Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 13

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 Andy Stirling. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Politics of Uncertainty

The Politics of Uncertainty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I don't see much for this article being a standalone one. Can a redirect work here? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The book seemingly has reception, but that section is horribly written. I can't make out what "For ^[10] this volume illuminates" is supposed to mean. Geschichte (talk) 08:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to Andy Stirling, the co-editor, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives for deletion. Although the book is cited in numerous articles and books, I did not find book reviews or other significant coverage of the book in my searches for sources. The book does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria and Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

  A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 08:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for this input. I tried to improve the obscure paragraph noted by User:Geschichte. Other than that I regret that I have not much to add to what written in the talk page. The book is well cited as you note, and its presence on the pages of Wikipedia may encourage others to join the discussion on this important topic. Best! Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 05:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect as suggested by Cunard. I was able to access several of the citations in the "reception" section, but they are simple citations of the work, not reviews or a particular indication of lasting influence.
  • The first sentence, For[10] this volume illuminates how governments and private actors... is citing an article on the same topic, which says of this book nothing more than: STS scholars also argue that many governmental and organisational bodies (e.g. insurance) that attempt to deal with non-knowledge formulate uncertainty as risk and so, by rendering non-knowledge into calculable risk, reduce the world in particular ways that favour managerialism and de-emphasise other ways of knowing and living (Scoones & Stirling, 2020).
  • The second footnote in reception is a podcast, non-RS
  • The third footnote in reception, attached to the statement The book is cited in debates about sustainability transition and transformation refers to this sentence and footnote: Hence, the issue sometimes is not around changing policy for the better but instead fighting a malignant transformation [1], footnoting [1] At this juncture, we argue that it is important to embrace the inherent uncertainty in transformations and answer the questions put forth by Scoones and Stirling (2020) clearly before branding any transformation as benign or malign: ‘What methods, processes and mobilizations can tilt the balance towards more positive outcomes?'
  • The fourth footnote in reception has nothing in the source other than what's currently quoted in the article.

It's not nothing, but it's also not really enough coverage to write an effective article from. I don't think any of these sources actually provide information for a reception section -- they are just very brief summaries of the main points of the book. This is the sort of book that ought to be able to get two reviews. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect: This is usually the case. I support that. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to
  ATD. Sal2100 (talk) 18:05, 16 May 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.

Blanche Finlay

Blanche Finlay (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: Bands and musicians, Women, and Jamaica. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Agree with nom. Fails
  WP:GNG.MaskedSinger (talk) 11:39, 14 May 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miami International Holdings

Miami International Holdings (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: Companies and New Jersey. Shellwood (talk) 12:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. I've gone ahead to add several

WP:INDEPENDENT

references from Bloomberg, Reuters, Harvard Journal of Law & Technology.

I've also added segments that reference news coverage on some prolonged controversy and lawsuits involving other companies to meet substantial coverage requirements as per

WP:ORGDEPTH

, and how the firm has first-ever approval to operate a derivatives exchange for digital assets in the US.

Keep. With these changes, a majority of the 22 references should be

WP:AUD

, e.g. IPO, lawsuits from or against other major international corporations, provision of a major financial index.

- Cara Wellington (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Numerous independent and reliable sources providing significant coverage, including Bloomberg 1, Bloomberg 2, Bloomberg 3, WSJ, and S&PGMI. With these, it passes WP:ORGCRIT or GNG. (Editors should be sure the numerous press releases cited on the page are not supporting contentious material, though.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There is also this reference. I would also consider changing the page name to Miami International Securities Exchange since its the exchange that seems to get most of the coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the input. It's not a bad idea but I'd like to explain my reasoning. I had considered writing the initial article on Miami International Securities Exchange ("MIAX Options Exchange"), the original options exchange under MIH, however I ruled against it because:

  • MIAX Pearl Equities, Minneapolis Grain Exchange, Bermuda Stock Exchange, LedgerX, and the three other MIAX Exchange Group exchanges likely meet GNG and often require redirects to the parent company, which the MIAX Options Exchange is not.
  • There are 3, soon 4, MIAX options exchanges of nearly equal notability and coverage these days, and people usually think of them as a single unit, just as they think of BZX/BYX/EDGA/EDGX as one under Cboe Global Markets.
  • Exchanges often become antiquated and their names change frequently and this causes many editorial mistakes on WP. See for instance NYSE Arca and NYSE Euronext. It's more likely that the holding company MIH will outlive all of its subsidiary exchanges.

  I would instead suggest either (a) a stub for MIAX Exchange Group to encompass everything else or (b) changing the page name for MIAX Pearl Equities to MIAX Exchange Group instead. Cara Wellington (talk) 04:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of the other pages. Pinging @Scope creep: for an opinion as they did the BEFORE. Wondering if it should be merged into one of the exchanges already listed in Wikipedia. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I share @Dclemens1971's position in Afd (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MIAX Pearl Equities). There is enough coverage to separate parent company from several of its MIAX Exchange group of subsidiaries, just like there is enough coverage for Minneapolis Grain Exchange. Merging the two would be difficult due to coverage and content differences. Cara Wellington (talk) 07:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pulling this over from the Pearl Equities discussion, I also wish to point out that there's a long history of precedence on how these have been handled once the subsidiary exchange has reached

WP:GNG, even for exchanges that have shown lesser depth of independent references than MIAX Pearl Equities

has demonstrated. For example, but not limited to:

• NYSE National, NYSE Arca
• CME Group, NEX Group, Electronic Broking Services
• Japan Exchange Group, Tokyo Commodity Exchange
• Nasdaq, Nasdaq Vilnius, Nasdaq Copenhagen
• Deutsche Borse, European Energy Exchange

Exchanges frequently change ownership and this ends up becoming unmaintainable if you're constantly merging them upstream to their parent even after they've established any level of content independence.

That's why I strongly recommend a Keep over a merge. Cara Wellington (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it details the significant impact of the company on the financial markets, including the operation of multiple exchanges such as MIAX Options, which influence trading and market stability. Additionally, the company's innovative contributions to trading technology and its role in expanding the financial infrastructure warrant its inclusion as a notable subject on Wikipedia. --Assirian cat (talk) 09:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Perhaps @Scope creep can withdraw their nomination to end this more quickly? I note that they had already done that for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MIAX Pearl Equities which was nominated at the same time and for similar reasons, and further they seem to have been satisfied after this revision.

Maybe you can assist with me with what I was looking for above. Can you point out the references that meet

WP:ORGCRIT

? References for this particular entity, not the others.

Look at the sources I linked in my 6 May post above. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Dclemens1971. Cara Wellington (talk) 02:37, 20 May 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. There has not been much discussion despite two relistings. However, nobody is arguing to keep, so it's between delete and draftify. The lone draftify argument "in anticipation" seems a bit like crystal-balling. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023–24 Porsche Carrera Cup Middle East

2023–24 Porsche Carrera Cup Middle East (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)

Reviewed during NPP. Stats-only article for a season with no sources other than themselves about a series which doesn't have an article. GNG sourcing of the season per se is unfindable and unlikely to exist. The series itself would probably be a good topic for an article. But there is nothing here to move to it. North8000 (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 13:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The series are new. I'm guessing an offshoot of the Porsche Carrera Cup Germany? The lack of sources is dire, but are you sure none of this was written about? Geschichte (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First to reinforce, this article is not about the series, it's stats for 1 season of the series. There is no article for the series. On your question, I'm never sure that something doesn't exist but I looked and couldn't find any real coverage of the season, much less GNG coverage. North8000 (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The Porsche Carrera Cup Middle East could be notable, but I don't see enough coverage for this collection of stats. Cortador (talk) 12:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are some sources mentioning PCCME - Australians talking about Walls and Jones (here), or Middle Eastern sources referring to PCCME as a F1 or WEC support event (here). The series is notable as a support event on two Formula One events, as well as WEC support during 1st Bahrain round. Apart from that, a lot of notable drivers took part in the races including Theo Oeverhaus, Harry King, Harri Jones, Robert de Haan or F3 Charlie Wurz. The series doesn't have an article, as it's very new, but it may be created by me in coming days. So, I think that the season is notable enough to not delete the article. Maceekim (talk) 13:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of a parent topic isn't passed down to articles of the same topic. Cortador (talk) 13:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, seasons are not presumed notable under the SNG. So the the relevant definition of wp:notability is having suitable GNG coverage, not the elements which you are listing. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify in anticipation of the series article being created. It is new and looks pretty notable, and having this in draft space is completely fine. Geschichte (talk) 08:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there any more support for draftification?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:27, 13 May 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. The discussion on how to better organize this information can continue on some article Talk page or, even better, maybe a WikiProject Talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of listed buildings in Dundee

List of listed buildings in Dundee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

As noted by

List of listed buildings in Dundee/1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of listed buildings in Dundee/2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of listed buildings in Dundee/3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of listed buildings in Dundee/4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of listed buildings in Dundee/5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of listed buildings in Dundee/6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lastly, under the same argument that if article creator Multichill could not identify a rational way to split the hundreds of listed buildings in the civil parishes of Aberdeen, Edinburgh, and Glasgow, as they did when creating similar, smaller list articles through a combination of manual and bot editing in May 2012, then these massive list articles arbitrarily split across sub-pages should be similarly deleted. In talk page archives, Multichill received criticism from multiple editors for this approach to list creation, admitting that with hundreds of listed buildings in these four civil parishes, there is no clear way to present the content. None of these lists appear to be widely referenced in wikilinks, aside from their inclusion in their respective cities' navboxes.

List of listed buildings in Aberdeen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of listed buildings in Aberdeen/1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of listed buildings in Aberdeen/2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of listed buildings in Aberdeen/3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of listed buildings in Aberdeen/4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of listed buildings in Aberdeen/5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of listed buildings in Aberdeen/6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of listed buildings in Aberdeen/7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of listed buildings in Edinburgh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/10 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/11 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/12 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/13 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/14 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/15 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/16 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/17 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/18 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/19 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/20 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/21 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/22 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/23 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/24 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/25 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/26 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/27 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/28 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/29 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/30 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/31 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/32 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/33 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of listed buildings in Glasgow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of listed buildings in Glasgow/1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of listed buildings in Glasgow/2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of listed buildings in Glasgow/3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of listed buildings in Glasgow/4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of listed buildings in Glasgow/5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of listed buildings in Glasgow/6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of listed buildings in Glasgow/7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of listed buildings in Glasgow/8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of listed buildings in Glasgow/9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of listed buildings in Glasgow/10 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of listed buildings in Glasgow/11 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of listed buildings in Glasgow/12 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of listed buildings in Glasgow/13 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 20:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're comparing an European country with the USA when it comes to historic buildings? These are old cities with a long history and plenty of old buildings. Lists are more like List of New York City Designated Landmarks in Manhattan from 14th to 59th Streets.

Can you please clarify what part of

WP:NOTDATABASE

is "clearly violated"?

WP:NBUILDING

seems to apply if an article about every building would be created. These are lists and not lists of all buildings, only the ones that are listed. Each entry links to a page describing why it's listed. Lists of historic buildings are notable.

So the only thing left is how it is split up, I have a link for that one {{Sofixit}}.

@Dr. Blofeld and Nyttend: I think you worked on this back in the day. Multichill (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, I cited

WP:LISTPURP guideline to keep informational lists. Whereas Manhattan is a rectangular island amenable to demarcating landmarks by their street number, the next closest geographic distinguisher for these four Scottish cities appears to be postal codes, which adheres to the relevant AfD precedent (see below). Do you think this would work? BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 05:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello from Dundee! I would say that the arrangement of the Dundee lists really is pretty arbitrary - they bounce around the city at random, and they often don't use the common names for the buildings so it's hard to recognise what's what. Historic Environment Scotland is where I'd normally go to find this kind of information - it has maps, descriptions and often pictures. Maybe reducing the list to just the few buildings that are likely to have Wikipedia articles would make more sense? Adam Sampson (talk) 22:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. These are part of a comprehensive series of lists, nationwide (I believe) or common throughout the country. Deleting the lists for just a few bits of the UK would be preposterous. Moreover, for US lists, we typically subdivide by neighbourhood, or (if nothing else will work) by first letter: "List of listed buildings in Glasgow: A", etc. Nyttend (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  First, thanks for the work

  listed buildings! Looking through the AfD archives, I found WP:Articles for deletion/Listed buildings in Liverpool kept the list of Liverpool's >2500 listed buildings by splitting entries based on the city's 25 postal codes. The DD postcode area has eleven districts for Dundee, the AB postcode area has twelve districts within Aberdeen, the EH postcode area has twenty districts for Edinburgh, and the G postcode area has 57 for Glasgow and its surrounding towns. I think this approach to splitting will be more effective because many of the listed buildings are officially named with the address, rather than a distinct name of a former business or occupant. Thus, alphanumeric sorting and sub-division may result in confusion if consecutive entries between 1 Sample St and 2 Example Ave are on opposite ends of the city. Your thoughts? BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 05:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  The splitting is indeed not optimal (just last week, I added a few pictures for Edinburgh, and I had to spend quite some time to find in which lists the entries were), but this is not the reason to delete. I would advocate arranging the lists by street name alphabetically (smth like List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/A-B), and where it does not apply make a separate list. Ymblanter (talk) 06:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If there is a decision on alphabetical reordering, I would be willing to help. Ymblanter (talk) 07:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Nyttend. Listed buildings are notable and a tabled list is the way to go in cases where there isn't enough for an article. I would rather split the list alphabetically rather than number them though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Strange. When we have articles on individual listed buildings we're told by some editors they should be redirected to a list like this. And when a list like this is created we're told by other editors that we shouldn't have lists like this. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep unless replaced by a set of better organised lists - eg by council ward or Community Council Area. Alternatively could all the tables be put on a single page (not a single large table)? - but this may not meet other guidelines. These lists were very useful in the early days of Wiki Loves Monuments. Although there is now an upload tool linked to a map for the competition, it can still be useful to see listed buildings in an area (particularly in towns which only have a single list). AlasdairW (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for re-organisation – I had been planning to do so with Glasgow. Completely agree that the current divisions are arbitrary, illogical and do not aid navigation in any way. However, it is appropriate that such lists exist, and there are too many to keep them in a single article for cities of this size. I propose that these instead be split between council wards – not perfect as the boundaries can change (though there hasn't been much change since multi-member wards were created in 2007), and there will be great disparities between them (e.g a handful in Greater Pollok (ward) and hundreds in Hillhead (ward)), but it follows both consistency on this site, where non-urban areas have been divided geographically into civil parishes without much objection AFAIK, and on the British Listed Buildings website, which would in turn make it much easier to re-organise the entries with something to refer back to. There would also be a manageable number of articles. Open to suggestion on alternative criteria; alphabetical order is not ideal in my opinion as many of the entries begin with building numbers and are known by multiple names, in many cases it would still be very difficult for the average reader to find entries (or at least, it has been for me when I've had to do so), albeit I realise many also won't be familiar with what ward covers what area either, even in their home country / city. Crowsus (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  My suggestion was alphabetical order of the streets (which is also not ideal, because there are sometimes multiple streets, and sometimes none, but better that it is now). Wards are also fine but then someone should go ahead and propose the structure, I have no idea about wards of Edinburgh for example. Ymblanter (talk) 07:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @AlasdairW and @Crowsus, you both have suggested using ward boundaries, but I want to highlight that as recently as 2016, the Scottish government changed 25 ward boundaries, including in Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh, and Glasgow. Thus, not only is it quite difficult to figure out the associated ward for the thousands of sites we need to sort, but we would also lack an easy way to tell which listed buildings shifted into another ward as their boundaries change.

  @Dr. Blofeld and @Ymblanter, you both suggested alphabetizing by street name, but consider the two primary use cases for these lists. First, someone wants a directory of the listed buildings in Scottish cities where any sub-categorization method will suffice. Second, someone wants to know which listed buildings exist in their area, in which case we need a sub-categorization method forced on the site's geographic position. Thus, I want to reiterate that sub-categorizing by postal codes seems like the simplest solution because their boundaries have minimally changed, and even if they change, the mismatch between the list entry and updated maps would be immediately apparent for fixing. Given that these sub-lists already include the coordinates, it seems like a simple process to find their postal code on Google Maps. As previously noted, the listed buildings in Liverpool page showcases that this approach is feasible. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 16:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  But imagine I have a building in Edinburgh and I have the street address, can I easily convert it to a postal code? Ymblanter (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, at random I have chosen the 18th entry on List of listed buildings in Edinburgh/18, which is "St Bernard's Crescent 1 And 12 Leslie Place." Plugging the entry's listed coordinates into Google Maps, I get a matching pin over 1 Leslie Place that Google Maps tells me is within the EH4 postal code. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 18:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In my opinion, using the postcode would be the slowest method, as the Historic Scotland listings do not include this so it would have to be done for every single building. By contrast, the street name is already in the listing in most cases so at least that would be quicker. For the wards, as I've said, British Listed Buildings already subdivided the buildings into council area, then into (post-2016) ward, so it would be a lot more straightforward to organise them. If the postcode option is favoured by the majority, I would suggest using those lists as a starting point as obviously most of the wards have some correlation with postal districts (I think Govan (ward) and the G51 postcode are pretty much the same boundaries) so it would make the task slightly easier than working through the randomised list articles we have currently. Crowsus (talk) 23:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That link is currently returning error messages for me on both Microsoft Edge and Firefox. Were you able to access it today? BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 01:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah it worked fine for me now (Desktop, Edge browser / link created from mobile, Chrome). Crowsus (talk) 06:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, the site is working for me now! For Dundee, it reports that 287 listed buildings are in the Ferry Ward, 404 listed buildings are in the West End Ward, and 471 listed buildings are in the Maryfield Ward. I think that 250 listed buildings is the limit of readability, so I would argue that sub-division by ward does not work here, but I suppose we need numbers for comparison, so I will try to see how Dundee's listed buildings split by zip code when I return from a trip tomorrow. Thanks for your input! BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 12:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Unfortunately the zip/postcode situation will be similar, Dundee only has 5 postcodes for the whole city and splitting them up into sub-codes beyond that (DD1 2--, DD1 3-- etc) would be bewildering even to locals IMO. Perhaps alphabetical would be the best option, as any geographic division in all cases would skew towards probably-unmanageably high numbers for the city centre, with other occasional spikes at other historic areas (e.g around University of Glasgow campus = 843 buildings in its ward, which is only covered by parts of 3 postcodes). Crowsus (talk) 13:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Out of curiosity, I don't necessarily disagree with a 250 limit, but is that some kind of site technical/guideline or your own judgement? AFAIK, List of Category A listed buildings in Glasgow contains all the relevant sites, which according to British Listed Buildings should be 795. Crowsus (talk) 13:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:SPLITLIST does not specify a limit, so I used ~250 as a rough threshold for readability when the individual entries are fairly short. While British Listed Buildings notes 795 Category A sites in Glasgow, only 282 of them are in the associated article, and if that article were updated/improved to include all of the Category A sites, I suspect there would be consensus to sub-divide it too. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 13:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Ah sorry, the discrepancy is probably due to that website counting each individual building that forms part of a listing, while the WP article goes by one entry per HES listing (which is the correct way IMO) - for example, #774 and #775 on BLB are both for Trades House, and the link for both entries ties to a common HES page, #LB32713. Not sure why they have done it that way, surely its more straightforward for them to stick with the divisions HES decided on?? Anyway, that's not our problem, although probably makes it slightly trickier for us as otherwise it's a useful cross-reference for these lists. PS Sorry just spotted this was now closed. Crowsus (talk) 22:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A mess, but a fixable mess. I think there is a community consensus that these types of lists are generally notable for geographic regions with significant historical records.  // Timothy :: talk  16:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep even if not all listed buildings are notable these lists seem appropriate per
  WP:NLIST and provide us a place to discuss listed buildings that aren't notable enough for their own article and yes the fact the likes of Dundee have been split are simply because these parishes contain many listed buildings so would be too large for a single list. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:28, 16 May 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.

Arkadia Joint Lyceum

Arkadia Joint Lyceum (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)

Local high school in Finland fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Finland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Finland. Owen× ☎ 20:19, 13 May 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.

Democratic Party for the Development of Carchuna

Democratic Party for the Development of Carchuna (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 couldn't find evidence it meets

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Spain. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:18, 13 May 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 Milroy Goes#Filmography. Owen× ☎ 00:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Victim (2012 film)

The Victim (2012 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination

)

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

The film seems to lack notability, as there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. The current sources in the article are mere announcements of its release and rely solely on statements from the film's producer. Despite being released in 2012, the film failed to garner any reviews. Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, India, and Goa. GSS ^💬 19:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Milroy Goes#Filmography: if the fact/claim that this is supposedly the first digital Konkani feature is irrelevant, that is. (https://www.heraldgoa.in/Cafe/Good-days-ahead-for-Goan-cinema/108329, to back that claim but various other apparently reliable sources mention that) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Milroy Goes#Filmography. CharlesWain (talk) 09:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Milroy_Goes#Filmography. RangersRus (talk) 14:18, 14 May 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!} 22:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shah Sharabeel

Shah Sharabeel (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)

So, the BLP claims the subject is a DIREVTOR, but it appears the only thing he's directed is some show called "Twins Apart" The issue I'm seeing is that the coverage about this show is mostly in The News, like this, this and this. And per WP:SIGCOV, multiple publications from the same author or organization usually count as a single source, so at most, they count as one source. And I did find coverage on his show in other RS such as the Express Tribune like this, but nothing else. Also, it appears he has only directed this one show, which received some coverage in RS. So, is merely directing one show enough to pass WP:NDIRECTOR? Seems like a very ROTM DIRECTOR to me. This also raises the question: if anyone just directs a drama and gets some press coverage on it, do they automatically qualify for a Wikipedia BLP?

No offense to the creator of this page, of course but only a UPE would bother creating a BLP for such a ROTM director. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First of all Saqib, i am not a UPE, and don't get personal everytime by calling this term without any evidence as admin has already warned you multiple times. Secondly if it is a case of UPE, then why the article is stub and with that much less data. You can check history i never added material or promotional tone after creation.

As to why i voted delete, I saw his work in a theatre and created his page after checking coverage in RS. Anyways, Did'nt even remembered him since then. Although he still has a coverage on reliable sources but i dont think theatre actor can have a wikipidea article & i am not a UPE who will be affected after deletion. Libraa2019 (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Theatre. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Libraa2019 I didn't explicitly call you or anyone a UPE. I simply mentioned that only a UPE might create a BLP for a ROTM director, so no need to stress about it. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 23:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- lack of sigcov of more than one notable work. Happy to change my vote if someone discovers a ref that give a good description of his directing or acting. BTW, the article doesn't even say that he is an actor, so I deleted the assertion from the IB and categories. Is he? If so, the article should say so. And the refs should go immediately after the fact that they are verifying, rather than all lumped together. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:36, 14 May 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.

Compugoal College

Compugoal College (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)

It exists but I don't think it meets

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Kenya. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable subject for Wikipedia --Improvised but so real unicorn (talk) 15:12, 16 May 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. Owen× ☎ 00:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of movie theaters

List of movie theaters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This appears to be an underinclusive and unnecessary duplication of Category:Cinemas and movie theaters by country, which includes many more theaters which are not on this list. I don't believe this page is particularly useful as a stand-alone list. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is an absurdly incomplete list. Taking France as an example, the creator seems to think that Paris is all there is in France, unaware that the oldest cinema still in operation after 125 years, is in La Ciotat (https://edencinemalaciotat.com/le-plus-ancien-cinema-du-monde/). Similar problems apply in other countries, for example Chile, which apparently has just one cinema, though I saw Jurassic Park and The Color Purple in two different ones. Even if the list was made complete it would still be pointless. Athel cb (talk) 15:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is obviously only a list of notable movie theaters that have articles because they are historic or otherwise significant, which is a typical criterion for SALs. It needs some clean-up and is likely missing many, but I don't think we have an article on the oldest theater in La Ciotat so of course it's not on here. Reywas92^Talk 16:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    OK. I failed to notice the qualification "notable enough for Wikipedia articles," but it's still a ridiculous list. You are right that there is no "article on the oldest theater in La Ciotat", but there damn well should be. Athel cb (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps you could make it? Then we should consider how List of oldest cinemas is not an article, but certainly notable. Conyo14 (talk) 22:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps I will, but I'm not sure my knowledge is sufficient. La Ciotat is about 45 minutes drive from where I live (at least, it would be if I still drove significant distances). I've passed the Eden Cinema, but I've never been inside. Athel cb (talk) 17:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I would note that Category:Cinemas and movie theaters by country is, of course, organized by country -- which is how this list is organized too. The difference is that there are a number of cinemas which Wikipedia has articles about, but which are not listed here on List of movie theaters. So this list is trying to fulfill the same function as Category:Cinemas and movie theaters by country, but not as well since it doesn't include all of the movie theaters that already have Wikipedia articles. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve. With some work and dedication it has the potential to be an informative list of historical/notable theaters. Archives908 (talk) 01:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm kind of leery of a page like this, though. The amount of work it would need to maintain would be kind of exhausting. I think that a far more manageable option would be for the page to limit itself to something like "oldest movie theater" by country, with the further requirement being that the theater would either have to be still operational OR the building itself would still have to be standing, in the case of a company that's now defunct but the building still stands. Otherwise this is a page that could potentially contain hundreds upon thousands of theaters. It would also be kind of prone to people coming around to list their mini (non-notable) theater as well. I'm not using that as an argument to delete mind you, just say that a page like this needs to be more limited out of necessity to make it more encyclopedic. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Allows an organised overview with photographs and notes, which a category cannot do. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename to Lists of cinemas: LISTCRUFT with an impossibly broad scope but if renamed it could be a set index for Category:Lists of cinemas.  // Timothy :: talk  14:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Reasonable index/navigational aid which doesn't duplicate a category per
  WP:NOTDUP. That said, I'm sympathetic to the idea that such a broad list presents a challenge to maintain, but I don't know just how often we get notable individual movie theaters and there's always the possibility of spinning out country-based lists. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:42, 20 May 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plunder of Murshidabad (1742)

Plunder of Murshidabad (1742) (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: History, Military, Bangladesh, and India. Imperial^[AFCND] 09:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep-Look, this article has already been accepted by the admin, and that's proof of its notability. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Akshunwar#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation:_Plunder_of_Murshidabad_(1742)_has_been_accepted] Even in Reliable Sources, this event receives significant coverage: 1. {{tq|In 1742 Maratha general Bhaskar Ram invaded Bengal and surrounded the Nawab at Burdwan, but he escaped. The Marathas plundered Murshidabad, the capital of the Nawab, and secured a booty of about 2 crores of rupees. They captured Orissa.}}<ref>{{Cite book |last=Vaish |first=Devi Charan Lal |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=wvcgAAAAMAAJ&newbks=0&hl=en |title=The Rise of British Power and the Fall of Marathas |date=1972 |publisher=Upper India Publishing House |language=en}}</ref>

2. The nawabi had since 1740 been ruled by a Turkish adventurer, Alivardi Khan, who had, from the abundant treasury at Murshidabad, sent two crores of rupees to Delhi to secure his nomination as nawab. The British found him ready to sustain the conditions in which business flourished, but he was no match for the Marathas, who swept into Bengal in April 1742 and plundered Murshidabad. Their outfliers caused panic in Calcutta where the Company began to dig the Maratha ditch to keep them out. For the next seven years the golden province of Bengal was afflicted by roving armies, until Alivardi Khan bought off the Marathas by paying chauth of 12 lakhs of rupees a year. The merchants of Calcutta trembled, but one merchant in Bengal saw only advantage in the weakness of formerly powerful Mughal princes in the face of Maratha attack.

3. <ref>{{Cite book |last=Cavaliero |first=Roderick |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=BxKJDwAAQBAJ&newbks=0&hl=en |title=Strangers in the Land: The Rise and Decline of the British Indian Empire |date=2002-06-28 |publisher=Bloomsbury Publishing |isbn=978-0-85771-707-8 |language=en}}</ref>

4. There are already articles on Wikipedia which are based on the place name where the event took place and this doesn't violate WP:OR. Akshunwar (talk) 22:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- Several historic books use the exact phrasing "Plunder of Murshidabad", which dispels the notion that it is original research. Some of these are History of Orissa: From the Earliest Times to the British Period (1980) and Bengal, Past & Present Journal of the Calcutta Historical Society (1934).Vinegarymass911 (talk) 17:17, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Vinegarymass911's findings. Courtesy mentioning @ToadetteEdit as you reviewed the draft at AFC, you could probably provide some thoughts. X (talk) 08:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – passes notability guidelines, per above !votes. Toadette^Edit! 23:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Reliable sources from some historians like
  WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 13:38, 17 May 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.

Stefan G. Rasmussen

Stefan G. Rasmussen (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: People, Aviation, and Denmark. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm not familiar with the Danish system of government, but the fact that this person served in the national parliament for four years appears to meet
  WP:NPOL. RecycledPixels (talk) 20:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Passes
  WP:NPOL as a member of the Danish parliament. Here are additional sources which should be added to the article: [5][6]. Curbon7 (talk) 02:33, 14 May 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.

Germany, Indiana

Germany, Indiana (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)

Another spot back-entered to the topos from that 1870s atlas; Baker is really the only source besides that, which hasn't proven good enough. I tried looking for this in Baird's history of the county, but there are over a thousand occurrences of the word, so that was hopeless. Mangoe (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Baird [7] was very unimpressed with this place, as am I, see pg 86.James.folsom (talk) 23:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more policy-based discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:13, 13 May 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!} 22:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revenge of the Killer Robots from Hell

Revenge of the Killer Robots from Hell (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 sources below do not provide the necessary

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG, no reviews found. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Some brief mentions in print magazines but nothing what I would call significant coverage: [8], [9], [10], [11]. --Mika1h (talk) 07:59, 14 May 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 no consensus‎. Editors remain divided between keep, delete, and two different merge options after two relists and extensive discussion. It is possible that further discussion on a talk page may consolidate a case for a merge, but at this time I do not see any consensus emerging from this AfD. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Computer network naming scheme

Computer network naming scheme (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)

It's self-evident that people who have a bunch of computers and want to assign them names according to some sort of system do so, and that the systems are completely arbitrary, and that they are often inconsistently followed, and that people who aren't into naming systems either don't give them names or pick an arbitrary name each time if they have to. It's just not a subject, period, much less encyclopedic. Mangoe (talk) 23:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article is poorly written as is, and shouldn't focus so much on personal naming schemes, but the topic is definitely encyclopedic. The
  GNU Name System, and naming systems for Content centric networking (e.g. [12]). There needs to be an article on the general topic. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Is there even a name for this class of things? If I search for this exact phrase, I get six GHits, which either make no sense or still seem to depend on this WP article. Also, it seems to me that

WP:TNT, I'm not convinced that this article name is the proper stating point, or even that thee is a thing to write an article about. Mangoe (talk) 22:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

"Naming system" or "Network naming" might be a better title. I trimmed out most of the unsourced content and added a bit more content with a source that discusses network naming systems in general. There are definitely other sources that could be used (e.g. [13]). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge per [14] and [15], or at the very least merge to
  Computer networks. Conyo14 (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I can see how those sources count toward verifiability, but not really towards notability. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Significant coverage in reliable sources (RFCs etc.). Also
  WP:DEMOLISH. ~Kvng (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I tend to think that there is a subject here, and that this could be demonstrated from text books (although maybe the subject is actually hierarchical naming schemes). But

  WP:DEMOLISH surely can't apply to a 20 year old article. And RFCs are a primary source, and RFC 2100 is actually a joke - one of a series of 1 April RFCs. I considered whether the subject is really DNS, but no - naming schemes exist in other spaces and domains too. LDAP, for instance. But what makes the scheme notable is likely the addition of structure. Ad hoc naming is not an independently notable subject. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Totally agree that DEMOLISH does not apply here. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article needs to be improved, but it definetly can be and is notable. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge I just don't see any evidence that this is a sufficiently notable subject for a stand-alone article. Mangoe's nomination puts it very well, the smattering of coverage that has been brought up here doesn't seem to me to demonstrate the notability of the subject. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not seeing how this is distinctly and coherently notable. It seems all of this info is better covered within its particular context at namespace? JoelleJay (talk) 22:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I would be fine with a redirect to directory service, per Sirfurboy. JoelleJay (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Directory service. This one is tricky, but one thing I do believe is that the page should not be kept as it is. It has been around 20 years and it has not really settled on any independently notable subject. But a redirect to namespace, which seems like a good idea, is perhaps not the best as the namespaces that page primarily talks about are concerned with coding. Network naming gets talked about in various texts, but usually with respect to naming services and distributed systems. For instance Forouzan's Data Communication and Networking [16], page 910 in the fifth edition, discusses naming but in the context of the discussion of the DNS. The notable subject is the directory service, and the directory service page also links to namespace. Naming a computer is no more notable than naming anything else as a concept in itself, but naming computers in a manner that allows for distributed systems to uniquely identify nodes is indeed a notable subject, and there are plenty of papers and discussions of this. Indeed, whole books about it. So I think a redirect to Directory Service is suitable. There is, perhaps, a spinout page from Directory Services that is possible - an analysis of naming schemes (LDAP has a lot of literature on that) but I don't think this title is quite right for that, and as a result the content of this page is trying to be one thing and also another. If this were kept, I would want it kept on the basis it would be renamed and appropriately focussed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't see the directory service article when looking for existing articles. A redirect seems like a good idea. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more discussion about the merge/redirect target
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]