Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 October 29

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.

Albanian–Yugoslav conflict

Albanian–Yugoslav conflict (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)

Hello. I was able to review some of the sources, especially the ones in the lead section, but also others. They do not confirm that there was a secret Yugoslav paramilitary operation in Albania, or that there was any military conflict between the two countries. Considering that most of the sources do not have any page numbers, it is hard to know what to seek. If there are editors who claim that the content is supported by the sources, they should give relevant page numbers and quotes. Right now though, this article seems to be

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Europe, Albania, Serbia and Yugoslavia. StephenMacky1 (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:50, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV fork per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.245.46.14 (talk) 07:57, 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 merge‎ to Keble College, Oxford. Please be sure that the Merge/Redirect targets you suggest are not themselves Redirects. There is a useful script that shows all Redirects in a green font that is very handy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:11, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

O'Reilly Theatre

O'Reilly Theatre (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 theatre space within a realtively new building of

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre, Education, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• merge nn venue - Altenmann >talk 21:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge if any sources can be found. Might just be OR, in which case, delete. I see refs that state that shows were performed there, but they don't say much about the theatre. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:22, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. I agree with the above. Bduke (talk) 07:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- I am working on expanding the article with reliable sources. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you have not added any WP:Reliable sources. Only more student newspaper articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cherwell is a reliable source: the real problem is that these articles only make passing mention of the theatre as the location where the performance (which is the real subject of the articles) is occurring, rather than discussing the theatre itself. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to
  Keble College as there's no independent notability of the theatre. I thought there would be something about the construction in the UK papers but I couldn't find anything on Newspapers Extended. Cheers! BBQboffin^{grill me} 00:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge the opening lead paragraphs to
  Keble College#Buildings where the theatre is mentioned under the Modern heading. No need to merge the Performances as non notable. Sources tell us only a little about the theatre or are about the plays performed there. Insufficient, independent coverage to pass the GNG. Rupples (talk) 22:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep – enough references for
  WP:GNG now with updates. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Note – this is an award-winning project – information with references now included. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The article suggests the awards are for the building as a whole, not the theatre specifically. Rupples (talk) 17:46, 5 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One Life Crew

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

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

Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Woodroar (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - They come kind of close to notability, but I agree with the nominator on how their media coverage is not entirely encyclopedic or informative for our purposes. The first Vice article found by the nominator is actually about a fan dwelling on his years as a scenester, the second Vice article is about one band member's later activities. I also found this: [10], which explains a few things about the band but is actually a protest against one of their bookings. Also like the nominator, beyond these I can find nothing but the usual social media and directory listings. Per
  WP:SIGCOV, they're close but no cigar. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. In addition to lack of SIGCOV, they only released one album on a major label and I can find no evidence that it charted. I'm sure some pre-internet sources exist concerning their first album and the events at the 1996 Cleveland Hardcore Festival, but that is speculation. Mbdfar (talk) 19:37, 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. Just a reminder, Wikipedia:Fancruft is an essay, not a policy or even a notability guideline. But I see a consensus to Delete this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Naruto universe

Naruto universe (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 Ninja World and Jutsu (Naruto) combined, both were redirected to Naruto after an AfD discussion in 2018. 1989 (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Anime and manga, and Martial arts. 1989 (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article "Naruto Universe" likely provides quality information about the creative process behind the Naruto, Naruto Shippuden, and Boruto series due to its in-depth exploration of the development, storytelling, characters, world-building, and the creative team's insights. It might offer details on the thematic elements, and the evolution of the franchise, making it a valuable resource for understanding the intricacies of the fictional universe. It is definitely not just a combination of other articles, as it has its own distinctiveness, and lots of different references in French, English and Japanese. All of this should be definitely considered. Carlos Eduardo Wester Pérez (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Carlos Eduardo Wester Pérez: Why can't this just be summed up in Naruto#Development? Also, do we really need to go into the origins of Chakra, and Jutsu when we already have articles on the subjects? Just say the series was inspired by them without going into extensive detail. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per

WP:WAX as no actual deletion argument for this article in particular has been presented. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Tintor2 made

WP:FANCRUFT. That and the previous AfDs I linked above is what made me bring it here. 1989 (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for providing a rationale, I struck my keep opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  Wikia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete; pure
  WP:FANCRUFT material and the article only contains primary sources. Xexerss (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete; I agree with Xexerss. Every source in this page is a primary source (being a volune of the series or interview) and no good secondary have been found. While this article is a GA in French, this article is almost an exact translation of the French article, which makes me wonder how this is a GA in French. I would say merge or redirect but I'm not sure where it should be redirected to and I can't see anything worth merging. Link20XX (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Almost the entirety of this article is in-universe plot information. The only bits that don't fall into this is the "Creation and design" section at the top, and the main Naruto article already has a much better "Production" section that covers the development. There does not appear to be a single non-primary source being used here, so there is nothing that would need to be merged or preserved. Rorshacma (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. The 'Creation and design' is interesting, but sadly, it is referenced 99% to an artbook (
  WP:FANCRUFT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete not enough reliable independent sources to support
  WP:TNT. The article would need to be rebuilt from proper sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete This is pure FANDOM content and is much better off in the Naruto Wiki than on Wikipedia, as it is of little interest to a non-fan of the series. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails
  WP:FANCRUFT is an essay so I don't think it should be cited here. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:38, 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.

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!} 21:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Esther Kurabi

Esther Kurabi (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 has earned at least two caps for the

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. JTtheOG (talk) 15:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No sources found online along with newspapers. Kline • talk to me! • contribs 01:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment national football team members have to be notable. --VertyBerty (talk) 08:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect. Per

WP:NSPORTS in general for further guidelines. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:42, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - best source I can find is Loop, which is a trivial mention Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:43, 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 speedy keep‎. Procedural close, for WRONGFORUM. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where's that damn fourth Chaos Emerald?

Where's that damn fourth Chaos Emerald? (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)

Soft redirect to Wikiquote.

Non-notable quotation, no specific page on Wikiquote, no inbound wiki-links. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This was originally a redirect to Shadow the Hedgehog (video game) where this phrase is mentioned in one of the footnotes as being a memorable line in the game. Should this just be reverted back to its original state? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural speedy close Per
  WP:RFD to be discussed, not here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy close: Per
  WP:WRONGFORUM and Zxcvbnm. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 12:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Procedural close and send to RfD as a
  WP:WRONGFORUM. – dudhhr ^talk_contribs^she_her 22:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy close Per
  WP:RFDQuestions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:23, 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.

Scion (organisation)

Scion (organisation) (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 third-party independent sources GnocchiFan (talk) 13:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and New Zealand. GnocchiFan (talk) 13:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Environment, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, a significant government research organisation in New Zealand. Regularly gets coverage in New Zealand media, e.g. New Zealand Herald, Farmers Weekly, Radio New Zealand, and Stuff. NZ Herald, Stuff and RNZ are the most prominent news sites in New Zealand; Farmers Weekly would probably be the most relevant special-interest news site.-gadfium 18:44, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While the article is poorly sourced in its current form, sources exist. In addition to those noted by Gadfium, several entries ([11], [12], [13]. [14]) in Te Ara: The Encyclopedia of New Zealand detail the contribution of Scion (including under its former name of the Forest Research Institute) to forestry research in New Zealand. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your contributions to the article! I would like to withdraw this request, clearly it was in error. Thank you again! GnocchiFan (talk) 18:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries at all, I can totally see why it looked non-notable based on what the article looked like before. :) Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - clearly notable after Chocmilk03's good work on the article. Thanks, Chocmilk03!

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep yep, passes
  notability guidelines for organizations, per article expansion by Chocmilk03. Seconding A. B., good work! Tails Wx 02:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep I suggest that a Crown Research Institute has inherent notability. Schwede66 14:37, 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 14:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seshadripuram Public School

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

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

Created by a single purpose editor. Only a primary source provided. Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Karnataka. LibStar (talk) 12:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• del nn. - Altenmann >talk 21:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - online search pulls up some passing mentions and database listings, but no

SIGCOV. StereoFolic (talk) 13:22, 5 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.

Najiballah Karimi

Najiballah Karimi (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)

Despite being capped at international level, I can't find even one source that pushes this anywhere near

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Afghanistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:19, 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. ✗plicit 14:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023–24 Nottingham Forest Women F.C. season

2023–24 Nottingham Forest Women F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unfortunately, the third tier

Top tier seasons like 2023–24 Manchester United W.F.C. season are generally notable because the events are covered in detail by RS like the BBC. I can't see Nottingham Forest Women getting the same level of coverage. If season articles at this level are decided to be inherently notable following this AfD, this would then mean we potentially should have such articles on all Championship teams as well as National League Premier teams - but I would like to see evidence of notability first before we plunge into mass creation. Currently, we only have season articles for WSL teams. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Football, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, on the basis it appears to be an WP:UNDUE level of detail about football results, teams and team changes, for this semi-professional football team, based solely on the club website. I can't find any news coverage online about this season's matches. Sionk (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I should declare an interest as a fan and contributor (who has made a huge effort to improve the quality of the main club page, see the update history), FA Full-Time is a decent source of information for match information at this level of the women’s game. I also plan to introduce a transfers section to improve the page quality. On a general note, I object to the idea that creation of articles at this level of the women’s game to lack notability. Information about the game is improving and gatekeeping that knowledge is a barrier to growth. Hailnolly (talk) 05:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FA Full Time is not significant coverage, it's just a collection of statistics about the league nor do I see any special attention being given to Nottingham Forest over other teams in the division. Per

WP:IS, it is also not independent of the subject as the FA manages the league in question. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I totally accept the point about WP:IS. Hailnolly (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete there doesn't look to be significant enough coverage to pass
  WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:39, 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 keep‎. Consensus is it's now a viable DAB. I leave moving to the editorial process. However please ping me if an admin action is needed there. Star Mississippi 01:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peak Mountain (disambiguation)

Peak Mountain (disambiguation) (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)

Disambiguation page not required (

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Disambiguations. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• This one is very difficult to research. But some careful adjustments led to a 19th century publication Guy's Pocket Cyclopaedia that referred to the hill into which Peak Cavern extends as Peak Mountain. I cannot find evidence that this is a 21st century name, however. There's a 19th century Cyclists' Touring Club guidebook that also refers to a Peak Mountain in the same area, although on modern on-line maps accessible to me, to the north of Eldon Hill is merely Peakshill. James Montgomery wrote a poem called The Peak Mountain. Other than those, everything else seems to have something in front of "Peak". Uncle G (talk) 13:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• keep; added two mo items found in Wikipedia. - Altenmann >talk 21:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Goodonyer! I did try to find some other Peak Mountains in … well … countries more likely to have actual mountains. ☺ No success. Too many false positives for "Something Peak Mountain" or repetitions of the two that we already had. Both of the gazetteers that I consulted (a modern one and an old Lippincott's) didn't even list the Peak Mountains that we started with. Uncle G (talk) 09:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Now a valid dab page.PamD 07:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but reorganize. I don't think this is a case where there is a right or wrong answer. There is no primary topic and I think there are probably other "Peak Mountains" that meet NGEO. So I think we should:

• Move Peak Mountain to Peak Mountain (Connecticut)
• Move Peak Mountain (disambiguation) to Peak Mountain

So that the main article is the dab, and the other Peak Mountains are parenthetically dabed and included.  // Timothy :: talk  08:21, 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. ✗plicit 14:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Fleming

Charlotte Fleming (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)

Previous 2 AfDs resulted in clear consensus to delete. My rationale for this 3rd AfD will be basically the same as what

Source analysis will follow shortly. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:38, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG ?
https://web.archive.org/web/20211119201940/https://www.londoncitylionesses.com/charlottefleming	Her employer at the time		Basic profile page on club website	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20210122063203/https://shekicks.net/leicester-city-women-sign-chelsea-midfielder/			Basic transfer announcement with minimal biographical info followed by a quote from Fleming herself	✘ No
https://www.lcfc.com/news/1982241?lang=en	Her employer at the time		Basic transfer announcement	✘ No
https://www.londoncitylionesses.com/post/charlotte-fleming-commits-to-the-pride	Her employer at the time		Basic transfer announcement followed by a quote from the manager and then Fleming herself	✘ No
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/57664281			Announcement of release from Leicester, several players are mentioned but Fleming is not addressed in any detail	✘ No
https://www.football.london/womens-football/london-city-lionesses-fleming-injury-24879982			This is the closest to WP:SIGCOV of all of the sources currently in the article. As you would expect, since an ambulance was called, her injury is mentioned in the match report. That said, the article contains no detailed info about Fleming herself and so this is no better than a match report mentioning her scoring a goal or getting sent off.	✘ No
https://www.lcfc.com/news/1982439?lang=en	Her employer at the time		Mostly just long quotes from Fleming herself	✘ No
https://fawslfulltime.co.uk/2022/09/05/london-city-lionesses-midfielder-fleming-sidelined-with-long-term-injury/		RS as far as I am aware	~ Goes further than the Football London match report now that we know more info about her ACL and MCL injury. The article also contains very brief background info on her career but not enough to be clear SIGCOV in my view.	~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

• Delete- Still fails GNG. She now plays for Watford but that doesn't seem to have generated any sigcov. Dougal18 (talk) 13:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Sourcing I find is all to the football club's website, agree with the source table, just not enough for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and SALT - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with

WP:SALT. I can't think of a time when it's been applied to a female footballer but the fact that this has been recreated so many times against consensus is deeply concerning. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete and SALT Subject does not meet the GNG due to a lack of
  WP:SIGCOV as it stands. User:Let'srun 19:54, 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.

Afonso Caetano

Afonso Caetano (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)

Played a number of games for Braga's B team a few years ago but seems to lack the significant coverage for

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:18, 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.

Paul van Rietvelde

Paul van Rietvelde (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. Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Badminton and Scotland. Timothytyy (talk) 08:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:45, 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 no consensus‎. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 04:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jijo Antony

Jijo Antony (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)

BLP Fails GNG and BIO. Lots of promo, interviews, nothing that meets WP:IS, RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Completely fails BLP as was indicated multiple times at AfC.

Rejected twice at AfC [15], [16]. Author then copy paste moved the article to mainspace which was then deleted as sock creation [17] Author blocked as a sock User talk:Godjo J#Blocked for sockpuppetry. Rejected draft now moved unimproved into mainspace.

Editors have basically been edit warring this into mainspace.  // Timothy :: talk  17:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I just realized that in the variously drafts and moves, the original AfD wasn't closed for this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jijo Antony but the currect article in mainspace does not have the tags any longer.  // Timothy :: talk  17:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Very Very Strong Keep for both procedural and guideline-based reasons, at least. The first Afd was not even closed! Then the page was
  Wikipedia:NDIRECTOR
  :

"People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards (..)The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series);" That is very very clearly the case here and that is not going to change, after 2, 3, 4 Afds, closed or not. He is director of 4 notable films, all having received substantial coverage, and the last in date having won an important award. According to the guideline, he is clearly notable. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above is a reason for a speedy keep, all of the above is opinion.  // Timothy :: talk  17:16, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you opened 2 Afds for the same article at the same time? Well, it should! But I'll change the wording if that it is the only problem. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

reply to your additional comment all of the above is opinion. If you think guidelines and facts of the history of your edits are all opinion, it’s disconcerting and so is your total lack of response to the issue of this double Afd., or the fact that you don’t seem to accept any responsibility for it at all. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are well aware of the DE around the copy and paste moves of drafts for this article and the reason the AfD tags are misplaced.  // Timothy :: talk  17:33, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DE by whom, if I may ask? And is it not your responsibility as nominator to check all of this and to withdraw if you see something is clearly wrong? Surely you understand that 2 Afds for the same page at the same time is not correct. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:37, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, India, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments 1)The creator of the page was blocked after creation of the page so that it shouldn't interfere with what we think of the page. 2)I am inviting the nominator to withdraw at least this nomination and to reboot the 1st one, or the other way around, as they wish. Or at least to leave a note there. But clearly 2 Afds on the same page is not a good idea.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:54, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Editors should look at the sock info.  // Timothy :: talk  01:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Source eval: Mushy Yank conveniently forgot to include this:

Source eval:

• Comment: Mushy Yank also forgot to move over the Delete !vote from @Siroχo: [18], found on the the dup AfD. Mushy Yank, if you're going to "fix" this duplicate AfD, you should include all the information, not just the points that agree with yours.  // Timothy :: talk  01:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  What? Such inapproriate comments! I forgot to fix your double Afd? When I invited you to dot it? You still did not address the double part, by the way.

  And conveniently? meaning in bad faith, you realise that? When I mentioned here that that double venue exists!

  And no, I would not move other people's votes (let alone your rationale) to a discussion that I think is procedurally null and that I did not start! How could one even know what you wanted to do after you had proposed the page for Csd and it was declined? These are very disconcerting reproaches.

  You could have, as I did, talked to the user who draftified it and asked her to undo it. You did not. I did. You preferred to CSd the draft. Sure. Your choice.

  I made it clear I wanted to move the page to the main then.

  The key to this may be when we talked on the talk page of the draft where I said that drafitifying in the middle of an Afd was wrong but your only reply to that was " They are a sock". You could have said "Ah, yeah, right, I'll talk to that user and restore the page and Afd" No. You did not. You preferred to ignore my remark on that point. Your choice.

  I mentioned it twice on the TP of the user who had draftified it. I thought the Afd was "nullified" in the process and was surprised you had not added anything to the page of the 1st Afd at least for information; it was very easy to fix or at least to TRY, and I invited you repeatedly to do it after I saw you wanted to follow this path, but apparently you prefer to blame everything on me for some reason. Sure.

  And if you want to ping @Siroxo:, do it with their correct user name, or they won't be notified. I am also pinging @Liz:, who had relisted the Afd, before you accuse me of not having done it, conveniently of course. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jijo Antony to let this one run. I was the admin who initially p-blocked the article creator, but as this is just clerking I do not see it as an issue. I will not !vote on content/merit. Star Mississippi 15:29, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  and apologies for briefly leaving the article without an AfD tag. It has been restored. Would someone please feed the gremlins Star Mississippi 15:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete current version. I am still not sure why an old rejected draft was moved into article space by User:Mushy Yank. There is a better version available but we need to get rid of this one first. Deb (talk) 20:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Not sure I understand. @DebYou do remember you are the one who directed me to the draft when I was asking you to undelete a better version, don't you? Which better version are you talking about? Available where? If that is the case, is it not simpler to modify the page so that the better version is the one users can !vote about? At the very least, please identify it so that we can make up our mind. I never thought Afds were about deletion of versions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  See Deb's talk page, where she identified the better version as that of October, 6. Thanks. I will check. For the record, I incorrectly assumed that Deb had moved the page to draft during the 1st Afd. She just speedy deleted it yesterday, leaving only the original draft behind if I am not mistaken. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not able to follow the histories and versions, but if someone needs to close this in lieu of an alternate version to be discussed, feel free. If there isn't a version to be considered, it's my opinion that this should run so that consensus may be established. Star Mississippi 23:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I speedy deleted it because there was already a version in draft that had been rejected and that you had just left there when you created a new one in mainspace. The older versions are not visible to you because they have been deleted. That's why moving the draft into mainspace wasn't the right thing to do. The discussion on this page now centres on the present version - the rejected draft that you moved to mainspace without correcting it. What you actually asked me to do was to undo "your" draftification - which had absolutely nothing to do with me. If you hadn't decided to argue the toss without checking the facts, I could have moved an old version into draftspace for review. But I'm not getting any further involved. If another admin wants to help you out, that's fine with me. Deb (talk) 08:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Deb I am afraid this last comment of yours is quite misleading. Take the time to check the timeline. I moved the page to Main from the draft (17:53, 7 October 2023‎ GMT) , AFTER you had speedy deleed the article in the middle of an ongoing Afd (October 7, 16: 17 GMT), which is almost two hours before I moved it. And I used the Draft as YOU had told me if I wanted to work on the article to move it to the main. And I am sorry but, yes, I did spend time correcting the draft and checking the facts (again, what you say is not true and this is still verifiable). Saying that I asked you to "undo MY draftification" is simply not true and does not make sense. I asked you to undo your speedy deletion and restore the version that was discussed (and the Afd for that matter, should you think your speedy deletion had not nullified it). Your refused and YOU sent me to the draft version. Everyone can verify that.

  If there is a better version, not visible to most users, then, by all means, provide it, please (but I understand that you still do not wish to do so, for reasons that are not clear to me). Did I move the page once to Main space before October 7? Possible, I honestly cannot remember and cannot see it in the page history; I only remember trying to improve the page. But then, if you say my (or is it not mine but simply better? well, if my improvements were not enough, at least someone else's were to your liking) version of October 6 was better than the current one, why speedy delete it (in the middle of an Afd)? Best,

  PS1- On your talk page you mentioned this was a G6 Csd. How did "G6: technical deletions, only if the deletion is temporary, or if no actual content will be removed" apply to an article like this, especially during an Afd, if I may ask?

  PS2- do ping me if you wish me to know you replied. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:18, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm afraid your comments are quite misleading. But as you say, anyone can verify what actually happened. Deb (talk) 10:04, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  They surely can. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural close. It's pretty clear that something has gone wrong here. I don't think there's a lot of benefit to casting blame for the variety of mistakes and misunderstandings in good faith. Let's close this and take some time away from the topic. Wikipedia won't crumble because one AfD goes wrong. —siroχo 22:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia doesn't just let BLPs exist because persistent DE. Its been rejected at AfC twice, speedy deleted once, and the author blocked as a sock. It needs to run its course and be evaluated based on sources, guidelines and policy (WP:BLPs require WP:V strong sourcing - this is non-negotiable policy). Thats a lot of editors !voting that should be deleted, and a DE shouldn't derail this AfD.

  A simple look at sources (such as was done at AfC) shows this BLP needs deleting.

  Closer: Please look at the AfC comments regarding BLP sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  23:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I have to agree. The creator knows better than to insist on a declined draft going into article space. Deb (talk) 06:18, 13 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} 03:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral, but leaning move to draft. It appears uncontested that the article subject has the substantial roles identified (writer, director, producer) with respect to the works listed in the article, and that these works are individually notable to the extent that no one has challenged the existence of these articles. I would restore this to draft, give it some time for additional sources to be produced, and allow for it to be resubmitted through the usual
  WP:AFC process. BD2412 T 03:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep: Source 3 is a RS, the rest are iffy per sourcebot, but are confirmation of the works this individual has been involved with. There would likely be more in native language sources; plenty of films directed have reviews published about them, showing some evidence of notability for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Draft seems fine as well if this goes that way. Oaktree b (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The first sources mention his last name Anthony four times and gives notability for being an international (non-Indian) newspaper Gulf News. The other sources are just brief mentions. A source in the native language ജിജോ അന്തോണി yields close to nothing ([19]) but the Kerala State Award gives him notability. DareshMohan (talk) 06:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This AFD is a mess. My instinct is to Draftify this article but I'd like to see if there is more support for that option. Right now, there is no overwhelming consensus for any particular closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the article needs work but there seems to be evidence of notability from various reliable sources. DCsansei (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify is the kindest outcome, though I wouldn't oppose deletion. The sources are really not great. The Gulf News article reeks of press-release, almost certainly triggered by a publicist. The Indian Express piece is again routine publicity released before the film was shown. The On Manorama bit is mostly interview. The Times of India pieces are both sponsored content, I think? The Economic Times bit mentions Antony once in connection with his film getting the Kerala state award for the best second film. I'm not really convinced this award is, on its own, enough to confer notability. Unless there is something truly independent, a genuine review published after a film's showing, by someone who wasn't prompted to do so by someone connected with the film, we cannot have an article in main-space. Elemimele (talk) 12:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• No idea about the article history, subjects probably meets notability requirements though. Referencing on the other hand is a bit weak. Oppose deletion, either keep or recommend moving to draft. - Indefensible (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Constructive comments are starting to appear but there is still no strong consensus on whether keeping or draftifying (or deleting).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 08:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - While draftify is a good
  WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The Gulf News seems to be the strongest source; however, I question it being actually written by Gulf News staff. The byline author has a note of "special to the tabloid" indicating they are not a staff writer. The title is also "the evolution of Jijo Antony" yet the article is brief and doesn't go in-depth about his career (where is the "evolution"?). Everything else I find online is mention of him along with the films or other references falling under NEWSORGINDIA. If anything, redirect to Konthayum Poonoolum where we can at least verify he was part of. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Semi'ed to stop the sock disruption. I don't think my prior actions make me Involved, but if an admin disagrees, feel free. Star Mississippi 14:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per CNMall41; if it's been declined repeatedly at AFC then draftifying it is a cop-out. Stifle (talk) 10:57, 9 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 redirect‎ to List of Croatia women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:04, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karla Šabašov

Karla Šabašov (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)

Redirect to

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Croatia. JTtheOG (talk) 04:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. GiantSnowman 18:20, 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 no consensus‎. After several relists, I can't see a general consensus from those who have discussed their views here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of police stations in the West Midlands

List of police stations in the West Midlands (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 haven't been able to find any reliable sources discussing police stations in the West Midlands as a group or set, as required by

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Law, Police, Lists, and England. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Plenty of sources exist, not all of which are online. Here is another source for the building in Dudley Road, with pictures of it in use as a police station; though the original source's "Built in the late 19th or early 20th century" is hardly a deletion rationale. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah I'd keep it. Many West Midlands Police stations have closed, been sold or demolished. And most of our sources are from the Birmingham Mail, our local newspaper. Sparkhill Police Station is now a Bosnian community centre. Flags up. Maybe references in the Pevsner books. Ellrbrown (talk) 14:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Sources for individual stations are immaterial. They need to be discussed as a group. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a place for indiscriminate information. The list may be suitable for historians to study at a relevant museum or archive, it is not suitable for en.wiki as it is not noted nor notable. JMWt (talk) 11:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly a well-defined, perfectly acceptable list. Plenty of sources. Of course stations in a single force area are discussed as a defined group. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  By independent sources? If so, produce them. Because all that's there now is single-station ones. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you and the nominator probably need to reread

  WP:LISTN and tell us exactly where it says it is a requirement that they must have been discussed as a group or set. Because that's actually not what it says at all. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Describing this as a list of stations in a single force area is anachronistic at best, plain wrong at worst, given that many of these stations closed decades before West Midlands Police came into being. Saying that the aforementioned Dudley Road station, for example, was in the WMP force area is like saying Catherine the Great lived in the Soviet Union. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The West Midlands is a county - a perfectly standard sub-division of the country. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because of nom reasons and Necrothesp ("Of course stations in a single force area are discussed as a defined group." "then produce these sources" "But but but, it's not a requirement to have such sources"). Really...
  Fram (talk) 12:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • There clearly are sources. Maybe you should look at the article and read the appropriate guideline, which doesn't say what several people here seem to think it says. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's take
      Fram (talk) 10:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • The third criterion seems applicable to me. It's hardly a long list. All LISTN says is One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources.... One, not the only! A list doesn't automatically fail notability criteria if it doesn't meet this, nobody should be claiming it does, and no closer should be deleting based on those who do. Of the delete votes so far, four (including the nominator) rely on this spurious claim and one merely expresses an opinion that it's "indiscriminate information", which it clearly is not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is a standard criterion it clearly fails, and people !voting delete see no good other reason to keep it. A closer would be hard-pressed to disregard these when the keeps don't have a stronger argument, as is the case here.
          Fram (talk) 14:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • This is the crux of it in my view – the guideline is somewhat fuzzy, but that fuzziness obviously doesn't mean that we default to keep in the absence of good arguments. The claim that sources exist for individual entries, as well as being very questionable given the current state of the article, is obviously one that could be used to justify keeping all manner of trivia, so plainly isn't a good argument. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:LISTN. Most of these police stations are completely non notable. Ajf773 (talk) 04:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. West Midlands Police station closures are talked about as a group see: [20] and [21] and [22]. Rupples (talk) 03:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Rebuttal. Closures are not stations. This is not a List of West Midlands police stations that were closed. Furthermore, I could easily find sources for other things that were closed, e.g. Kmart store closings 2022: Just three Kmarts remain after new round of closures. Things routinely close; schools, coal-fueled power plants, etc. etc. They don't merit standalone lists. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Just because its closed doesn't mean it never existed. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 03:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Which has no bearing on the notability of this list whatsoever. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:59, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]