Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 28

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. Owen× ☎ 22:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LNER

LNER (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 think the

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 18:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Disambiguations. Skynxnex (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Seems like a valid disambig. page. Both the railways under "LNER" are valid search terms. Oaktree b (talk) 20:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, for me, if people are searching LNER, they likely mean the current operator, not the old one. I do not want to inconvience them by taking an extra step (just) to look for the modern LNER. I also said the modern LNER has 3x the amount of views compared to the old one so those looking for the old LNER will use the hatnote to do so, that is the purpose of it. JuniperChill (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Where on earth is your evidence for this? The historic company is far more famous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: LNER is more likely to refer to the major company which was 1/4 of British railways for 24 years than to a modern company which has operated for the last six years but may be swept away next time the cards are shuffled. A dab page is the solution. PamD 21:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Prefer disambiguation over redirect, this way the user can choose best what article they want to read. Killarnee (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per PamD. Mjroots (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename to
  WP:RM discussion, not an AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  The original proposal was to turn a dab page into a redirect. That is not an RM matter. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2024 (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 Meaningful Broadband as an ATD. Should that article subsequently be deleted, this redirect would be deleted with it. Daniel (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Warren Smith

Craig Warren Smith (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)

obviously auto biography, no significance •Cyberwolf•talk? 17:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. •Cyberwolf•talk? 17:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This looks like the right criteria should be either PROF or AUTHOR, but I'm not seeing notability through either. Citation counts for people with the same name (who may or may not be the same person) are not enough to convince for
  WP:PROF#C1, and I can find no reviews for anything listed as a "book" in the article (Digital Corporate Citizenship appears to be his dissertation, I can find no evidence that it was actually published as a book by IU Press, I can find no convincing evidence that The Second Wireless Revolution exists as a book at all, and while Getting Grants does appear to exist I can't find any reviews of it). —David Eppstein (talk) 18:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Incidentally, we do have an article Meaningful Broadband about some of his work. If it were notable we could consider a redirect to it, but I think it should probably be deleted as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Meaningful Broadband. I think there's a good argument to be made that Meaningful Broadband is the "body of work" we should be judging him on, which is to say that if it's notable, he is too (though I do think we should redirect this article to that one if so, given the volume of unsourced content). I suspect it is notable, since it's been deployed in at least two countries, but I agree that the references currently in that article don't show it. -- asilvering (talk) 18:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China, Thailand, California, Massachusetts, Washington, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Was hoping to find book reviews to satisfy AUHTOR, I can only find where to buy them. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Unable to find notability--VViking_TalkEdits 19:27, 5 March 2024 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby (Paper Mario)

Bobby (Paper Mario) (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)

Far more notable characters within the Mario universe have had their pages deleted or merged into related lists than a side character from a spin-off title. The claim that he is "identified as both one of the best Nintendo characters of all time" also seems rather subjective? Definitely does not meet

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not making a vote in this discussion right now, and don't know if I ever will. But for an article like this that has proper sourcing and isn't a blatant clusterfuck with several tagged issues, there should be some sort of source analysis as to demonstrate how the subject isn't notable. I can agree with you on "identified as both one of the best Nintendo characters of all time" being subjective, as it seems to be only verified by Game Rant (a claim like this is fine for the lead, though it would definitely need more than one source backing it up), but you should provide more in-depth explanation as to how the subject is not notable. λ NegativeMP1 17:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a correction, the claim is cited to GameSpot and Destructoid, not Game Rant. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I've removed the mention of "greatest Nintendo characters" from the
  valid merge reasons. Sergecross73 msg me 17:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep There are several articles in reliable sources about this specific character, so GNG is met. Your subjective opinion about the character's importance compared to other Nintendo characters is not relevant. Also, it is considered polite to notify the creator of the article, so I went ahead and did that. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. AfD rationale appears to not extend beyond
  WP:IDONTLIKEIT. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Keep per others. Certainly not the strongest article, but the nominator's rationale is invalid and the Reception itself has enough sources to stand on its feet. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Just because he a spin off character from the Mario franchise and far more notable characters in the series have their articles terminated or merged does not means the article also need to be deleted or merged and the article also have two or three sources mainly discuss about him so WP:NVGC. NatwonTSG2 (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. This is obvious, in my view. There is significant coverage, and it is part of a very, very important game/character franchise. Anwegmann (talk) 02:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I feel as others have stated this is a case of "I don't like it", and sour grapes over other articles the nominator likes that have been merged instead. That said Bobby I feel stands just enough on its own and has enough significant coverage spread over enough of a period of time to illustrate the character's weight. Disclosure, I became aware of this AfD due to a brief discussion mentioning it in the wikipedia discord by Panini who was asking another user for thoughts regarding a source cited here, and that did not affect my vote.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I do agree with the people above that the article sufficiently surpasses
  WP:GNG, specifically I would like to note that the Kotaku, CBR and GameStop articles more than meets the requirements. Comment: I will ask the question, does this article meet a B Class status? I personally see it fulfilling the C Class status but hey I am no expert on the class qualification so I'd rather have someone who is more familiar with it to judge that. CaptainGalaxy 14:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Not opposed to lowering it, but can you elaborate concerns? The plot summary is uncited, but the article is generally complete and, at least, competently written (not trying to gussy myself up). - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 14:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you have done quite well with the article, so I don't think you are gushing it up at all. But in my opinion, I feel that the lead is too short and doesn't cover much in terms of the reception. There is also "citation needed" prompt in the appearances section. Adding on I feel that the concept section could be expanded upon but I can imagine that being a lack of sourcing issue which if that's the case doesn't need addressing as I haven't looked into Bobby sources myself. Like I said, I am no expert of the class rating system so if my objections are invalid feel free to ignore my comments. Hope you have a good day! CaptainGalaxy 16:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The article would not meet a B class status to me, personally. I'm not sure how useful it is to discuss at length in the deletion discussion but happy to talk elsewhere, such as on the talk page to identify what aspects could be improved. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename/keep I recommend renaming this to
  WP:SIGCOV is met. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  @Shooterwalker: Bob-omb is the species name, which appears in a variety of games and would arguably be the primary topic despite being a redirect. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I contest a rename, since Bob-omb is the species name, not the name of the character. Even if Bob-omb is assumed to be the proper name, Bobby is the more frequently used one, and per

  WP:COMMONNAME, it works far better. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I brought it up because Bob-omb is also earning coverage alongside Bobby, and

  WP:COMMONNAME. But I support the keep either way. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I would argue this is more related to Bobby than the Bob-omb species as a whole. Bob-omb would just cause an unnecessary disambiguation issue due to the species in question being already covered at the Mario character list. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm abstaining from the vote due to my unfamiliarity with how this process works, but I am extremely puzzled as to why the votes on this page are leaning towards keep, and yet Diddy Kong's article was recently removed. Could someone explain to me what makes Bobby notable enough for a Wikipedia page but not Diddy Kong? Thank you.

Jcharlesk (talk) 06:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am also confused about the consensus here given that recently many far more well-sourced articles for characters have been subject to lengthy deletion discussions, did not have such a consensus, and ended in a deletion. Not questioning the wisdom of users here, but what changed? This isn't in support of one side or another so is not a
  WP:WHATABOUT argument. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  It's probably that Bobby have at least few discussion I think? unlike other popular characters like Diddy Kong. Also, listicles doesn't contribute

  WP:GNG. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 08:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  But almost all of the references used in this article are listicles. Jcharlesk (talk) 08:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "Almost all"? Can you elaborate which sources are listicles? By my estimation, there are four "listicles" out of the nine sources. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 08:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There are four; I was exaggerating. But I would also say that the first source also isn't specifically about Bobby, meaning that only 4/9 of the articles used are specifically about him. Four articles that talk about a specific moment/character in a game is very few, so there's little reason not to just make this whole article a segment in the Paper Mario: The Origami King article. Jcharlesk (talk) 08:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's actually more than enough to write a character article if possible, and more than Diddy ever saw. The key thing is that there's tangible discussion that can be taken from these to illustrate why the character was important outside of its parent work, in this case as a fictional character and in some of these in the wider context of Nintendo games. "Listicles" is often a misunderstood term, as just because something is a list doesn't mean it shouldn't be used: the key is finding a list entry that discusses something in detail, or helps support another argument enough that you can work with it. Now to go further with your point above, the problem for many with Diddy and similar Smash Bros. characters was the reception discussed them solely as a video game character in that series, and they weren't discussed in importance outside of it. Trust me when I say even stuff like DeDeDe we actively tried to find sources discussing him as a fictional character, but it wasn't there in sources we can cite per wikipedia's standards. Now they may manifest later on of course, but for now...it's just not there for them, but it is for Bobby.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that actually reveals a bit of a problem with the way Wikipedia determines subject notability. The fact that a supporting character from a single relatively niche game in a much larger franchise can earn a Wikipedia article but fan favourite main characters in the same franchise don't just doesn't make sense. The former character is worth documenting in history, but not the latter? In my opinion this is the problem with taking written rules too literally and following them too closely. Notability should also be determined by overall popularity and public knowledge, and not just by whether or not some select sources talked about that subject. It's impossible to scientifically measure something like that, but some subjectivity may be necessary in certain circumstances.

  It's easy to ignore all of what I just said and just continue going by the book, but just think about it for a second: With the way the rules are currently written out, Bobby from Paper Mario: The Origami King and Rabbid Peach from Mario + Rabbids are deemed notable enough for a Wikipedia article, while Diddy Kong and King Dedede are not. Does that not expose a problem? Jcharlesk (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The thing is this: how do you determine popularity? It's impossible to do so without it being subjective. Some may find Diddy popular while others may not. It's physically impossible to gauge without sourcing from outside sources, and those sources don't really exist outside of acknowledgement of existence. (Which practically everyone has) That's why we have the system we do. It's flawed in places, unfortunately, but it works out in most cases. Nearly every iconic character from Mario has an article, (Mario, Luigi, Bowser, Peach, etc) and it's really only a few exceptions who don't. If this was commonplace, it'd be more concerning, but characters like Diddy and Dedede are exceptions, not the norm. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Whilst I had to spoil myself on the game to check the sources (though I didn't really plan to play it in the near future), I was just so curious to see what made him notable. However, now I can see there's just enough to get the character past GNG for good reason. Ultimately it's not about the character's popularity but their critical discussion and he got a decent amount of it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per
  WP:SNOW. I don't have much else to add to what everyone else has said. But I do want to ask, what Mario characters without articles do you find "far more notable" than Bobby? Also, keep in mind just because certain characters have been redirected, doesn't mean they can't be brought back later on, should more significant coverage be found. MoonJet (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I'm not the initiator but I'd say at the very least Bowser Jr., Diddy Kong, and Boo. Jcharlesk (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Nah, Diddy Kong and Boo are not. Bowser Jr. has a potential thou. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 23:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Diddy Kong: Main character in Donkey Kong franchise, recurring character in Mario franchise, two games named after him, playable in Smash Bros.

  Boo: Recurring and iconic species that appears in almost every game in Mario franchise

  Bobby: Supporting character in a single spin-off game in Mario franchise

  You really think Bobby is the most notable of these three? And Bowser Jr., the secondary antagonist of the franchise, only has 'potential' to be more notable? I'm sorry, this is getting ridiculous. Jcharlesk (talk) 01:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Feel free to leave a message at

  WP:GNG. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 02:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I understand it, I just think it has inherent flaws. As I said earlier, I think this shows the pitfalls with following written rules too closely. One thing may follow the rules while another thing does not, but that should not be the be all end all. There's more to notability than the strict guidelines that are laid out. Jcharlesk (talk) 03:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We're not just taking something open to interpretation here, there's literally nothing in reliable sources about the Boo species that's significant coverage. The

  Boo (character) article was solely minor mentions in listicles. It's not up to Wikipedia editors to say something is "obviously popular" when coverage is not there. If it was popular, people would have written more about it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  This is exactly what I'm referring to when talking about the pitfalls of following written rules too closely. Like I said, there's way more to notability than whether a certain number of designated sources wrote about a subject or not. Just read my message above where I compare Bobby's role with that of several characters who don't have articles, and I think that puts things into perspective. But Diddy Kong and Bowser Jr's importance apparently doesn't exist simply because you all are following these (ultimately arbitrary) rules too closely and by the book. Some subjectivity is needed for this sort of thing. Notability is not a science. Jcharlesk (talk) 08:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Do keep in mind, these characters have lengthy sections on their series' respective character list article, which not many other characters can say (Bowser Jr may not fit this example but perhaps it could be worked on). I don't even think it's in the sense that these characters aren't notable otherwise they wouldn't even have entries in character lists or even in game articles, it's more the fact that when it comes to the reception, which are the beating heart of a dedicated character article, they aren't many documented mentions about the impact these characters have on the people who play their game. Of course, there going to be plenty of sources that mention these characters and their appearances and creation, but they need that reception, which unfortunately characters such as Bowser Jr or Diddy Kong don't have much to show (at least not right now, perhaps in the future). Hope this helps; CaptainGalaxy 13:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  But that's the thing. Why does all of that have to be the beating heart of a dedicated character article? Why do they need that reception? Those rules are ultimately completely arbitrary, so why should that be the be all end all? There should be a wider variety of criteria. Jcharlesk (talk) 04:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A reception section outlines why a character is notable outside of the games the character is involved with, as well as what impact said character has had within gaming communities. We need these rules because otherwise we'd have a worse version of what you were initially debating on, character articles for obscure characters but unlike Bobby or Rabbid Peach, don't even have the sources that indicate impact and notability to back the character up. What you're asking for would not only not be worth it in the long run for both time and effort, but also would also likely do more harm than good. These rules are put in place for a reason. CaptainGalaxy 21:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  See, here's the thing - I'd argue that all Pokemon are notable, but they are not independently notable of the series. Bowser Jr., Diddy Kong, K. Rool, King Dedede, Meta Knight, Boo, these are all notable characters - enough to be mentioned in their respective lists, but not enough to get individual articles. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Like I've already said, the requirement that individual articles must be written about a subject for it to get an article is a completely arbitrary rule; there should be a wider variety of criteria for a subject to be deemed notable enough for its own article. There is so much more to notability than just "how many articles from our designated sources have talked about this?" Jcharlesk (talk) 04:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What you don't seem to understand is it's not "how many", it's the degree of discussion that can originate for such characters, something to illustrate why they mattered. You look at it as "I'm not getting my favorite" when the problem is more "nobody in reliable sources is talking about my favorite as an actual character".--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you're just going to set yourself up for disappointment if your objection is that the
  Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Thus, they needed to come up with a standard for what a subject must hit in order to be considered notable enough to have an article. When you gripe about it being arbitrary, what you're griping about is not that there is no reason for why it's this way, you're griping that it is this way. You can maybe propose that WP:GNG be changed, but that will be a lot of effort, with not much of a taste for the change to be made. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 06:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I will also mention that sourcing is needed to verify notability in a lot of cases. These characters may or may not be notable, but if no sources exist discussing that fact, we can't verify that they are. Either way, I echo Cukie's statement above. The GNG exists for a reason, and any attempt to fundamentally change it is not AfD's job. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:26, 4 March 2024 (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 Scott Speicher. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Spiker

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

)

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

Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Wisconsin. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note There is active disruption going on where the article is being redirected to Scott Speicher, which is not a plausible redirect to the subject of that article. With that said, delete, as subject is not a real known politician in Milwaukee politics as-is. Nate • (chatter) 17:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It was a redirect to Scott Speicher since 2006 before being repurposed to the current page a few days ago. It's a plausible redirect because Speicher is pronounced Spiker so someone only hearing the name may guess at that spelling. Central and Adams (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I appreciate the clarification on the page history, did not see that. I would support restoring the redirect in this case. Nate • (chatter) 19:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am the one that created the page, I agree with the deletion or restoration of redirect and I would like to apologize that i was edit warring, I'm new to this and this was the first page I made and wanted to keep it as a trophy, again i agree in the deletion of this page, Good day. WTBgaming (talk) 14:38, 28 February 2024 (CST)

• Restore redirect, but no prejudice against recreation if someone can write something more substantial and better-sourced. Milwaukee is a large and important enough city that its city councillors potentially could have sufficient media coverage to meet NPOL #2 — but an article about a city councillor still has to be more substantive and better sourced than this before it can actually be kept. At the local level, city councillors aren't all "inherently" notable just because they exist, and need to have content about their political impact — specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects their time in office had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. I don't know nearly enough about Milwaukee's local politics to know whether that's possible here or not, so I'm willing to reconsider if somebody can expand the article, but this isn't sufficient as written. Bearcat (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore redirect -- I wanted to save this article but sadly there are literally no sources and city councilmembers don't satisfy
  WP:NPOL automatically. Central and Adams (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2024 (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. Owen× ☎ 22:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Lamas

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

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

Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Bands and musicians, Journalism, and Texas. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Literally no secondary sources. Central and Adams (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails
  WP:GNG. Likely promotional, given the username of the editor who created the article. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I saw that too. Could they be any more obvious?Central and Adams (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails notability as a journalist, I can barely even find articles he's written. not passing AUTHOR either, no book reviews found. Oaktree b (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree that there seems to be no results ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2024 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of violinist/composers

List of violinist/composers (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)

We have considerable redundancy in our lists of musicians. e.g. "list of [gender] [nationality] [instrument] [genre]" or "list of [subgenre] [genre] bands from [country]". Often I don't know where to draw the line and err on the side of ignoring them. In this case, "violinist/composer" doesn't appear to be a notable cross-categorization. We have lists of violinists and lists of composers. We don't need combinations of instruments/musical activities (primarily

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Lists of people. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This is tangential, but I find "composer" categorization frustrating. Every jazz musician notable enough to have an article has composed at least one original tune, which makes deciding how to apply Category:Jazz composers difficult. Mach61 (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is overcategorization, specfically
  WP:ARBITRARYCAT. We don't really need a list about composers who are also violinists/violinists who are also composers, especially when the list says that certain musicians who were/are both are excluded from the list. Jaguarnik (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:ARBITRARYCAT. The article's rationale for including or not including people is unconvincing, and I agree with the nominator's reasoning. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 03:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Unsure. Strictly speaking as a reader I would see some value in a list of persons famous as violinists who also wrote notable compositions. I see much less value in a list of famous composers who also happened to play the violin (though maybe not at a professional level). So, perhaps keep but clean up? Tea2min (talk) 07:49, 1 March 2024 (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 14:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Murray

Lynn Murray (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 actress in question has been in touch asking for her profile to be deleted under article 17 of the UK GDPR law (Right to be forgotten). As the creator of this page, I used the db-author method but was informed this was not possible. If this new method is not correct, please can an editor reassign to a different deletion process. TheDeadRat (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—
  Talk to my owner:Online 15:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Sadly, as a US company I don't think the UK's law apply to Wikipedia as the servers are in the US. Might want to loop wiki legal into this. Oaktree b (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Oaktree b (talk · contribs), How would I go about brining in Wiki Legal into the debate? TheDeadRat (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd have to dig around a bit to be honest. Let me see. Oaktree b (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I asked about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#UK_GDPR_issue_came_up_in_AfD,_unsure_where_to_head_next Oaktree b (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Notability here is marginal and article creator states that the subject has requested deletion. Jfire (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, per policy if she wants out, that's fine, we should Delete. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Courtesy BLP delete - this individual has very few credits, anyway, — Maile (talk) 21:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A. B. (talk • contribs
  )
• Delete expressly not on BLPREQUESTDELETE grounds, but rather because she fails NACTOR. I'm sceptical the films she's appeared in are notable – they heavily rely on unreliable or non-independent sources. Incidentally, the articles on these films have mostly been created by the nominator as well. I'd say this warrants a broader audit of their work for sourcing issues. – Teratix ₵ 04:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was the best source I found on Murray (Glasgow Evening Times on PressReader), not enough to pass GNG. – Teratix ₵ 04:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 00:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:GNG anyway. Shaws username . talk . 02:46, 2 March 2024 (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, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025 in Spanish television

2025 in Spanish television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Spain. Bearcat (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious delete. Quite obviously too soon, the nomination rationale sums it all up wonderfully. --Ouro (blah blah) 16:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete
  WP:TOOSOON for sure, and one vague premiere should not be rationale to create this article, especially for a service known to announce, make, then never air projects based on one reality and tax credit-obsessed CEO's whim. Nate • (chatter) 17:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, Wikipedia users sometimes have a tendency to want to be the first to create something, often too long in advance such as in this case. Geschichte (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – TOOSOON, one entry is not enough. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 08:35, 4 March 2024 (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 Pauline Smith (artist). A redirect to the artist seems to be the outcome the most participants here seem comfortable with. Owen× ☎ 19:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Hitler Fan Club

Adolf Hitler Fan Club (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 fails GNG. (The club isn't real, insofar as the club has only one member and she died. There is only a tin cup for donations and that's not notable. The cup isn't even on display, so far as I can tell.) The citations provided are mere mentions. Efforts to redirect this have failed. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be very little here that isn't already in Pauline Smith (artist). Could what little extra there is here be merged to that article? Oliver Phile (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oliver Phile: That was my goal but BabiesCon has reverted that. This AfD will determine community consensus. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Visual arts, and Politics. Netherzone (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into Pauline Smith (artist) — Czello ^(music) 20:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Might be just enough to keep this, [5] and [6]. Likely more in paper sources. I'll keep looking. Oaktree b (talk) 21:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  [7], although a redirect to the artist seems ok too. Oaktree b (talk) 21:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and merge any useful content to the page of the so-called "artist" AusLondonder (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable art work. No need for merge since the
  WP:GNG. Netherzone (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. SportingFlyer T·C 16:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge per above. nf utvol (talk) 19:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect to Pauline Smith, where this is already mentioned at length. As a totally unjustified SPINOFF or FORK! Nothing else is needed at the target so objecting to a merge. Delete is the common position here and works. It can then still be redirected. gidonb (talk)
• Keep - Art history is incredibly fringe so of that basis only 10 works or so would scrape up enough notability. That said; this artwork may well be one of the ten. BabiesCon (talk) 14:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Merge might be ok too. If so; for compatibility, I propose molding revision [8] into parent article. BabiesCon (talk) 13:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge to Pauline Smith (artist). Insufficient sources for a standaline encyclopedia article. Elspea756 (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and others. Fails the
  GNG test. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment For years, this page existed as a Redirect. Could it return to that state? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi Liz, the reason why I said that a redirect is not necessary is that no one ever reads the article until the AfD was opened. Here are the page views going back about ten years: [9]. Not sure if that is a valid rationale, but it was what informed my comment. Netherzone (talk) 00:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 14:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indigo Moss

Indigo Moss (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 believe the couple of minor reviews meet the standards set at

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --woodensuperman 13:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I deprodded because in two minutes on Google found the following newspaper reviews:
  • Coventry Telegraph
  • The Guardian

  The duo the band became, Trevor Moss and Hannah-Lou (sometimes referenced in the opposite order), actually seems more notable. It would make sense to make the article primarily about them with Indigo Moss background:

  • KLOF Mag
  • The Guardian
  • South Wales Argus
  • Americana UK

  I have not looked any further. Thryduulf (talk) 13:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Still not convinced this is

  WP:SIGCOV. --woodensuperman 16:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep and expand. Even the first two found by @Thryduulf are great refs, and in the Guardian at that? Nice how bringing an article to AfD encourages people to look for references. --Ouro (blah blah) 17:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not convinced, that Guardian review is pretty minor coverage really. --woodensuperman 11:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 19:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in view of the reliable sources coverage identified above as well as coverage in The Times and Sunday Times (exercising
  WP:AGF) as they are deadlinked in the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per demonstrated significant coverage in national newspapers. --Michig (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree that there is coverage ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 23:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand, significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources per WP:BAND. Wikishovel (talk) 09:34, 4 March 2024 (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, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neeraj Gupta

Neeraj Gupta (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)

Only passing mentions in

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. TarnishedPath^talk 11:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, please note this is a different subject matter than previous nominations as consequence of a recent page move. TarnishedPath^talk 11:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Delhi and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom, the subject does not meet
  WP:SIGCOV. Macbeejack ☎ 08:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. I would have seriously considered to Draftify this page so that the creator could add on more reliable sources but a simple search myself could not find much on the subject. Neeraj Gupta is an actor who acted in his first film Jaggu Ki Lalten but this is his only known work. The reliable sources on the page are about the film and shows him as one of the cast. Unreliable source neerajkgupta.com is his own personal website. He is not notable enough to have any significant coverage in media publications or to warrant a page on himself. RangersRus (talk) 20:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails the relevant notability policies required. UtherSRG (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per RangerRus, I'd also tried for draftify, but almost no sources with SIGCOV and no GNG. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Code For Change

Code For Change (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)

Unreliable sources to meet

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Nepal. nirmal (talk) 11:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, i did some googling and found nothing even related,curretly checking history to check if it could be G11'd begocc ^questions? 14:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• History is also an advert. begocc ^questions? 14:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. nirmal (talk) 01:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails
  WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 02:07, 5 March 2024 (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.

Anna Halkidis

Anna Halkidis (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 it seems that she is a journalist with some experience, and she now works at

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Journalism, United States of America, and New York. Chiserc (talk) 09:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, i couldnt find anything even close to meeting
  general notability. begocc ^questions? 10:37, 28 February 2024 (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 Incubus (band). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Kilmore

Chris Kilmore (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 notability per

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. Broc (talk) 08:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I can see a couple of interviews published,[10][11] but interviews don't add to notability. The Los Angeles Times reported in 2016 that he was selling his house in Topanga.[12] (It's not much but at least it is outside of the context of the band Incubus.) The best source I found was this biographical piece in the Las Vegas Review-Journal in 2016. Weak keep. Binksternet (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Is one single biographical piece sufficient to determine notability? Broc (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to his band. Lacks independent notability. Most of the above is about XX from Incubus. A interview for a local gig and house sale piece is not that much. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per reasons above, not independently notable apart from actions in the band. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2024 (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, especially after work was done on the article since its nomination. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Association for the Study of Dreams

International Association for the Study of Dreams (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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Psychiatry, Psychology, and California. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's
  list of content for rescue consideration. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: The IASD is legit (eg see governance and notable members), and is notable in the real world, but (as is obvious) there's a lack of reliable sources to establish notability at Wikipedia. Have listed it at the article rescue squadron. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 19:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The association is certainly not

fringe, nor is their journal, Dreaming. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 20:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL ("IASD") may be helpful. Google books search, too.

Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 15:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editors, the page does indeed not show sufficiently the academic and scholarly nature of the International Association for the Study of Dreams, so thank you for spotting this. It is indeed incredibly thin. First clear matter is that the IASD publishes with the American Psychological Association the academic journal Dreaming, this should be stated at the top instead of the section on the International Journal of Dream Research. Dreaming has a current impact factor of 1.8, which is a high impact factor for psychology, meaning that each article is cited by 1.8 articles in the 2 years after publication. The journal is also 95th out of 147 multidisciplinary journals, which is very creditable: https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/drm/. Being published by APA is very prestigious, for example APA publish many of the world's top psychology journals, such as Journal of Experimental Psychology. (The International Journal of Dream Research is relevant as it publishes the abstracts of the IASD annual conference each year, but this journal is published by Heidelberg University and not IASD, so the journal Dreaming should be more prominent on the page.) The list of researchers in the Governance and notable members sections is also very sparse, given there has been a new president every year since 1983. Professor Ernest Hartmann of Tufts University was a past-president and very eminent author and psychiatrist, he is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Hartmann, also a president was Stanley Krippner, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Krippner, and founding member Stephen LaBerge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_LaBerge. Booklist of founding members and past-presidents is here: https://www.asdreams.org/booklist-presidents/. There is also a lack of publications mentioned on the wikipedia page, some of the presidents' publications could be added there. All credit to the editors for this having been spotted, the page gives a poor impression of the world's most important dream research association. I can make suggestions for improving it and for showing the notable nature of the association. (And to disclose, I was IASD President 2001-2. There are many professors in the list of presidents, such as Katja Valli, professor in Sweden and president 2013-15, and Michelle Carr, president 2021-23 and associate professor director of the world's leading nightmare sleep lab in University of Montreal, and David Kahn, of Harvard Medical School and president 2007-08.

Thank you, DreamerMTB 86.129.93.134 (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What would be most convincing would be examples of news articles, peer-reviewed journal articles, or books by academic publishers, that describe the IASD, its impact, structure, history, etc. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed, point taken. There are a large number of academics who are IASD members, in disciplines from film studies to anthropology to psychology to neuroscience. There are also many psychotherapists and psychoanalysts. I will ask them for such citations, as well as providing some myself. For example, Blagrove, M. & Lockheart, J. (2023) The Science and Art of Dreaming, Routledge, page xiii, 'This research was encouraged by discussions with the eclectic mixture of disciplines and people at the conferences of the International Association for the Study of Dreams, which also publishes the academic journal Dreaming.'

Thank you.

DreamerMTB

86.129.93.134 (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Please see the

Golden Rule. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 09:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• Wait and see?: Could we now reconsider this AfD and instead template the article for reference improvement? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 17:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editors, Here are three science publications of studies that acknowledge funding by IASD. I will send more after these three. 1. Article in the journal Sleep, which is the highest ranked sleep science journal: Carr M, Nielsen T. Morning REM sleep naps facilitate broad access to emotional semantic networks. SLEEP 2015;38(3):433–443. https://academic.oup.com/sleep/article/38/3/433/2416949 acknowledgement is in pdf version and here

2. Carr, M., Blanchette-Carrière, C., Solomonova, E., Paquette, T., & Nielsen, T. (2016). Intensified daydreams and nap dreams in frequent nightmare sufferers. Dreaming, 26(2), 119–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/drm0000024 article acknowledges IASD but is behind paywall. Copy on Researchgate is here: http://www.dreamscience.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Carr-et-al-2016-Intensified-Daydreams-and-Dreams-in-Nightmare-Sufferers.pdf

3. Carr, M., Blanchette-Carrière, C., Marquis, L-P., Ting, C.T., & Nielsen, T. (2016). Nightmare sufferers show atypical emotional semantic associations and prolonged REM sleep-dependent emotional priming. Sleep Medicine, 20, 80-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sleep.2015.11.013. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S138994571502064X?via%3Dihub

Thank you, DreamerMTB 2A00:23C7:7AA9:7700:8937:49DF:3401:DF5F (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editors, Here are three further science publications of studies that acknowledge funding by IASD. 4. Schädlich, M., Erlacher, D. & Schredl, M. (2017) Improvement of darts performance following lucid dream practice depends on the number of distractions while rehearsing within the dream – a sleep laboratory pilot study. Journal of Sports Sciences, 35, 2365-2372. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02640414.2016.1267387 5. Sparrow, G., Hurd, R., Carlson, R., Molina, A. (2018). Exploring the effects of galantamine paired with meditation and dream reliving on recalled dreams: Toward an integrated protocol for lucid dream induction and nightmare resolution. Consciousness and Cognition, 63, 74-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2018.05.012. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1053810017306244?via%3Dihub 6. Eranimos, B., & Funkhouser, A. (2023). An exploratory study of the Eastern understanding of déjà rêvé (already dreamed) experiences in Kerala-Indian culture. Dreaming, 33, 153–163. https://doi.org/10.1037/drm0000230 http://www.dreamscience.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Eranimos-Funkhouser.pdf Thank you, DreamerMTB 86.129.93.134 (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editors, [I suggest here further text that acknowledges the importance of IASD for the science of dreaming.] As a result of an event at the 2008 conference of the International Association for the Study of Dreams, Mark Blagrove changed his research from quantitative and statistical investigations of groups of dreams to the investigation of insights that occur when single dreams are considered by the dreamer (Blagrove & Lockheart, 2023, pp.119-120). The single dream that elicited this change in research focus is reported in The Psychologist, professional magazine of the British Psychological Society (Blagrove, 2009). This change in research focus led to studies by Blagrove with other IASD members on the insight and empathy effects of group discussions of single dreams (Blagrove et al., 2019; Edwards et al., 2013, 2015). Blagrove, M. (2009). Dreaming—Motivated or meaningless? The Psychologist, 22(8), 680–683. https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/dreaming-motivated-or-meaningless Blagrove, M. & Lockheart, J. (2023). The Science and Art of Dreaming. New York & Abingdon, Oxon.: Routledge. Blagrove, M., Hale, S., Lockheart, J., Carr, M., Jones, A., & Valli, K. (2019). Testing the empathy theory of dreaming: The relationships between dream sharing and trait and state empathy. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1351. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01351. Edwards, C.L., Malinowski, J.E., McGee, S.L., Bennett, P.D., Ruby, P.M., & Blagrove, M.T. (2015). Comparing personal insight gains due to consideration of a recent dream and consideration of a recent event using the Ullman and Schredl dream group methods. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 831. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00831. Edwards CL, Ruby PM, Malinowski JE, Bennett PD, Blagrove MT. (2013). Dreaming and insight. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 979. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00979.

DreamerMTB 86.129.93.134 (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above appear to actually contain independent coverage of the IASD. It also seems somewhat tendentious to suggest that the linked Blagrove paper conveys anything regarding the relevance of the IASD, as the extent of its coverage is as follows: At the risk of self-indulgence, I relate the following dream, from the morning of 12 July 2008, the last day of the 25th Conference of the International Association for the Study of Dreams, in Montreal. It illustrates the use of free-association, and the sudden realisations that can occur during this process. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Significant independent coverage of this organization is lacking, including the above that was added to this discussion. Fails
  WP:ORGSIG. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Update: I believe that references 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12 (Kramer, Gervasi, Love, Bogzaran, Stuever, Henig, and Auchincloss) now meet the
  Golden Rule. The original name Association for the Study of Dreams (ASD) yielded three lengthy pieces from The Washington Post. Still looking. @Steve Quinn
  :

Please consider your own "top three" from these references before !voting to delete.

For your convenience, here are the three verified Washington Post citations:

• Gervasi, Susan (5 January 1994). "Travelling in A Dream World". The Washington Post. Washington. Retrieved 16 February 2024.
• Henig, Robin Marantz (8 June 1987). "Interpeting Dreams". The Washington Post. Washington. Retrieved 16 February 2024.
• Stuever, Hank (6 July 2000). "The Dream Catchers". The Washington Post. Washington. Retrieved 16 February 2024.

Will wade through this in-text Internet Archive search suggested by GreenC at the article rescue squadron page this evening: search results (for "Association for the Study of Dreams" in the text). I expect that most of the 1,159 results will be trivial mentions or links to the association's viral ethics code.

• Bogzaran, Fariba (1 June 2012). Integral Dreaming : A Holistic Approach to Dreams.
  ISBN 978-1438442372
  . looks good, too.

Thanks. That's my best shot, @Rosguill: Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 13:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editors, 1. I have entered the journal title Dreaming into Scopus, the major journal database, https://www.scopus.com/sources.uri, this gives a current citation score of 2.8 (i.e., on average each article is cited 2.8 times in the two years after publication in the journal), and the journal is ranked 102nd out of 209 general psychology journals. Coupled with the journal's publisher being the American Psychological Association, this is external evidence for the scientific and research quality of the journal and the Association that owns and publishes the journal. The journal's office is at Harvard Medical School. 2. I have followed the advice on magazine blogs here: 'Some newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online columns they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.' In this Psychology Today blog IASD is described as 'the professional society for dream scholars/scientists' by Patrick McNamara, who has never held office in IASD. He has spent most of his career at the Boston VA and Boston University School of Medicine in the Neurology departments. He currently is Professor of Psychology at Northcentral University. https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/dream-catcher/201706/some-resources-people-interested-in-sleep-and-dreams 3 The list of experiment grants jointly awarded by IASD and the Dream Science Foundation to sleep labs and psychology departments worldwide in 2023 and since the first awards in 2006 is here: http://www.dreamscience.org/grant-awards-published-studies/. Many of these awards have resulted in peer reviewed journal papers, I listed six of these above. Regards, DreamerMTB 86.129.93.134 (talk) 09:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I think the opponents of this deletion have proven their case for GNG. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editors, I suggest the following addition to the IASD page. Lucid dream researcher Stephen LaBerge, PhD, was one of the founders of IASD in 1983. He is listed as a founder on the IASD website in this alphabetical list of IASD Presidents and Founders, https://www.asdreams.org/booklist-presidents/, and in this announcement of his keynote address at the very prestigious neuroscience Donders Institute, in the Netherlands, his bio lists him as a co-founder of IASD https://dreslerlab.org/laberge/ . His page in Wikipedia is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_LaBerge. Regards, DreamerMTB 86.129.93.134 (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, DreamerMTB. Since that doesn't add to the notability of the subject (the IASD), if you don't mind, I'll copy that request across to the IASD's talk page, and I'll see what I can do to incorporate it into the article. Sorry, I'm engrossed in the last quarter of a book at the moment. Thanks again, and regards, Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 17:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blogpost by Professor Patrick McNamara in Psychology Today on the International Association for the Study of Dreams. Professor McNamara has spent most of his career at the Boston VA and Boston University School of Medicine in the Neurology departments, and has been the recipient of grant awards from the National Institutes of Health to study sleep and dreams. He is currently Professor of Psychology at Northcentral University and has not held office in IASD. https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/dream-catcher/201202/the-international-association-the-study-dreams

DreamerMTB 86.129.93.134 (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yes that's another and we have that covered. I'm hoping that someone will be able to assess the citations listed above under "Update", to establish whether or not the article now passes

WP:GNG. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 17:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Three quotations downloaded from archive.org 21st February 2024, https://archive.org/search?query=%22Association+for+the+Study+of+Dreams%22+&sin=TXT Bulkeley, K. (2017). An introduction to the psychology of dreaming. ABC-CLIO Page 115 The early years of the 21st century have brought many new opportunities for spreading information about the psychology of dreaming to a broad public audience. The primary driver of these opportunities has been the emergence of the worldwide web, which has radically transformed the way we communicate, teach, work, play, and interact. Virtually every researcher, sleep laboratory, and dream-related organization has a website providing access to a wealth of materials, enabling people from any place with an internet connection to learn about current findings in dream psychology. For example, the International Association for the Study of Dreams (IASD) sponsors online conferences, organizes collaborative research projects, and offers many ways for people to connect digitally with academics, clinicians, artists, etc. all over the world (www.asdreams.org). Many other groups in dream research and education link to each other through the IASD, creating an extensive network of therapists and practitioners from a wide variety of backgrounds.

Hunt, H. T. (1989). The multiplicity of dreams: Memory, imagination, and consciousness. Yale University Press. Page 4 Meanwhile, on an organizational level, the Sleep Research Society (srs) and its small cluster of researchers focusing on physiological, neurocognitive, and content analysis approaches to dreams have been supplemented by a more eclectic organization, the Association for the Study of Dreams (asp). Within ASD, a diverse group of Freudian, Jungian, existential, and other psychologists interested primarily in dream interpretation and “dreamwork” has banded together with others attempting to relate dreams to altered states of consciousness and transpersonal psychology, and a small number of srs experimenters.

Miller, J. (2017). Dream patterns: revealing the hidden patterns of our waking lives. Scotland : Findhorn Press. Page 154 The IASD is a scholarly association for the study of dreams, including dream interpretation, dreams in culture, creativity and dreams, the physiology of dreaming, and lucid dreaming. They publish two magazines and a newsletter, hold conferences (both traditional and online), and provide classes on dream work. Their website has many useful resources, including bibliographies, videos, podcasts, recordings from past conferences, and even images from dream art exhibitions.

DreamerMTB 86.129.93.134 (talk) 23:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll copy these across to the article's talk page, and have a look at them later. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 08:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have declined the first reference (author not independent, and not really that significant coverage). Have added the second and third references (with quotations: we can worry about wording and copyediting after this AfD). See article talk page section, and thanks again. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 11:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, try these archives of the pay-walled sources above: [15][16][17]
  Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Thank you very much for archiving these. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 08:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editors, Major art exhibition book published by Cornell University Press stating exhibition and book were endorsed by several scholarly societies, including the Association for the Study of Dreams.

Dreams 1900-2000: science, art and the unconscious Mind. Edited by Lynn Gamwell. Cornell University Press, 1999. Book of exhibition held in New York, Vienna and Paris (1999-2001).

Page n5 “The exhibition and book are sponsored by the Lucy Daniels Foundation, and have the endorsement of the American Psychoanalytic Association, American Psychiatric Association, Division 39 for Psychoanalysis of the American Psychological Association, American Psychological Association, Association for the Study of Dreams, International Psychoanalytical Association, and the World Psychiatric Association.”

Retrieved 25th February 2024 from https://archive.org/details/dreams19002000sc00unse/page/n5/mode/2up?q=%22Association+for+the+Study+of+Dreams%22

DreamerMTB 81.154.219.215 (talk) 18:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editors, The International Association for the Study of Dreams (1997) IASD Dreamwork Ethics Statement is cited as used in a 2014 paper on dream-sharing in the Journal of Tropical Psychology, published by Cambridge University Press. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-tropical-psychology/article/abs/dream-sharing-as-a-healing-method-tropical-roots-and-contemporary-community-potential/AB4122B8F8646BB8E184675C777F14A0 [apologies I can't access the full paper, link here goes to abstract and full reference list, latter includes IASD as author.] DreamerMTB 81.154.219.215 (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll look into these. Have copied these suggestions across to the article talk page. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 20:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Substantial analysis of the proposed source material would be quite helpful. Further walls of text would not be.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Probably the first and third Washington Post articles given a few comments above are about the organization or a conference they've put on. Rest is confirmation that they exist and provide funding for research. I think it's ok for notability now. Oaktree b (talk) 13:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: the sources founded by Esowteric provide enough coverage to prove notability. Rublamb (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2024 (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.

Grendel R31

Grendel R31 (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)

Pretty much all results for a search are brief hobbyist forums, and a couple entries in lists of auotomatic rifles. Appears to be mentioned in The Gun Digest Book of Guns for Personal Defense, but I can't access that. My guess is that even that mention is a brief aside, but even granting it substantive coverage that's only one source. Rusalkii (talk) 08:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Rusalkii (talk) 08:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Can't seem to find any secondary, reliable sources. Doesn't meet
  WP:NPRODUCT. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]