census takers simply use the names of shops/bridges/pumps/farms/etc. as the reference points when they take the census - for this reason they are explicitly excluded from GEOLAND. FOARP (talk) 10:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:22, 30 October 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 14:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tazehabad-e Tumar

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

Does not meet

WP:PLACEOUTCOMES, same xls source as the other Iran AfDs. Hongsy (talk) 14:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment: Reference #1 is the official
    WP:BEFORE
    .
Thanks,
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@A. B. - This is an abadi article created by Carlossuarez46. See particularly this discussion where 13,157 of them were deleted and the ARBCOM case related to this. Abadi are explicitly excluded from GEOLAND. FOARP (talk) 09:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It is impossible to confirm the existence of this "village" so this is a straight-forward failure of
    WP:V. Abadi are simply locations at which the census was taken, and can include petrol stations, pumps, farms, etc., and are therefore excluded from GEOLAND for this reason since they are not populated places per se. FOARP (talk) 09:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:23, 30 October 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 14:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hoseynabad-e Alam

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

Does not meet

WP:PLACEOUTCOMES
, another low effort article.

Linking to an .xls file doesn't make the article meet GNG Hongsy (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Reference #2 is the official
    WP:BEFORE
    .
Thanks,
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@A. B. - Just a note that we had a massive, massive problem with the Iranian census having places listed as abadi that Carlossuarez46 created "village" articles out of. The problem is that abadi in the Iranian census are just places where the census was counted, including petrol stations, pumps, bridges, factories etc. and many of them aren't populated. Something like 15,000 of them have been deleted so far. See particularly these discussions:
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Carlossuarez46
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive332#Large_batch_deletion_probably_needed
User_talk:Carlossuarez46/Archive_13#Places_in_Iran
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agro-Industry Complex
FOARP (talk) 09:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Woa so much popcorn 🍿 on that arbitration page. Looks like these pages were missed out in the large batch deletion. Hongsy (talk) 12:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can we ask an admin to redo the large batch deletion? Hongsy (talk) 12:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@A. B. Hongsy (talk) 12:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FOARP
or maybe we can combine the multiple noms into a single nom? is that possible! Hongsy (talk) 12:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These weren't missed, instead people erred on the side of caution when the bulk deletion was done. So only the articles that could be identified with near-certainty as being related to non-villages were deleted, and more grey-zone articles like this one were left alone just in case they related to actual villages. FOARP (talk) 14:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. FOARP, thanks for letting me straight about abadis and Hongsy, thanks for your work cleaning up this mess.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:23, 30 October 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 soft delete‎. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Mahalevakanda

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

Does not meet

WP:PLACEOUTCOMES
, no valid source (again again...).


Low effort article with no notability. Hongsy (talk) 14:26, 28 October 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 soft delete‎. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Pottallinda

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

Does not meet

WP:PLACEOUTCOMES, no valid source (again...) Hongsy (talk) 14:23, 28 October 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 14:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Kirk

Matthew Kirk (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)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. I don't believe the single source coverage here passes

WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 14:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • [39] 350 word bio/interview about Kirk quitting as an ambassador and starting at Vodafone. Despite its length, it's complete fluff with pretty much no encyclopedic value beyond the first two sentences, which give age, length of service as ambassador, and say that he is indeed starting at Vodafone.
  • [40] Finnish News Agency press release about Kirk's successor. Consists of four sentences, of which one is about Kirk.
  • [41] The whole story is a single sentence: Matthew Kirk has invited for a visit demonstrators opposing the Iraq War, and has organized events to familiarize people with the embassy. That's it. That's the article.
There's also a Kauppalehti story at [42], which I can't access it thru the paywall, but based on the 1 minute reading time, it's nothing extensive. Probably just regurgitates some press release, as so much of Kauppalehti coverage does. In totality, delete absent further sourcing. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:04, 29 October 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 soft delete‎. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Lewpotdeniya

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

Does not meet

WP:PLACEOUTCOMES, no valid source. Hongsy (talk) 14:22, 28 October 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 soft delete‎. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Kalnadan-e Pain

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

Does not meet

WP:PLACEOUTCOMES. Source is dead. Hongsy (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Random link to an .xls file doesn't make it notable. Hongsy (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Reference #2 is the official
    WP:BEFORE
    .
Thanks,
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:11, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@A. B. - Please note abadi are excluded from GEOLAND. FOARP (talk) 11:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. FOARP, thanks for letting me straight about abadis and Hongsy, thanks for your work cleaning up this mess.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:23, 30 October 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 14:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Telihigala

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

Does not meet

WP:PLACEOUTCOMES. No reliable source. Hongsy (talk) 14:15, 28 October 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 speedy keep‎.

(non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:44, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Taygete citranthes

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

Does not meet

WP:N. Hongsy (talk) 14:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 16:56, 28 October 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 speedy keep‎.

(non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Pseudoneuroterus mazandarani

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

Does not meet WP:N and WP:SPECIES. it doesn't have a taxonbar. Hongsy (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 16:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or speedy keep?) for all the sensible policy-based reasons above jengod (talk) 22:36, 28 October 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 14:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Binder Pal Fateh

Binder Pal Fateh (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 is about person that lacks significant coverage in independent

reliable sources to establish notability. There are claims of doing many different things but the main claim to notability is being the lyricist for a single song from one film. Sourcing in the article and any coverage I could find simply credits him for the lyrics and provides no significant coverage. Whpq (talk) 14:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

This article is about person which is very down to earth and not take any credit as such as he is a news anchor but not in news, song writer but one single song released yet and many more in the loop. He is a close friend of mine and i can claim that he is a deserve to on wikipedia.
Thanks. Harmangeet Singh (talk) 14:22, 28 October 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 soft delete‎. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Dhanushkodi (film)

Dhanushkodi (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)

Incomplete film, whose "production itself" is not notable per

WP:NFSOURCES. The Doom Patrol (talk) 13:29, 28 October 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 soft delete‎. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Kollavarsham 1975

Kollavarsham 1975 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

WP:NFSOURCES as non-notable, incomplete, unreleased film, lacking significant coverage to establish notability. The Doom Patrol (talk) 09:25, 28 October 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 12:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Panchapandavar

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

Fails

WP:NFSOURCES. The Doom Patrol (talk) 09:18, 28 October 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 soft delete‎. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

NetLingo

NetLingo (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)

Besides the WSJ piece back in 2009, everything else are just fleeting mentions. Does not meet the multiple (and/or) sustained in-depth coverage bar for

GNG. Sohom (talk) 09:16, 28 October 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 no consensus‎. ✗plicit 12:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

East Asia Climate Partnership

East Asia Climate Partnership (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 has few citations, all of which are broken so information cannot be verified. Seems like it will be impossible to update as there is no recent information on this topic - there is no independent coverage of the Partnership, and the only information I can find on it was last updated in 2009. As such, I feel the article doesn't meet notability criteria, and there is no info available to update it to meet quality/accuracy criteria. OliverEastwood talk 12:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed source #2 by adding an archive link, but translating archived pages is not possible so I cannot read it. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 02:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:48, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:59, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Searching for it in Korean ("동아시아기후파트너십") shows numerous respectable independent sources covering it. It's unfortunate the article is poorly sourced though; it needs some work but I think it's a notable enough topic. (I probably won't do the work)
    talk) 02:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:28, 28 October 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 soft delete‎. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Mojo Hand (talk) 20:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Ryan Howe (wrestler)

Ryan Howe (wrestler) (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 notable wrestler. Just worked on independent promotions (one exception, when he appeared a few times in TNA). No in-deep coverage sabout him in sources, just WP:ROUTINE results. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:58, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:27, 28 October 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. Not

salting as suggested because the article has only been recreated once (2nd AfD ended with no consensus). RL0919 (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Dueling Network

AfDs for this article:
Dueling 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)

This appears to be the sole reliable source about the topic. I checked the previous AfDs and they also did not present any reliable sourcing. The article appears to fail

WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 08:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails
    WP:GNG due to a lack of multiple reliable sources. --Mika1h (talk) 09:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:58, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Sadly I wasn't able to find much on this in my searches beyond what the nominator already mentioned. Doesn't meet
    Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:10, 31 October 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 12:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Verrell Yustin Mulia

Verrell Yustin Mulia (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 N:BAD Stvbastian (talk) 06:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This article was created when the guideline (N:BAD) was lenient and now since the revision of that guideline to include just BWF Super Series and BWF World Tour, this subject is no longer fit for inclusion until and unless they reach a final of aforementioned tournaments. Moreover this article fails WP:GNG as no good sources were found by a Google search. zoglophie•talk• 19:11, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:25, 28 October 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 no consensus‎. Daniel (talk) 20:32, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Benniganahalli metro station

Benniganahalli metro 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)

Fails GNG as no SIGCOV can be found. Sources only provide general information about the metro line. Except for some original research on the station layout and exits, no useful information is provided. Timothytyy (talk) 05:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Timothytyy and @Spiderone,
Pls let me know what more useful information or this so called "SIGCOV" needs to be there so that this page will be there in the long run. Cause all the information regarding this metro station have been provided. There is no need to add extra unnecessary information for the audience. All they expect is simple and crisp neat information which is there in that page. And I personally feel whatever information is provided there, it's very useful for other people travelling to this city and getting to know which place leads to where and all. Sameer2905 (talk) 02:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SIGCOV is about individual coverage. No sources in the article provide reliable, independent and significant coverage about the station. Timothytyy (talk) 07:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as no new content has been added to the article since its nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment from nom: no individual SIGCOV added since nomination. Timothytyy (talk) 00:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is demonstratably incorrect. Ymblanter (talk) 07:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @
    reputation for fact checking. I don't understand why GNG is met when only one short source provides coverage for the subject itself and it is ROUTINE. If you can find better sources that provide detailed non-routine coverage to the station, welcome to add it to the article. Timothytyy (talk) 07:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    No, it says that the station was opened later than other stations of the line. Now, concerning my source, what else would you like to see for the stations? This is valid information, and constitutes SIGCOV. Note that I have not yet added it to the article. Ymblanter (talk) 07:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Purple Line (Namma Metro)#Stations: Fails GNG, routine news doesn't show notability.  // Timothy :: talk  16:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear @TimothyBlue,
    All information regarding this station has been added. What more information is needed for you to know? As @Ymblanter says that it has constituting SIGCOV, I request you to maintain this page. Santosh4118 (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Santosh4118 The only source given is routine coverage and does not contribute to GNG. Also, the problem is not about the amount of info. Timothytyy (talk) 05:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sources sufficient to pass GNG. Don't agree with that part of the rationale put forward in the nomination of "no useful information is provided" — purely subjective. Don't hold with the interpretation of routine coverage put forward here. Routine coverage is about an event, soon forgotten as evidenced by no sustained coverage. There has been coverage on this station from planning, construction and opening. Strictly separating the line from the station in coverage doesn't make sense as the two are inextricably linked. The station is a major part of the infrastructure of the line. References to Benniganahalli in the sources are to the station, there isn't a place called Benniganahalli, just a lake. Admittedly, sources are not brilliant but this is overridden by the premise that Wikipedia readers would likely expect to see an article on this station, based on similar metro stations in other cities having their own article. It's not some minor railway halt used by few, but an access point to the metro used daily by thousands. Rupples (talk) 17:50, 4 November 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 Closed by Whpq (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Content not in English. Obvious duplication of Madhab Chandra Jena (AfD discussion), Draft:Madhab Chandra Jena, and even Wikipedia:Madhab Chandra Jena at one point. Uncle G (talk) 14:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)‎[reply]

ମାଧବ ଚନ୍ଦ୍ର ଜେନା

ମାଧବ ଚନ୍ଦ୍ର ଜେନା (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)

Unsourced BLP (single ref is a dead Google link, so BLP PROD would be rejected), fails GNG and NBIO. BEFORE showed nothing from WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth. WP:BLP requires strong sourcing. Could not find a matching article on other Wikipedias, so ineligeble for CSD A2 (link in Language section states the article does not exist). I considered A7 but decided AfD would be more appropriate because of the duplicate articles and SPI issue (see below).

A machine translation would still be an unsourced or improperly sourced BLP.

Editor has created an English version which has also been nom for deletion by @

FatCat96: at Madhab Chandra Jena
.

Finally see SPIs at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Omkrishnajena#Suspected sockpuppets and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Omkrishnajena/Archive for info.

Because of the above info in SPI, request SALT after deletion for both article titles.  // Timothy :: talk  05:22, 28 October 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! 05:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Queye

Queye (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)

Recreated after draftification, I cannot find any mention of the company outside of primary sources. Don't think there is anything to redirect to and don't think there is anything to be merged. Justiyaya 03:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are!
https://thesearchenginereviewblog.wordpress.com/2023/09/12/queye-the-kazakh-search-engine-is-proving-to-be-the-best-to-come-out-of-asia/
https://qel.ink/IHLs1D (in Russian)
Technically, these don't count since they're tweets, but I'll leave them here anyways since they aren't made by Queye:
https://x.com/JadenHeinzel/status/1709760104646557939?s=20 Icantthinkofaname22 (talk) 05:58, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These look a lot like
WP:Blogs to me Justiyaya 10:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why? The article is fine. Icantthinkofaname22 (talk) 06:40, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Icantthinkofaname22 How would the subject meet the inclusion criteria of having received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? Justiyaya 07:00, 28 October 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

(non-admin closure) Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 16:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Felyne

AfDs for this article:
Felyne (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)

Going through this again, but after several months of trying to find sources that provide significant coverage discussing the Felyne as a fictional race and any impact outside of the games, I've exhausted all resources.

Outside of a large number of promotional efforts on the part of Capcom, any articles discussing the characters are strictly in the vein of "how to" guides that are discussing them solely in the context of the particular game, and don't present any

WP:SIGCOV discussion about the characters themselves. Any promotional efforts are also not entirely unique to the Felyne as Capcom does such heavily: case in point, the article discussing the collaboration with Japanese police using Felyne images on merchandise was similarly done prior with Ace Attorney
characters.

Additionally looking in the related Monster Hunter film showed no sources either outside of the brief one listed: the character simply isn't discussed in that context either, let alone the race as a whole. Ultimately similar to the case of characters like the

inklings, they're *known* about, and promoted a lot, but not discussed. Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As creator - we've already been over this in the last AfD, but there is no rule against using a how-to guide with secondary commentary as a source, only a rule against Wikipedia articles being game guides, which is not the same thing. Game guides are commonly used as
    WP:RS as long as their content is stated in an encyclopedic way. I fully admit the article's sourcing is not super strong, but with an obvious merge target, that is not a matter to be discussed in a deletion debate, and the article can stand on its own with notability if necessary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I also found another recent article on the topic that hasn't yet been integrated into the article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is the how-to guide is not offering reception but simply illustrating the gameplay elements of the race in the context of the games, and not even just them specifically. Also the VG247 article is simply saying the sounds used came from the developer's own cats, and is more about the development of Monster Hunter Rise. Additionally it offers no feedback itself on the race on the part of the writer.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So it's basically more of a
    WP:INDISCRIMINATE
    argument, because in-depth analysis of the subject isn't technically required for notability, just an explanation of it that covers it in detail. I'll try to see if I can find examples that show the importance of the subject.
    The article is decidedly not about the general development of Rise. Its subtitle is "Felynes are Monster Hunter staples at this point – and this fictional race of cats Capcom created has a tangible link to our world.". It starts with an overview of felynes in general, not just in Rise. And it continues to say "From the original Monster Hunter to the current Monster Hunter Rise: Sunbreak, we have basically used the same cat sounds". This is not Rise specific and is just describing something Capcom used to create the felynes. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've expanded reception somewhat to demonstrate that INDISCRIMINATE is indeed passed by the article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:51, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:21, 28 October 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 soft delete‎. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Tapiwa Marobela

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

Fails

WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:44, 28 October 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 Non-compete clause. If there's anything an editor wants to merge, they can do so editorially at their own discretion from the history behind the redirect. Daniel (talk) 20:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Forced retention

Forced retention (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 does not look right as the last example is about an army and obviously an army is not a company. I don't see how anyone in a democracy could be forced to stay in a company except in wartime. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I think this is a valid concept. We aren't talking about physical force here, but rather about economic pressure: employment contracts that keep people from accepting employment with a competitor have the effect of forcing retention, unless the employee is prepared to do without an income. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to merge to any related article. PaulT2022 (talk) 05:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like everyone has a different idea about what to do with this. Does anyone want to second one of these merge suggestions, or no?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • What is there worth merging? Clarityfiend (talk) 11:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There may not be anything. But to the extent there is that is relevant... DMacks (talk) 14:47, 29 October 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 soft delete‎. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Alejandro Ospina

Alejandro Ospina (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)

While Ospina is a very popular OnlyFans creator, he doesn't have any source of notability beyond that. Some of the sources read more like a promo than as actual reporting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Not A Superhero (talk • contribs) 03:07, 28 October 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 no consensus to delete. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus to delete, and no indication that further discussion will yield any different of a result. I note that many, though not all, of the "keep" !votes presented little or no policy-based rationale for keeping the article. This close is without prejudice to renomination for deletion after a reasonable period for reflection on the discussion. BD2412 T 00:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bhutan Media Foundation

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

Fails

WP:BEFORE was unable to locate any that do. CNMall41 (talk) 04:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

...:Delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 04:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am disappointed that rather than start a discussion on the Talk page of this article, in the spirit of collegial collaboration, that less than an hour after moving this article to the mainspace, you have chosen to leap straight in and seek deletion. I refer here to WP:BEFORE (that you reference), specifically point AC2 "If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article." Nevertheless, here we are. I would respectfully ask that you revisit the page, to which I have added more information and references, and ask that you remove the AfD. References include three newspapers, the government's website and a scholarly chapter from an edited collection about Asia, which is entirely devoted to the history and importance of BMF. Thankyou Doctor 17 (talk) 07:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the book chapter which could be used to make a case, can you point out the others that meet
WP:ORGCRIT? The current page is referenced to the organization itself along with other sources that merely mention them (single mention in each of the 3 Kuensel Online sources) and the rest fail ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
1. Civil Society Organizations Authority, this is a listing verifying the organization’s existence. Nothing in-depth.
2. Bhutan Media Foundation, this is the organization’s own website so not independent.
3. The Changing Role of Asia, this is the book reference described above. If we can verify this isn’t self-published, I think it would meet
WP:ORGCRIT
.
4. No link so unable to review.
5. TheBhutanese, this is about the state of affairs in Bhutan and talks about the organization implementing a plan. However, it mentions them in context with the plan and does not talk about the organization in detail so fails
WP:CORPDEPTH
.
6. Bhutan Media Foundation, also the organization website so not independent.
7. The Bhutanese, same reference as #5 above.
8. Kuensel, discusses a guide it created but does not talk about the organization in-depth.
9. bbs.bt, unsure of the reliability of the source. However, this is a routine announcement of them releasing a guide. Nothing in-depth about the organization.
10. TheBhutanese, routine announcement of it launching its website and app. Again, nothing in-depth about the organization.
11. Kuensel, Mentions the foundation one time as a source for information. Passing mention and nothing in-depth.
12. Business Bhutan, Also fails CORPDEPTH. This quotes a statistic they put together about social media.
13. bbs.bt, same assessment as the reference above. Quotes their social media statistic but nothing in-depth about he organization.
14. Kuensel, a single mention about them starting the Thimphu Press Club. The rest of the information in the reference is about the club.
15. Kuensel, same publisher as reference #14 and same assessment as it was published on the same day and talks about the Thimphu Press Club, not in-depth about BMF.
Out of the 15 references listed above, only one likely meets
WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment - Thank you
    WP:ORGCRIT
    ..
"A company… is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject…Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material" Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria.
The following refs meet the criteria:
3. The Changing Role of Asia, is a chapter in a scholarly book, published in English by Poland’s largest academic publishing house, Adam Marszalek.
5. & 7. This article is about the state of media in Bhutan and in that context discusses BMF’s role as central to media development.
8. The entire article is about BMF's work, the guideline for reporting on women and children that they created for the media in Bhutan.
9. BBS.bt is the national broadcaster, the Bhutanese version of BBC, which meets reliability criteria. Coverage of its activities by the national broadcaster is not “a routine announcement”, its a news event. The entire article is about BMF's work, the toolkit it produced to counter misinformation, a global media problem.
10. & 12. These are two independent newspapers covering the news event of the release of BMF's 61-page social media report, funded by the Asia Foundation. It is a significant misrepresentation to describe these news stories as "quotes a statistic they put together about social media".
14. & 15. These two articles, in the national newspaper, cover BMF launching Thimphu Press Club, clearly a significant event, attended by the Prime Minister and European MPs. The Press Club is a BMF initiative and is further example of their activities.
Please note, the reference numbers you provide no longer match the article as another editor has added further references since you posted, but I have responded to your numbering.
I hope you will revisit the site and reconsider your recommendation. Respectfully, Doctor 17 (talk) 02:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, none of these would pass
WP:SIRS, the references must address "the subject of the article directly and in depth." These references do not. They mention a study and guideline released by the organization, not the organization itself. I think that is where the disconnect is coming in here. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I think
WP:ORGCRIT
. Rather, it states that "significant" means more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Clearly these are credible, independent sources (a range of newspapers, the national broadcaster, an academic publisher), providing coverage of their activities. They go beyond the profile you seem to favour, to demonstrate both the activities of the organisation as well as the extensive media coverage such activities receive.
I also dont understand your intransigence in recognising the credibility of the sources. Again you state "maybe the book excerpt". Please note it is written by a media scholar, in a book published by an academic publisher, and covers all of those things about the foundation that you seek - its history, what it does etc. There can be no doubt about its veracity.
I think you are misunderstanding the purpose of this guideline, how it came to be. The wiki community propose this extra caution under
WP:ORGCRIT
to stop Wikipedia being used for advertising and self-promotion, particularly among commercial organisations. The BMF is clearly not such an organisation and this is clearly not advertising or self-promotion.
I ask again, respectfully, that you remove this AfD. Doctor 17 (talk) 07:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After years of working on company Wikipedia pages and participating in similar AfDs, I am familiar with how ORGCRIT, SIRS, and the interpretations of both. It is not my intransigence, but my familiarity with how it has been applied by editors over the years. We will just agree to disagree at this point. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific comments on the available sourcing, and the analysis of it, would be very helpful. Stating "Keep" (or "Delete", or anything else) with no reasoning why is, frankly, not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and improve. Unlike many of you, I'm not an expert in WP:ORGCRIT, but the article does seem to meet
    WP:NGO criteria 1 and 2. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment - Copyvio is borderline. Some re-wording would probably be a plus if the consensus is to keep the article. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:25, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not borderline, that's a copyvio. I'll go and remove the section. JMWt (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Good to know. Still learning the terrain here and not always certain where the redlines are drawn (or the mines are buried). I also tend towards improvement/inclusion of good faith contributions (unless something is truly rubbish – which clearly this ain't). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:06, 28 October 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 keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Editors can work on improving this article and its sourcing. Liz Read! Talk! 05:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Smith Henderson

AfDs for this article:
Gordon Smith Henderson (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)

Recreated biography of a lawyer and politician. Although this is written and sourced differently enough to not be eligible for speedy deletion as a recreation of previously deleted content, it still isn't showing improved evidence of satisfying notability criteria.
This does include more content about his legal career than the first time, but still stakes his notability as a lawyer primarily on (a) purely local crime coverage in his hometown that briefly glances off his existence as a lawyer in the process of being principally about the criminals, and (b) purely local

WP:NOTINHERITED, so he isn't automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because his father and son have Wikipedia articles, but there still just isn't anything here which counts as strong evidence that he's earned permanent inclusion in an international encyclopedia in his own right. Bearcat (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

KC would be fine if the article were sourced properly, but is in no way "inherently" notable enough to exempt a person from having to have better sourcing than this, and "was speculated as a potential candidate for appointment to an office he wasn't actually appointed to" is no part of any Wikipedia notability criterion at all (especially when that speculation is coming from the local newspaper in his hometown and not from anybody with any real "insider" knowledge). Bearcat (talk) 22:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appointed King's Counsel which in that time was a big honor. As a lawyer multiple sources said he was involved in every important criminal case of the time and there are hundreds of news articles from reputable newspapers about him. As a politician he was prominent on the political scene and was a community leader in the liberal party despite not holding office. -- PD8 (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What sources in the article represent "important" criminal cases, exactly? Bearcat (talk) 22:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In Men of Today and Tomorrow, it says, "He has been engaged during the last five years in all the important criminal cases here." In Two Local Barristers Appointed King's Counsel By Ontario Govt. it says, "Dr. Gordon Henderson for many years has been very prominent as a criminal lawyer and has had many notable cases." PD8 (talk) 01:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And which sources establish the individual "importance" or "notability" of any specific criminal case? It's not enough that one source asserts that his cases were important, if we can't find sufficient sourcing to validate the notability of any specific case — which case was he ever involved in that was significant or important or prominent enough that we could justifiably create and keep a Wikipedia article about the case and/or the defendant who was on trial? Bearcat (talk) 13:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He was senior counsel for Louis Auger, accused of rape. The court case was national news, with books being written about it: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.3138/9781442689510-003/html. As you asked, the defendant does have a Wikipedia article, and it is well-sourced that Gordon Henderson was his lawyer. PD8 (talk) 21:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Gnewspapers in Canada shows many articles when he died, expanding upon his career and importance to the community [46] He was covered in Ottawa, Toronto and in French-language sources in Quebec. Oaktree b (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: clearly the multiple obituaries make him notable. --hroest 21:21, 3 November 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 keep‎. Not a strong deletion rationale, by the way. Liz Read! Talk! 05:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Air entrainment

Air entrainment (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)

Autoclaved aerated concrete is a much better article so perhaps we don't need this unsourced article Chidgk1 (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Technology. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Topic has quite a few publications in peer-reviewed literature: [47][48][49] to give three. I think the concept is distinct enough from autoclaved aerated concrete to allow for a distinct article. Sources would have to be worked into the article, of course, and perhaps a change of title to "Air entrainment (concrete)" would be helpful. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep; The concept of entrainment and the material that may be used are sufficiently different to warrant their own articles. From my view, it would be akin to redirecting Ceramic to Brake pad all things being equal. It definitely does need citations though. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 16:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • That analogy doesn't make much sense on second thought; that being said, the process is sufficiently separate compared to a specific implementation of the technique. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 16:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep; Some reasonable references but it could do with more. As a Technical Editor for Springer, I do have access to journals but at the moment I don't have enough free time to help much GRALISTAIR (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as I added the missing references. --Maxim Masiutin (talk) 11:06, 4 November 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 keep‎. I'm closing this after the nominator withdrew their nomination stating that these articles will be nominated for AFD individually. Liz Read! Talk! 00:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Muhlach family

Muhlach family (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 is just a genealogy of the Muhlach family, disguised under the section name "List of members".

That is not allowed on Wikipedia.
The short lead section of the article makes this claim more prominent. There are no previous revisions of the article that do not have a genealogy, making it more likely to be deleted.

This article was made by:

User:Carl Francis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

who was already targeted by 2 proposed deletions of his/her articles, that being Ejercito family and Gutierrez family.

For the exact same reasons noted above, the following articles have also been nominated for deletion (they are also made by User:Carl Francis):

I can consider the following options for all of the articles:

  • Merge these articles into whatever appropriate page applies to the family, such as Aga Muhlach for Muhlach family. This might not make any sense, because not all members of the Cruz/Eigenmann/Ejercito/Gutierrez/Laurel/Muhlach/Padilla/Sotto family are notable.
  • Delete these articles altogether. This is what I would choose.
  • Keep these articles and remove the genealogical content.
  • Keep these articles and expand them while keeping the genealogical content (see
    WP:NOTGENEALOGY
    ).
  • Any other option as decided by participants of this AfD.

EJPPhilippines (talk) 01:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Liz: is it possible to unbundle this nomination to make an Afd for each article? I think nom is fine with separate the AfD for each article. Currently, I think this AfD bundle is a trainwreck and we won't reach a good consensus. --Lenticel (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seconding this, I vote for close per Lenticel because we need to evaluate the merits (or lack of it) of each article on its own. --- Tito Pao (talk) 05:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since there are no Delete opinions, this AFD can be closed if EJPPhilippines states that they withdrawing their nomination. You can either state that here at the bottom or under your nomination statement. Liz Read! Talk! 05:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am withdrawing my nomination. I will try to renominate the 8 articles separately. EJPPhilippines (talk) 15:19, 31 October 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 01:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kaburu

Kaburu (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)

Cites no (secondary) sources. I also cannot find any references to this on Google so appears to fail notability requirement. —Panamitsu (talk) 01:25, 28 October 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

(non-admin closure) Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 16:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Cheetara (ThunderCats)

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

I don't see general notability here. There are a handful of sources about this character and I don't think it's enough, although I'm sure others will differ. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:34, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, this should be moved to
Cheetara, as there's no other articles competing for that title. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
N.B. @
Cheetara for now as it was a duplicate article, before seeing your comment here. I don't want my redirect to suggest opposition to your comment, I would be okay with the other way around. I did it this way because the AfD link was to this title. microbiologyMarcus (petri dish) 19:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@MicrobiologyMarcus: It was a redirect when I made the comment. An IP has now made a cut-and-paste move during an AFD to place the content at the undisambiguated title without an AFD tag. I'll revert that. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 23:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. While the article's reception is pretty poor and mostly based on listicles, the nom gets a
    WP:BEFORE. A simple GScholar search shows some substantial discussion in a Master Thesis. There is passing (SIGCOV-failing to me) but usable analysis in [50]. Likewise, a single but useful sentence in [51] (although I am not sure if this is reliable - was this published and reviewed?). There are several other sources which may have something useful. It is the nom's responsibility to do BEFORE and to tell us whether those sources are no good. What I have found suggests that this character is likely notable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:15, 28 October 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 all‎ to France in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

France in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2020

France in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2020 (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 together with the same topic for each year was merged into

blanked and redirected
, including this one and the following related pages:

France in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2022 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
France in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2023 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

talk) 00:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the
    talk) 00:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. All of the [Some Country] in the [Some International Song Contest] [Some Year] articles should be redirected to catch-all articles based on the contest in a particular year. The country's participation can be summarized in one or two paragraphs. No need for individual country articles. Oh, and Dealer07 should be rangeblocked as Special:Contributions/2A02:85F:F0C0:B90A:0:0:0:0/64. Binksternet (talk) 04:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect for this article. However, I do not believe that all "country in year" articles are the same. I'll repost what I wrote at the catch-all talk page for context: Hi all- I've boldly merged the 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022 articles into this summary article. I don't think all year articles should be merged for all countries, but these specific ones consisted of internal selections with little public fanfare or widespread media coverage. The [merged information] basically consisted of identifying who was selected, how, with what song, and how the entry fared at the contest. This level of detail is already the threshold for this [summary] article, so a separate article with the same exact information (alongside boilerplate background from this article and contest summaries copy-pasted from other articles) seems like overkill. Additionally, this [summary] article already was missing at least 2 years of information, so we were doing a disservice to the reader by scattering that information. More discussion would be necessary for articles with detailed national finals, which would likely not require merges and would remain as separate articles. As part of the redirects, I did merge the relevant information. I do respect other editor's desires to disagree, so happy to take part in this discussion with a wider audience. Grk1011 (talk) 13:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also support the redirects for the 2022 and 2023 articles that were later added to this nom. Grk1011 (talk) 12:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect. Completely concur with Grk1011 that in many cases there are good reasons to continue to host articles of this nature, and in fact can be a valued resource for readers. The San Marino in the Eurovision Song Contest good topic is a prime example of this. However in many cases, as with this article, there is no information presented that can't be replicated, or is not already duplicated, within the parent topic article (in this case France in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest), and therefore a separate article for the particular year in question is not required. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. What I am noticing amongst this deletion spree (across Eurovision articles in general) is that good information is being lost due to the carelessness of those deleting or redirecting. Even if efforts were being made in order to keep basic information, this would be hard to support due to lost information such as the juror results, which it is standard to have for every country in every year (should those be deleted too?). Most (but not all) of this information could be replicated, but it never is. Templates aren't being copied, artists get pages deleted without their information being ever moved to (Country) in (Year), for example Germany in the Eurovision Song Contest 2019 which has one lazy mention of the individual artists and no repetition of the succession box that surely should be there. If we are going to be deleting pages in order to apparently clean up the site, it is important to make sure that we're not making the site worse at the same time (and at the moment, this process is making the site worse). Toffeenix (talk) 04:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can understand some of your concerns about making sure that we don't lose anything vital when merging/redirecting articles, however it sounds to me as though you're wanting a policy where we just move everything from one article into another without considering the overall cohesion of the new article. In the case of artist page deletion this comes down to
    notability, and it's not right that in cases where a standalone article on an artist is not merited that we then just replicate word-for-word the content from that article in another article when the context is not there to justify this. That is not the place for that information, and while yes there can be some discretion for including summary information about the artist(s) or song, having a whole section in the "country by year" articles devoted to the song and artist, including any infoboxes/templates, is sloppy and creates almost a "Frankenstein's monster" situation which I believe should be avoided. This is especially true in instances such as the articles within the AfD, where the contents of said section are essentially "this is the artist, this is the song and these are the songwriters", which is hardly needed given that all this information is present in the articles for the specific edition of the contest and on the country's participation. Regarding your point on succession boxes, all relevant links are already featured in the navboxes at the bottom of the article to aid in navigation. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @Toffeenix: there was consensus back in 2021 to not structure articles in the way that you are recommending; see here. These pages aren't supposed to serve as the place where aspects deemed as non-notable (in terms of Wikipedia) can live on as stub articles. Relating to Sims' 'cohesive' comment, I'd suggest you read Australia in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2018 (a representative article showing this problem) from top to bottom. These articles are intended to be chronological stories of the participation, not repetitive lists of facts. Grk1011 (talk) 13:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just in order to make sure I am understanding correctly, you are saying Australia/JESC18 is an article with too much information? Toffeenix (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's an article with the same exact information repeated over and over again. Grk1011 (talk) 22:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Both Keep and Procedural close per
    WP:CONTENTFORK on a notable topic and merging is optional.4meter4 (talk) 14:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I amended my comment above, now that I understand a
WP:CONSENSUS discussion never happened when these articles were originally redirected (and indeed this AFD is the first community discussion of these articles). It is not surprising that edit warring and article reversions occurred around a contentious merge that was done without discussion by a single editor. This further points to the need for a merge discussion through the proper forum at Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers which is where editors are supposed to bring controversial merges. The fact that at least one editor besides myself has indicated that content will be lost through redirecting articles to the parent target; indicates that a selective merge of some material might be appropriate. This is a discussion that should be brought to the proper forum where decisions can be made over which articles should be redirected (or potentially kept) and what content should be merged if any. Best.4meter4 (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Both of you are missing the point and ignoring deletion policy at
WP:MERGEPROP; and a merge proposal has notifications made at the target article whereas an AFD does not. This discussion shouldn't be had here because the proper notifications that would be done in a merge procedure don't happen at AFD, and that has an impact on community participation/ input and the consensus building proces; particularly MERGEPROP banners that would notify editors with an invested interest in the content area at the target article. This discussion should be closed and a merge prop done in order that the editors with an invested interest in the target article might be more likely to be made aware of the discussion, and that the threat of deletion be removed from that discussion. We don't discuss merges here that aren't related to a properly made deletion rationale.4meter4 (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Fair point, I notified people there. But a merge banner would imply that content is actually being merged. The whole reasoning behind this AfD is that there's so little info in these articles, everything is already covered by France in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A merge was already done some time ago and now a sock-related account is reverting it. All of the relevant information is already in the 'target' article; a merge discussion doesn't accomplish anything. We're here because it appeared that there may be support from others for the article to exist and the nominator is looking to gain a consensus that could help with similar articles. Most, if not all, invested editors are aware of this discussion. They've either been tagged in the nom or found out through our WikiProject alerts. With the exception of you, every other commenter above is active in Eurovision articles. Being here brings a wider perspective and I for one am eager to see how uninvolved editors feel. Many of us agree with the nominator's deletion rationale and have !voted as such (I'd prefer a straight deletion, but the redirect is fine too). I understand that you disagree with this, and you are certainly welcome to have the opinion that this article should remain. For me, it feels weird to double down on a process concern when input on the actual subject of the discussion is plentiful. Grk1011 (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can sympathize. It can be challenging to know what to do when dealing with a problematic editor(s). I would not have brought this to AFD though, as AFD's narrow scope is on determining content inclusion based on set notability guidelines (or speedy deletion rationales). This really isn't the place to settle content disputes of this type. My suggestion would be to have a formal
WP:Page protection). If further issues occur with edit warring, you might consider reporting the problem to Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. All of this to say, AFD is not the place to handle this type of edit warring conflict or the editorial process of merging multiple articles.4meter4 (talk) 21:52, 29 October 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. Although we have an editor arguing vigorously to Keep, I see a rough consensus that this article should be Deleted. Liz Read! Talk! 00:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of FLOSS Weekly episodes

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

This is

WP:NLIST. The show, itself, is probably not notable so a list of episodes is unreasonable. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

But this isn't a list of notable guests on the show, it's a list of episodes. The episodes aren't notable. Also, nobody deserves their own page. Wikipedia has articles about subjects; the subjects do not
WP:N says, not what you think it is. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
It is very much a list of guests, they have a full column here, it just isn't how it is indexed. I would agree that without the guests/project columns this should be deleted. However, as I said before there are so many notable entries here that it clearly meets the criteria in
WP:NLIST: "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable" Teeks99 (talk) 02:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability separate from the show (if that's even notable) and is completely unsourced. This really is a no-brainer delete. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – as others have identified, the list is completely unsourced, and even the show itself is of dubious notability. Tollens (talk) 07:38, 3 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_October_28&oldid=1183615014"