Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 February 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 8 February	10 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional television shows

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

Poorly sourced list, filled with unnotable examples. Most of the works listed on the page make only a brief appearance in the work where they appear, and have very little importance to the plot. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. All similar lists have either already been deleted or are in the process of being deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional musicals and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional books (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional plays (2nd nomination). JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 22:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 22:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a 5th-nomination is rare, but consensus does change. Just because something is mentioned does not mean it is notable enough to be put in a list. I am surprised we do not have a sub-section on ones from books.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The topic of fictional television shows is notable, as established by some of the sources in this list. However, an exhaustive list of examples is trivia and, quite possibly, original research. If some criteria for inclusion (beyond verifiable existence) could be established I might change my position. Pburka (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^Talk? 23:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This seems like it should be a category, at best. Shelbystripes (talk) 01:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Like Pburka said, the actual topic of fictional television shows is probably notable, and I would have no problem with a well-sourced article on that. A list of every minor example of a fictional television show like this, however, is completely WP:INDISCRIMINATE and fails WP:LISTN. Rorshacma (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Amazing that it went through 5 AfDs already without getting deleted. Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:LISTN._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It was hard to delete things back in 2007, unless it was an unsourced autobiography.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It was a Survivor: Wikipedia, but now the tribe has spoken. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC) [reply]
Delete finally, please Chetsford (talk) 23:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Louvre Surabaya

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

The team does not satisfy general notability with only one source, which proves that the team exists. Teams are not necessarily covered by sports notability, but this team is not in one of the leagues that is considered premier under basketball notability. That is, sports notability doesn't apply, but wouldn't apply.

Notability tag has been unchallenged for two years. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's hard to tell because the only articles I could find are in Indonesian, but the only news coverage I could find was WP:ROUTINE. I also couldn't find anything non-routine using the former names presented in the article. Bait30 ^Talk? 23:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Many Surabaya-related topics need attention, due to high level of hoax, fabrication & notability issues. 20:05, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Billy Hughes (footballer, born 1865). Fenix down (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William Hughes (footballer, born 1865)

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

I tried to merge this to 1893–94 Liverpool F.C. season like with James Henderson (footballer, born 1870) and Wally Richardson (footballer), but GiantSnowman told me to take it to AFD. Still, this should be merged. ミラ P 21:36, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 21:36, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 21:36, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 21:36, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL. It is not standard to merge player articles into club/season articles. According to this Hughes played League football for Bootle as well. Giant Snowman 21:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: But you've voted delete on footballers with similar careers mentioning that GNG is "more important than scraping by on NFOOTBALL for one appearance": Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artyom Alimchev / Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman Grokhin / Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magomed Muzayev / Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erik Németh / Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yevgeni Nosov (footballer) / Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Semir Sadović / Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maito Santos / Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalla Toure. This fails GNG and should be merged. ミラ P 23:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why would the article on Hughes be merged into the Liverpool season article? He also played professionally for Bootle. I can confirm when I am at home tonight and have access to my reference books exactly how many games he played for them, but it seems pretty clear that he made more than one professional appearance in his career, so a merge into one specific club/season article doesn't seem appropriate....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will confirm/investigate further tonight, but after some further Googling I now believe this player is in fact the same man as Billy Hughes (footballer, born 1865), who played international football for Wales.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked Michael Joyce's Football League Players' Records 1888-1939 book, and the William/Billy Hughes who played for Bootle played 22 times for them. Joyce doesn't list him as playing for Liverpool, but does list Abel Hughes as playing once. The LFC History reference in William Hughes' article says that this is a misattribution and should relate to William Hughes (supported by this, which indicates that Abel Hughes didn't sign for Liverpool until some months after the match in question). If we accept that this is correct and combine it with the fact that the same reference says that William Hughes of Liverpool had previously captained Bootle then that means that the William Hughes who played once for Liverpool and the Billy Hughes who played 22 times for Bootle must indeed be one and the same. The articles should therefore be merged...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Billy Hughes (footballer, born 1865), who is clearly the same chap. Also via Kjell Hansson's site, the Liverpool Mercury 1893/94 season preview suggests that "Billy Hughes, late captain of Bootle, will be found assisting Liverpool when the season commences". The Cricket and Football Field newspaper of 2 September 1893 reckons that "Liverpool F.C. did well in securing one of our oldest local players, 'Billy' Hughes, of Bootle that once was." And the Liverpool Echo report of the match against Northwich Victoria in February 1894 names "W. Hughes". As Chris points out above, Abel Hughes didn't sign for them until the end of the 1893/94 season. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Billy Hughes (footballer, born 1865). Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge ٌWhen there is this article Billy Hughes (footballer, born 1865) it should merge into it.Alex-h (talk) 09:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Billy Hughes (footballer, born 1865). Why has no one done this before? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Merge Obviously notable, obvious duplicate, let's just be bold and do this now. Smartyllama (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2020 (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 (A7, G11). (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Gray

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

Non notable rapper. No independent coverage found. b uidhe 20:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. b uidhe 20:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. b uidhe 20:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:A7. Hog Farm (talk) 20:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:47, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The person who created this has been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. If there are further edits to this topic, consider opening a report on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rudolph Gray. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Per A7. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Global Child Prodigy Awards

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

Does not meet WP:NOTE, seems to be a promotion for a [so-far] one off event without criteria for awards or any appropriate significance - a sort of nominate-yourself talent show with a pretentious name. Smerus (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable award ceremony was held which honoured 100 prodigies from all over the world. News coverage is there from all countries. Looks fine to me, just need copy editing though and a few arrangements. Thank you.L2pkpandey (talk) 09:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: L2pkpandey (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]

Comment. WP article Child prodigy has the sourced and cited definition "A child prodigy is defined in psychology research literature as a person under the age of ten who produces meaningful output in some domain to the level of an adult expert." There is no evidence that the 100 children involved here meet this definition (and a number are over the age of ten). This WP article under discussion lends the event credibility to which it is not entitled. By the way, L2pkpandey, please do not delete sourced and cited information in the article without discussing first on the article talk page.--Smerus (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/L2pkpandey.--Smerus (talk) 10:46, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional article on promotional event, using a remarkably expansive interpretation of "child prodigy" which properly means a child who can do as well as an adult, , but a child who can do something as well as an adult expert . It does not appear to me that any of the people listed in the article come anywhere near qualifying, which makes the hwole thing a PR stunt. The only sources likel yto report such stunts are PR themselves, because there is no reason any genuine news source would pay the least attention. All newspapers,m even the most reputable, dexcend occasionally to publsihing PR, but most of the ones included here as references are particularly notorious for it. DGG ( talk ) 10:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: you must be interested to see this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/L2pkpandey. GSS ^💬 05:46, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

what you say there does indeed account for it. DGG ( talk ) 09:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & DGG. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete the awards dont have significant coverage in reliable sources, I got similar experience with sources like DGG described above. According to their official website, and wikipedia article not clarify the nature of the organization's structure, the source of its funding, its corporate status or the criteria used to assess 'prodigies'. An award for revenue, and publicity for the kids. Non notable though. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:52, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find significant coverage about the event itself on independent sources. Then checking what's presented in the article, after discounting the links directly associated with the event and the unrelated academic articles that discuss the scope of the term "child prodigy", I found only links to human interest stories on the kids that won the award. Unsurprisingly, these stories don't touch much on the event itself, focusing instead on the kids. So this is a promotional article on an event that fails WP:GNG. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:12, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Texas cracker

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

This page was created by an editor who was blocked for purposely adding incorrect information. The creation of the page appears to be an attempt to create a new neologism in order to push a non-NPOV agenda.

While creating the page, the now-blocked editor deliberately introduced factual errors. In [1] (He called the book title "Cracker: Cracker Culture in Texas History" when the actual title is "Cracker: The Cracker Culture in Florida History"[2]. This appears to be an attempt to fool new page patrollers regarding sourcing for the Texas cracker page.

I see zero evidence that this page meets the requirements of WP:GNG. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The blocked user is now using sockpuppets. See 2600:1702:760:BC20:48AA:EAFB:A204:E256 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). ---- especially the filter log. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as a WP:NEO. Cracker (term) is quite sufficient. (However, Georgia cracker is a well-known phrase and Florida cracker seems to have a few reliable sources~~, so they should redirect to the term article~~.) Clarityfiend (talk) 20:41, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, first and last sections are copied from Florida Cracker, the middle section is just a word-for-word copy of Cowboy. Imaginary WP:OR - no one here uses the term. The alteration of sources indicates a further intention to deceive; not new for this editor. Kuru (talk) 03:36, 12 February 2020 (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. Sandstein 10:12, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mbasakana

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

Too short, merge into List of islands of Solomon Islands. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 08:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest we have an article on Malu'u, a village on the coast nearby and mention the island in that, I couldn't find anything on the island.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:NGEO - "Legally recognized, populated places are presumed to be notable." I'm basing my belief it is populated on using googlemaps to see houses on the island, not fussed to be proven wrong on that. "Too short" doesn't seem like a great rationale for deletion to me, although I would note the second ref appears to locate the place wrongly. If merging I would suggest merge to Malaita Province.Mujinga (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Malu'u. I've created an article on the village nearby. This small island only has a line of info available for it in google books, what we have is written in that article. I strongly suggest redirecting now Mujinga.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's been written about in Lonely Planet and a couple other books per a simple Google search. English sources aren't easy to come by, but it's clearly an island on which people live and we do function as a gazetteer. SportingFlyer T·C 09:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No good reason given for deletion. Stubs are perfectly acceptable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What about the first point of WP:WHYN? “If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list.” 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Never actually seen that at a deletion discussion before, but we tend to keep stubs of geographic places, especially considering this one could be expanded a bit even though online sources are sparse. SportingFlyer T·C 00:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And how do you know that "only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject"? Not yet having been written does not equate to cannot be written, although that does seem to be a common misconception. Wikipedia is a work in progress. That's why stubs are valid. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm one of the most enthusiastic editors here with regard to making this cover the world in as much detail as possible but even I think it makes most sense to mention this tiny island in the nearby village article. If at some point sources become available for it, then write an article on it. 11 years and there is still nothing about it, there is no issue with redirecting it to the bottom of Malu'u. We're ultimately trying to build the highest quality encyclopedia and convey information in the best way possible.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Article is short and needs more information but still satisfies WP:NGEO. Alex-h (talk) 10:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. After two full relistings, no consensus for a specific outcome has occurred in this discussion. This discussion is being closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination, per relatively low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Greif

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

WP:BLP of a high school teacher, not reliably sourced as the subject of enough reliable source coverage to get over WP:GNG. The notability claim here is that he won awards, but neither of them are "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have been covered by real media -- but the only references here are primary sources which are not support for notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 04:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is listed in the academic deletion discussion list, but WP:PROF does not really apply to him; I think, for high school teachers, all we have to go on is WP:GNG. So it's not the level of the awards that we should be looking at, but their coverage. I've added more and more-independent sources, most of them with in-depth coverage (the CBC one is not in-depth). I think it now shows that he passes that criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:28, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The references you've added include a non-independent source (Ontario College of Teachers) that is not support for notability because he's directly affiliated with it; two glancing mentions of his existence in sources whose primary subjects are other people, and thus don't speak to Mel Greif's notability as they aren't about Mel Greif; and a 79-word blurb that is not substantive. The only source you've added that's actually starting to get us somewhere is the Globe and Mail piece, but that doesn't get us to the finish line all by itself if it's the only substantive and reliable source about Mel Greif that can be shown. GNG is not just "content can be found on the web with his name in it": it requires the sources to be independent of him, deprecating the self-published content of directly affiliated organizations; and it requires the sources to be about him, deprecating brief mentions of his name in sources whose primary subjects are other things or people who aren't him; and it requires the sources to be substantive coverage, deprecating short blurbs. Bearcat (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When all teachers in the entire province of Ontario belong to an organization, his membership in it is de minimis compared to the prominence of coverage they have given to him. It's as if you were saying that we could not use any US-based newspaper to source stories about citizens of the US, because the sources are from a group the subjects belong to. It's taking the rules as more important than the intent behind the rules, and then greatly exaggerating parts of those rules that are disconnected from that intent. Additionally, the Spacing magazine coverage is primary only for the claim that he was given the Jacobs Prize; everything else in its (substantive) article about him is secondary. We don't pretend that in-depth magazine articles about a subject are unusable merely because the magazine also gave him a prize as well as writing an in-depth article about him; the prize plus the article is more than, not less than, the article would be without the prize. And for the part that the article is not secondary for, the prize itself, we have another source as well. And when you write "that can be shown", you are incorrect, unless that was an inaccurate way of writing "that has been shown", because more can be shown than already had been. In particular, he is also covered in non-trivial detail in the 2016 Encyclopedia of Bohemian and Czech-American Biography. (I didn't find this earlier because it uses a different form of his first name. And it is self-published, but nevertheless looks authoritative.) —David Eppstein (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's absolutely nothing like saying that "we could not use any US-based newspaper to source stories about citizens of the US" — it's like saying that we can't use a non-media organization's own self-published blog content about its own members as a priori evidence of those members' notability to the world at large, which is not the same thing as deprecating real media. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing in this article is remotely notable. Dorama285 19:34, 07 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that word means what you think it means. Notability, on Wikipedia, is almost completely unrelated to significance, and is about available sourcing, not the contents of the article. You appear to be trying to say that nothing in the article is significant, but that's not what we're deciding here. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't been shown that he's notable in the "available sourcing" sense, either. Bearcat (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:33, 9 February 2020 (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. The coverage must be considered coming from independent sources, and so the consensus seems to be that the article does not fail WP:GNG for that reason. There is clearly no consensus to delete but several editors suggest a merge to 2004 Atlantic hurricane season. Before such a merger is carried out is should be discussed at that talk page. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 10:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Danielle (2004)

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

No damages, no fatalities, fails WP:NOTABILITY. Merge with 2004 AHS. 14 years have passed since the previous AFD, and notability guidelines have since become stricter. -- Java Hurricane 08:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2004 Atlantic hurricane season Bobherry Talk Edits 14:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we do not set our own notability policy in regards to how many people have to die or how many properties have to be destroyed for an incident to merit a standalone article. If that was the case many articles would not exist or we would be having any article based on our own biased personal taste. We use our notability guidelines to determine whether an article deserves a standalone article. The incident received wide coverage from plenty of reliable secondary sources, and notability is not temporary. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 14:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Care to elaborate how it fails WP:N? I have my own thoughts on this matter (though quite frankly AFD isn't the appropriate place for this unless things have changed radically since I paid serious attention) but I want to have this discussion first. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this caused no damage anywhere and was not meteorologically important either. Since Wikipedia is not Hurricane Wiki, Danielle should not have an article as it is not notable enough. -- Java Hurricane 03:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also checked for sources on Google, but no news outlets or reporters had information for the storm. I only found some scientific sites discussing imagery and some Hypothetical Hurricanes Wiki pages. Clearly we don't have enough secondary sources for this storm. -- Java Hurricane 04:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "no damage" and "not meteorologically important" is not a valid reason for removal (and I'd argue the reverse is true) for reasons I can elaborate on. As for the issue of secondary sources, it's somewhat of a trap. There are plenty of secondary sources available just because most hurricanes in this part of the world starting in the 90s got some coverage while the storm was active, so technically you are incorrect. I should also note that I'd argue it is false to say "notability guidelines have become stricter" as someone who has been editing for 12 years and has a good idea what Wikipedia was like in the couple years before that. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 04:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which doesn't discount the fact that the article is based on 10 sources, all of which are from the NHC. -- Java Hurricane 04:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that all 10 sources come from the NHC is a somewhat arbitrary decision. If a few news sources were introduces in replace of some of the info that the NHC also provided, it'd by a very literal definition make this article pass WP:N instead of not passing it otherwise. In reality I don't think what types of sources are included makes a difference here when said sources provide the same information, so I'd argue evaluate the subject. Of course, that makes basically every tropical cyclone eligible for an article, which for reaosns I'll explain later on is a mistake, and is also why I think WP:N in this project is often a trap. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 05:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem being that no news/independent sources could be found for this page. -- Java Hurricane 06:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Google Algorithms have gotten worse over the last few years but I've been doing this long enough to know that's false as with the case of any modern day tropical cyclone. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 08:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"no independent sources" is not valid as a complaint here. The hurricane itself is not a commercial entity benefiting from promotional coverage in Wikipedia. The NHC, whatever that is, is entirely separate from the hurricane itself. --Doncram (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sorry, nom. I've overlooked the WP:MUSTBEDEATHSTOBENOTABLE guideline. The Encyclopedia of Hurricanes has significant coverage. [3]Oakshade (talk) 04:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2004 Atlantic hurricane season - There's no evidence of WP:LASTING notability (and, by the way, LASTING literally gives non-destructive storms as their example of not having lasting notability:
Events that have a noted and sourced permanent effect of historical significance are likely to be notable. This includes, for example, natural disasters that result in widespread destruction, since they lead to rebuilding, population shifts, and possible impact on elections. For example, Hurricane Katrina or the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake are notable by these standards. A minor earthquake or storm with little or no impact on human populations is probably not notable.

Saying "notability is not temporary" confuses the issue. Even if there is "coverage from reliable secondary sources," if those sources never indicated the event was likely to have lasting effects, the event never established lasting notability in the first place. Coverage in secondary sources of a storm that sat in the ocean and did nothing, does not establish lasting notability. Temporary attention doesn't create notability, as Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS.

Also, Wikipedia is not the Encyclopedia of Hurricanes. I would expect a literal hurricane encyclopedia to have coverage of literally every hurricane in it, and if inclusion in such a thing was the standard for including hurricanes, literally every hurricane ever would automatically be notable here. That can't be the standard, right? Shelbystripes (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of leads to my actual opinion on this matter in general. Every hurricane deserves some sort of mention on Wikipedia; the question is whether there's enough content for a stand alone article or it is better suited for the respective seasonal page. A matter that at least use to be outside the scope of the AFD. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 04:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The question of when a hurricane warrants its own page is one of expected or demonstrated notability. In this case, we already have 2004 Atlantic hurricane season, which is an adequate place to recommend merging content from this page. It's not outside the scope of AfD to recommend merging content from a non-notable topic, into a page on a larger topic where it fits. That’s always been within the scope of the AfD process. And until people stop making separate articles for non-notable weather events, AfD will continue to be for that, I’m sure. Shelbystripes (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although there's some possibility it could be merged later. There is no way this should be outright deleted, as the deletion nominator i think knew. Because obviously merging to the year list-article is superior. We are obligated to seek alternatives to deletion and here there is this good option. So it should not have been nominated for deletion. A merger proposal could be made at the Talk page of the year article, with proper notice at the subject article. However, sources seem substantial.

Not specifically about this deletion proposal, I think the point of AFDs is often to run up a personal score of articles deleted. And I tend to dislike repeated deletion proposals; the first AFD though a long time ago settled the issue by "Keep" decision well enough. --Doncram (talk) 09:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, you do agree with merge as a solution? It sounds like your only objection to merge as a solution isn’t the result but the possibility of it happening via AfD. It would be helpful if you’d say more clearly that you agree “merge” as acceptable an end result, since it is a possible result here. Shelbystripes (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now more clearly:

no I do not agree that merge is necessarily okay. There seems to be misunderstanding and/or different perspectives becoming apparent here. I tend to think maybe all named hurricanes covered by NHC (which appears to be objective, independent, unreproachable source, part of NASA) are in fact Wikipedia notable. Also there is apparently coverage of this one in particular. And the complaint above that the coverage is "not independent" is invalid: the hurricane is not commercial entity or any other kind of entity benefiting from promotion. The hurricane itself is not the source of any information.
I agree with User:Yellow Evan's comments above that deletion reasons of " "no damage" and "not meteorologically important" is not a valid reason for removal".
There is assertion above by Shelbystripes that "Also, Wikipedia is not the Encyclopedia of Hurricanes. I would expect a literal hurricane encyclopedia to have coverage of literally every hurricane in it, and if inclusion in such a thing was the standard for including hurricanes, literally every hurricane ever would automatically be notable here. That can't be the standard, right?" However, it seems to me that Wikipedia could indeed properly choose to be the definitive source of info on hurricanes. Wikipedia has famously subsumed many many small encyclopedias. There is guideline or essay wp:NOTPAPER about how we are not at all limited by size reasons. I like that Shelbystripes is thinking and reasoning, and that this discussion is all in good faith, but it seems to me that Wikipedia could indeed cover all hurricanes including this one. This AFD is not the place to come to some new notability standard for hurricanes. Perhaps a discussion at a Weather wikiproject if there is one is warranted.
I do grant that Wikipedia covering all hurricanes does not require having a separate article for each one; coverage of some/many could possibly best be done by redirects to list-article rows. However in this case the article size is much greater than can reasonably be compressed into one row, so it is fine/good that it is separate. It seems to meet GNG and there is no question whether an encyclopedic article can be written about it, because to me it is clearly a good encyclopedic article.
It remains that "Keep" seems to me the best outcome of this AFD, and a merger proposal can be discussed elsewhere (not on basis of GNG which I tend to think is met here, but potentially on basis of editorial choice to use list-article rows instead perhaps, although so far I think in this case that separate is better). And there can be discussion elsewhere of what is current general treatment of hurricanes and/or whether that should be changed.

sincerely, --Doncram (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to 2004 Atlantic hurricane season. Doncram above is correct in two ways: first in reasoning that all officially classified tropical cyclones are notable, and second in recognizing that covering a topic on does not necessarily mean assigning it a standalone page. Relegating inconsequential storms to sections in their respective seasonal articles has been common practice since Wikipedia's early days. This article is built on a foundation of repetition, jargon, and meteorological minutiae, which could reasonably be condensed to one or two paragraphs without compromising the reader's understanding of the storm. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Doncram. See no problems with merging to 2004 Atlantic hurricane season if topic editors believe that's the best approach -- although FWIW, it seems like there's plenty here to support a stand-alone article. Objections to Wikipedia coverage of "minutiae" are problematic; we should always endeavor to be as thorough and precise in our coverage as circumstances permit. -- Visviva (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as the storm has no notable land impacts or important meteorological records. Additionally, it did only last for a week. If there were reported impacts, I would be inclined to say keep, but there aren't any in this case. Given that the season article isn't incredibly large, I am going to have to say merge on this one. This article could easily be condensed down without the reader losing any vital information. Noah^Talk 02:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per Juliancolton's comment. Sandstein 19:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Cristobal (2002)

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

With only minimal damage and 3 deaths, this article fails WP:NOTABILITY. In fact, quite a few storms with more damage don't have articles. I say merge with 2002 Atlantic hurricane season. Java Hurricane 07:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:16, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2002 Atlantic hurricane season Bobherry Talk Edits 14:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It seems strange that the only impact reported in the United States was in New York.Jason Rees (talk) 15:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Nomination is fundamentally flawed. WP:N is being misapplied, since it says nothing about a minimum destruction threshold for meteorological events. "Other storms with more damage don't have articles" is a documented argument to avoid and logical fallacy. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note – additional sources and details on the storm's effects are being added. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

However, this is not Hurricane Wiki where every storm should be listed, and the article itself states that the storm caused minimal damage. -- Java Hurricane 03:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JavaHurricane: This makes no sense. Notability is explicitly not the same as importance, and you can't invoke the concept to uphold your own personal feelings about tropical cyclone significance. I've added multiple new sources detailing effects in multiple areas; would you care to comment on the quality or depth of these sources? Without referring back to the degree of damage caused – the "minimal" phrasing can be revised in a moment's notice – can you assess this article against any of the actual criteria outlined by WP:N? Please note that additional sources exist beyond those which I've incorporated. This 2014 document published by the US Army Corps of Engineers, for instance, lists Cristobal among the storms that "created significant threat to life and property" in the New York region. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern was that storms with "minimal" damage don't really need articles, but since new sources quantifying the damage have been put up, I can safely say that my concerns have been addressed. Therefore, I withdraw this AFD. -- Java Hurricane 03:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: The nominator declared their intention to withdraw this submission, and the only other participant prior to that left no rationale for their vote. Surely a relist is not necessary. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:35, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Govt. LPS Kadampanad

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

Primary school with no claim of notability. GPL93 (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pinging @MikeTheEditor104:, who previously tagged a version of this article (currently located at Draft:Govt. LPS Kadampanad (Bhagavathipuram-Aruvikkara)) for speedy deletion. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:30, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Until some indication of notability has been provided. Kaweendra (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deete - There's nothing to be said about this primary school apart from the fact that it exists. As such, it is not different from the thousand of primary schools out there. No claim of notability. RetiredDuke (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2020 (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 Satoshi Urushihara. Sandstein 10:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ragnarock City

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

Fails WP:GNG, as tagged since October 2008. Redirecting was attempted, but then it was reverted twice by NHK2020, so now an AfD is needed. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as before. Article is a permastub, no significant coverage to be found, NHK2020 left no explanation for reverting the redirect and is now banned for sockpuppetry. Skeletor3000 (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Skeletor3000. Mccapra (talk) 09:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grsecurity

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

After removal of primary, affiliated and self-published sources, there's nothing left. I find no good evidence that this is a significant patch set, maybe it's become redundant to SELinux?. Guy (help!) 18:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not, but I don't mind the deletion. If of any relevance, my opinion is there (the comment of 17:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)). Vox Araneae (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software comes, software goes, but something has to make it notable to merit its own Wikipedia page. The only notable articles about Grsecurity are the articles that sprang up when Linus Torvalds called it a piece of garbage[4]. Although that controversy made some waves, it was brief. It doesn't get a mention here and I don't think it establishes notability. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There isn't sufficient coverage in reliable, independent sources for it to clear WP:GNG. There's nothing showing that this is a notable software so this is just spam. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the legal disputes are notable. 2A01:4C8:1E:E173:B4A9:8966:AA18:82CF (talk) 10:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was expecting this to be mentioned, and disagree that it is a reason to keep. There is a legal dispute, which is indeed somewhat notable, regarding the license under which this software was released, which was deemed not compliant with GPL2. The expression of that opinion led to an anti-defamation lawsuit that was thrown out and then that led to an assessment for payment of legal costs by Open Source Security, Inc. under anti SLAPPsuit legislation. Yes, all that is somewhat notable, but it is not notable for this article, because this article is about the software (and anyway, makes no mention of the suit). The suit does not make the software notable. It might perhaps make the company notable. The Grsecurity suit would also be notable for a brief mention in an article on the GPL or on SLAPP suits. What it does not do, is it does not establish that the software itself is notable for an article. -- Sirfurboy

(talk) 21:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wat Buddhavas of Houston

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

Notability cannot be established per WP:GNG. Only passing mentions in a couple of sources as mentioned on the associated talk page. Bait30 ^Talk? 17:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^Talk? 17:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^Talk? 17:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete There's no claim to notability and I see the same patter of clickbait, local news mentions, and passing notice in a book or two. Mangoe (talk) 00:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 16:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Charlie Walker

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

This is a procedural nomination to discuss what should be done with this article, whether it meets WP:GNG, whether it should be renamed, whether it should be redirected, or some combination of those options. An editor who claims to be the director of the film and is also the creator of the article is being disruptive at the article, and that disruption needs to stop. Bbb23 (talk) 16:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Move without leaving a redirect to Draft:I'm Charlie Walker and salt I'm Charlie Walker at Extended Confirmed Proection (to allow a neutral AfC reviewer to move it back to Main: namespace, if and when such a move is warranted) per nom. It's not mentioned, explicitly, in the target article Mike Colter, and it's only purpose is to redirect to a reference in that section of the article. It would probably survive RfD due to the lack of an explicit mention with the inclusion of I'm. In short, it's more trouble than it's worth. The correct place for the editor to incubate the sub-stub is at Draft:I'm Charlie Walker. --Doug Mehus T·C 17:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dmehus: When you posted It would probably survive RfD due to the lack of an explicit mention did you mean It wouldn't probably survive (...). FWIW, the mention of America Is Still the Place in Mike Colter#Film could be (and probably should be) tweaked to reflect the new name of the movie and the unreleased status of the movie, if it can be supported by at least one reliable source; article content doesn't need to be notable, only verifiable. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All I could find was the IMDb entry cited in the article. IMDb is one of the classic examples of what is not a WP:RS; see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 21:47, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The page was recently moved from America Is Still the Place to it's current title. The article was originally created back in 2015; so, perhaps there are some reliable sources which can be found under its old title. If not, then this might be a case of WP:TOOSOON#Film and a redirect might be a cheap way to take a wait-and-see approach. Once the film has been released or at least gets closer to its release day, it might start to generate the WP:SIGCOV it needs to meet WP:NFILM. I don't, however, think there's any problem with the original creator working on a draft for the article, even if they're subject to WP:COI/ WP:PAID as long as they submit it to WP:AFC for assessment when they think it's ready for the mainspace. Ideally, it would probably be better for someone unconnected to the film to try and create an article about it, but AFC should cleanup any possible COI issues, etc. and vet the draft for proper sourcing. Anyone connected to the film, however, who wants to works on the draft would be better off following WP:DISCLOSECOI asap and then WP:COIADVICE if the draft does end up becoming an article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Narky Blert, What do you think of my alternate proposal, which would allow the editor, if they so choose, to incubate the article in Draft: namespace? Salting the Main: namespace title I'm Charlie Walker would allow any neutral, experienced editor, preferably from the AfC team, to move it back if and and only when WP:GNG and/or WP:NFILM is met, no? Doug Mehus T·C 00:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I left a comment on the editor's Talk page where they are insisting there is no America Is Still the Place film and pointing to IMDb as proof: "Surely you can understand how it's confusing, particularly since IMDb is not a reliable source. The film America Is Still The Place opened the 2016 Pan African Film & Arts Festival and Sacramento Film & Music Festival, opened the 2015 San Francisco Black Film Festival, and was shown at the Harlem International Film Festival." I'm not familiar with film festivals so I don't know if any of those are considered major festivals, enough to support notability, but maybe there are more I'm just not finding. Schazjmd (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Schazjmd, Thanks for the research; that's more or less what I thought. It could be a case of being a useful redirect, but given low utility of this title as a redirect as evidenced by its low pageviews for the preceding twelve months, that's why I've recommended WP:ECP salting the title in main namespace. Doug Mehus T·C 18:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As film festivals are likely venue for incomplete film projects and films that are never finished, or never released. There are no sources showing a completion date, or release date for this film. No source justifying this is a notable work. The consensus seems to favor deleting and awaiting a notable release. 5patrickgilles5 (talk) 02:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Article provides no sources , does not say it if it was released , shown anywhere, Alex-h (talk) 10:18, 12 February 2020 (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 Antonio Meucci. Given a no consensus between delete and merge, and two different merge targets, I have redirected to Antonio Meucci without deleting, so if any editor wishes to use material from the history of this article in either of the proposed merge targets, they may go ahead and do so. Black Kite (talk) 11:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

United States HRes. 269 on Antonio Meucci

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

The article's subject fails to to meet notability guidelines for events. The event was a resolution passed by the US House oof Representatives in 2002 crediting an Italian-American inventor with contributions to the invention, and implying that Alexander Graham Bell may have used that inventor's work in his own (successfully patented) design without credit. The resolution was not approved by the Senate, and even if it had been, it would not have had the force of law. The Congress is not constitutionally empowered to make binding determinations on issues of this kind (i.e., which individual should get credit for a particular invention). The resolution was intoduced by an Italian-American representative from Staten Island, in a heavily Italian-American district, to honor Meucci, an Italian who had immigrated to Staten Island. There is no indication that the resoilution was intended to produce any effect other than minor publicity. The publicity generated did not reach large numbers of people, nor address any contemporaneous issue of importance (the legal controversy over the invention of/patent on the telephone was terminated in the 19th Century). There is no indication that the legislative actors intended that their publicity-seeking resolution could or would lead to the occurrence of some notable event, and indeed, it did not. The only effect of the resolution was to elicit a response from the Canadian Parliament (Alexander Graham Bell was Canadian), which passed a motion declaring that Bell was the sole inventor of the telephone. Like the House resolution, the Canadian motion had no practical or legal effect of any kind, other than to produce some further minor publicity. Thus, while it may be possible that acts taken for the purposes of publicity alone might conceivably be notable, that is not the case here. Thus, the article fails to meet the notability criterion WP:EFFECT. There was little coverage of the event. The event fails to meet the criterion WP:DEPTH. Coverage was limited to a short period immeidately around the event. The subject therefore fails to meet the criteria WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:PERSISTENCE. The US House of Representatives is a notable body, but not everything it does is notable. For context, the US Congress (House plus Senate) routinely passes legislation naming pieces of federal property (bridges, office buildings, etc.) after individuals whom the Congress wishes to honor. When passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President, these are pieces of legislation that have force of law in the sense that the executive branch will be required to recognize the naming of the bridge (for example) with signage, in documents concerning the property, etc. Such legislation, although extremely inconsequential, is MORE consequential than the resolution which is the subject of this article. It should be noted that much of the article is given to original interpretation/research, and to airing the views of non-independent sources such as Bell's grandson. A related article, Canadian Parliamentary Motion on Alexander Graham Bell, has also been nominated for deletion for the same lack of notability of its subject. David.thompson.esq (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, this does not appear to have any significant or lasting impact. It is already covered at (and can be reasonably expanded in) History_of_the_telephone#Invention_of_the_telephone, Invention_of_the_telephone#Antonio_Meucci, and Invention_of_the_telephone#Controversies without such undue weight and detail. Congress passes plenty of resolutions and I see no reason this one is more noteworthy and needs a massive article when it seems to be advancing a POV (e.g. heavily cited to alecbell.org) that is/can be summarized more neutrally elsewhere with the full history. Reywas92^Talk 18:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a bit of the criticism and redirect to Invention of the telephone#Controversies. Basically only a symbolic gesture, the resolution doesn't merit a standalone article. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Antonio Meucci. Not independently notable. A single House resolution unless adopted by the Senate (or Senate resolution, not adopted by House) is surely not independently notable. The same probably applies to a Canadian Parliament resolution. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2020 (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. RL0919 (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Thackeray

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

Doesn't deserve standalone article yet, references only establishes that subject is WP:BLP1E, fails WP:NPOL. Clear case of WP:INHERITED Accesscrawl (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Accesscrawl (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Accesscrawl (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Accesscrawl (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Accesscrawl (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. Orientls (talk) 11:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I too don't see any evidence of notability on subject's own expense. Fails WP:GNG. Tessaracter (talk) 16:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL, WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 12:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG and per WP:NOTINHERITED. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Institute Of Learning and Development

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Even their official website no longer works and redirect to something else. One sentence article. Nizil (talk) 14:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nizil (talk) 14:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Nizil (talk) 14:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nizil (talk) 14:08, 9 February 2020 (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. If anyone would like the deleted history to work into a proposed Draft:First Sponsor Group or anything else, please ask me. Black Kite (talk) 11:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bilderberg (hotel chain)

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

As written, the article is a clear failure of WP:NCOMPANY (no assertion of notability) as ell as WP:V (unreferenced). A local hotel chain may be notable, but sources are needed. WP:BEFORE does not reveal much. Nl wiki article is of little help as it also sports no reference outside one for [5] that seems like a press release or a rewrite of one. News search shows only similar low quality sources, through maybe some good sources are in Dutch (I tried translating a few, but maybe something better escaped me). The search for sources is further complicated as there is an unrelated (I think) Bilderberg Hotel. Two of the hotels sport restaurants that have gotten Michelin awards so are independently notable, but WP:NOTINHERITED. The chain, as far as I can tell, did not earn any wards, nor was the subject of any in-depth study or analysis. The only argument for keeping this that I can think is to argue that it is a presumably sizeable chain for the Netherlands, but this is WP:OR for us to say so (and in either case, 'keep b/ce the compay is big' is not an argument that's particularly well grounded in policy and there is a counter in WP:YELLOWPAGES). In other words, the company is not notable unless we can find a source that says otherwise, and my BEFORE failed. Maybe a Dutch speaker help dig out something I missed? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Desparate attempt to destroy a notable hotel chain after A7 and Prod failed. Still no sensible arguments. Misusing AfD to enforce improvements. The Banner talk 21:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is sad to see that the nominator fails to recognize proper sources and therefore misjudges the quality of them. But this and this are a few of the proper source sthat a bit thorough WP:BEFORE could have unearthed. And even with Google Translate you can get the gist of them. The Banner talk 05:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Misset Horeca is a niche outlet that does not even have a nl wiki article, and google translate of it's about gives us "Misset Horeca is the multimedia source of information for entrepreneurs and managers in the hospitality industry. With news, practical tips and useful business information.". So it is an online trade journal. Both articles read like press releases (ex. with sections like "About Bilderberg" or "Fletcher Hotels"; in fact 80% of those articles seem to be content copied from the 'about us' pages of various companies), quoting heavily people like "Managing Director of Bilderber" and covering ROUTINE business events "Queens Bilderberg Nederland (QBN) sells four hotels to Fletcher. Fletcher takes over Hotel de Buunderkamp, Hotel Klein Zwitserland, De Klepperman and Hotel Wolfheze." and "The British investor QMH Limited has announced that the sale of Bilderberg has been completed. The completion of the transaction follows the announcement about the intended sale on 3 July 2017." This is hardly enough to pass NCOMPANY. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I speak Dutch. PKaPP is right. Misset is a trade journal and its articles are (based on) press releases, routine business announcements, not the kind of independent reporting that WP:NCORP requires. Vexations (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that the source offered above clearly, as most trade journals do, reprints press releases without making efforts to establish facts independently, so is not an independent source as required to establish notability. I have tried hard to find independent reliable sources that discuss this hotel chain rather than the Bilderberg meeting and the individual hotel after which it is named, but have been unable to do so. I am open to changing my opinion if such sources are offerred, but if the best we can do is a couple of press releases in a trade journal then this has to be a delete. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename into First Sponsor Group. The Singapore-based parent of the Bilderberg Group is extremely notable.[6] For example, the hotels that were, according to the article, formerly part of the chain are now owned by another First Sponsor Group unit. Focus on small business units is quite similar to tunnel vision. gidonb (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW If this feels complicated to a discussion closer, I'm happy to make the change myself. There are plenty of articles out there about the First Sponsor Group, including its acquisition of the Bilderberg chain. Bilderberg attracts a lot of interest from fringe folks, supporters left and right of (often antisemitic) conspiracy theories. We would do well to move away from the Bilderberg terminology where this is the right decision also from a business-encyclopedic perspective. One change, many benefits! gidonb (talk) 13:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: @The Banner: @Vexations: @Phil Bridger: Looking forward to your response! gidonb (talk) 13:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gidonb: You are welcome to create article about the possibly notable parent company, but I don't see what can be gained from merging this there. The parent may contain a sentence about owning such a subsidiary, and when the parent is created, this article could be redirecting there (I am fine with SOFTDELETE in such a case). But just renaming this article is not a good idea, 90% if not 99% of the content here is irrelevant and would need to be cut. I don't see how this article can be saved outside SOFTDELETE&REDIRECT (PRESERVE). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Misset Horeca is indeed a trade journal but with real journalistic covering. Just like every newspaper. It is not a copy-and-paste medium as suggested above. The Banner talk 18:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trade journal is not a newspaper. And reprinting press releases is not 'real journalistic covering'. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:49, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, earlier you were unable to read Dutch sources, but now you are able to judge a magazine and its contents? And how they work? The Banner talk 14:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Banner, This applies: "Trade publications must be used with great care. While feature stories from leading trade magazines may be used where independence is clear, there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability. This is because businesses often use these publications to increase their visibility." There is no need to be able to read in the original Dutch what are clearly not "feature stories". And in case anyone wonders about machine translation, Google translate is actually pretty good at translating Dutch to English. Vexations (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What I suggest is to perform a simple move (with the button) and rewrite of the article as is. As User:Piotrus says, only one sentence would be relevant but that is about all there is. The article is basically a list of assets that are also assets of the parent group. Even the "former assets" are assets of the First Sponsor Group. I have made such changes to articles before. Since we are here in the midst of a procedure, I would like permission to go ahead, at least from those who already "voted", or at the very least a non-objection. gidonb (talk) 11:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: @The Banner: @Vexations: @Phil Bridger: Your feedback is appreciated! gidonb (talk) 11:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gidonb, I'd suggest that you create the article Draft:First Sponsor Group, make sure you have enough sources, and then propose move it into article space and merge the Bilderberg (hotel chain) article into that one and leave this as a redirect. It's complicated enough as it is. And of course, it's not uncommon for assets like hotels to be sold and resold, businesses merge. The risk that some or all of those hotels end up under different ownership is not merely hypothetical. I'm afraid that the real reason we have anything at all about this hotel business is that their name is associated with a conspiracy theory about a secret "world government". See Bilderberg meeting So now we need some way of properly disambiguating between a not-really-known-for-anything-else hotel (Bilderberg Hotel) the chain (Bilderberg (hotel chain)) and the annual conference (Bilderberg meeting). Vexations (talk) 11:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kingboyk (talk) 12:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As explained in detail above, the chain has no independent notablity. It exists to help the parent company to organize its assets. Hotels get moved in and out of the chain all the time. One has to wonder if chain status matters even to people directly effected. If there is any information in the article worth keeping, it can be added to Bilderberg Hotel or to First Sponsor Group, the parent company. Colin Gerhard (talk) 03:09, 13 February 2020 (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. Fenix down (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emil Breivik

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

Has not played football in a professional league or in a cup match between two clubs from professional leagues. Geschichte (talk) 09:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fail GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2020 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Hedicke

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

Doesn't meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 09:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm unable to find anything on the subject as an actress. The only online hits for "Emily Hedicke" that I'm finding are about a make-up artist/hair stylist. Dflaw4 (talk) 10:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No actual hits for the "actress" at all. Not to mention the role would be considered minor, and it therefore wouldn't translate into a NACTOR claim. PK650 (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one show is not enough to make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feodor Alexeievich Afanasiev

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

Some very small mentions in articles on others, but does he meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG? Boleyn (talk) 09:30, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment apparently there is no article on ru.wiki. Are there any Russian sources (which I can’t read)? Mccapra (talk) 10:54, 16 February 2020 (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. Redirects may be added at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actin (software)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. Creator was paid to write it. Boleyn (talk) 09:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally not notable. Written like an advert and uses a lot of buzz words anyway. Improving the article wouldn't be worth it. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Energid Technologies: While noting the 2017 notability discussion on the article Talk page, there is clearly enough to show that this software is in use, for example in products by Robai (another declared paid-edit), but I don't see enough to establish notability distinct from Energid Technologies, on which article (another declared paid-edit) this product is covered in sufficient detail. AllyD (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

50 Classic Ski Descents of North America

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. It has been tagged as such for 3 years; hopefully we can now resolve it one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

College of Education Afzalpur

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

No coverage, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 08:35, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Terciary education institutions are usually considered de facto notable per WP:UNIGUIDE. I am however reluctant to argue for keeping the article given I can't find a single source about it! PK650 (talk) 08:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmir Model College Mirpur

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

No coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 08:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Khair University

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

Private, banned university. Promotional, fails WP:GNG and delete per WP:TNT. Störm (talk) 08:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Global Institute

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

Private, banned institute. Fails WP:NCORP. Störm (talk) 08:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Preston Institute of Management Science and Technology

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

Private, banned university. Fails WP:NCORP. See [7]. Störm (talk) 08:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:03, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:03, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:03, 9 February 2020 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

5M Inşaat Tekstil Ithalat Sanayi Ticaret LTD Sti

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

The article hardly contains any content and there's seemingly nothing notable about the company in it. Plus, nothing came up when I looked for sources that might have mentioned them. Adamant1 (talk) 07:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkmenistan-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:53, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not sure that it even is primarily a textile company. Inşaat is Turkish for Construction. See also https://www.5minsaat.net/eng/companyprofile.html I found one news article, http://haberciniz.biz/turkmenistan-turk-sirketleriyle-yeniden-yapilaniyor-3204448h.htm There's a single, very brief mention of 5M Inşaat. I note that this article has been here as a stub for 11 years, without any major improvements
Also note the mention of the subject in Ruhabat introduced in this diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ruhabat&diff=next&oldid=292080580&diffmode=source Vexations (talk) 13:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no assertion of notability in the article text, just a description of a company going about its business. I am not seeing any sources which can indicate this meets WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2020 (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lakhiupr HS School

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

Despite a recent AfD that resulted in "delete" regrettably it is necessary to nominate this for deletion again because it was recreated with different content, so it isn't eligible for G4, and it's a school so it can't be A7 deleted. Pinging previous participants @ClemRutter, Steven (Editor), GargAvinash, and Mccapra: b uidhe 07:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. b uidhe 07:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. b uidhe 07:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:04, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment can we move this to draft so we can help the creator write a decent article? He’s managed to even reproduce the same spelling mistake in the article title. Mccapra (talk) 09:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See also Lakhiupr Higher Secondary School. Both should be considered together. I considered CSD A10 but perhaps the abbreviation can stand as a redirect (once the spelling is resolved on both)? AllyD (talk) 09:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thanks for the ping @Buidhe: I appreciate it. So what is happening here- I think it is becoming clearer and WP:BITE applies. We have a new enthusiastic user@Beingsofiqul: who has done work on the locality but is very inexperienced. He was trying to tell us about a spelling mistake, he tried to contact us in the only way he knew. We thank him on his talk page and delete this as a spelling mistake.

We still haven't put a welcome message on his talk page, so the way forward is to support him in developing the Lakhipur Higher Secondary School page. It already has one reliable reference and with our help and Sofiqul's language skills we should be aiming high. The first question I would like to ask him is if he can find other references- maybe in Assammese, and probably on paper. These should not just from a local paper describing a festival but could be from a local paper describing exam result. A description of the design of the building- or the construction and opening of the building would be nice too. Lakhipur Higher Secondary School is a keep. ClemRutter (talk) 13:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if the school was notable it might makes sense to keep the abbreviation as a redirect, but right now there is zero evidence for this, no one has been able to identify a single independent source with significant coverage of the school. Unless that's found, delete both pages. Lastly, I just can't accept the idea that nominating non-notable articles for deletion is a bad thing to do. Obviously it would be helpful if someone gave the nominators some pointers that would help them pick notable topics, so feel free to do that yourself. b uidhe 18:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete It was already deleted once and again the article is completely unsourced - my comments in the first AfD applies here too. It seems the editor is repeatedly creating this school in mainspace so create protection may be needed. There is already a Draft:Lakhipur HS School which was created by the same editor but was declined on 14 January 2020. I've now moved the newly created one in its full name to Draft:Lakhipur Higher Secondary School and notified on talk — editor should continue to work on this one, also the one source currently used seems to be a directory listing. Steven (Editor) (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment of the Battle of Long Tan

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

The assessment is already covered in far-too-excessive detail in Battle of Long Tan. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:30, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe that this was spun out of the Battle of Long Tan article, and is justified as a stand-alone article. There's a large and somewhat complex literature on this topic. Nick-D (talk) 07:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The titanic Battle of Stalingrad, with about a million KIA, doesn't have an assessment spinoff article, yet the little-known, miniscule Battle of Long Tan, with a couple of hundred dead, needs one? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for a few reasons. 1. It's already covered in more then enough detail in the article it's spun off of. 2. It's an opinion piece. Which isn't the point in Wikipedia. 3. Both massively violate the whole "Wikipedia isn't narration" thing. Which makes them way to detailed for being considered encyclopedic. It would take to much work to correct though. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- How is this article "an opinion piece"? It summarises the very considerable analysis of the battle by experts. Nick-D (talk) 09:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the "conclusion" section? How are things like "whether they also intended attacking Nui Dat remains uncertain", Despite this, "it seems likely the 5th Division had planned an ambush", "they appear to have been unready when D Company entered the plantation and were likely somewhere on its eastern edge instead." How are sentences like that not opinions? Saying something "likely" happened isn't a statement of fact. You say yourself it's a analysis. An analysis of a historical event is, by it's nature, opinion. That's what makes it an analysis in the first place. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just because a vast amount has been written in Australia about this minor 4 hour battle doesn't mean that we have to try to reflect all that here on WP. As noted by the nom, assessment is already covered in sufficient detail in Battle of Long Tan#Aftermath, we don't need such minutiae. Mztourist (talk) 08:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into Battle of Long Tan#Aftermath#Assesment. I do not see how the assessment needs its own article, but there is reliably referenced detail here that students of the war may find useful. Aoziwe (talk) 11:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article contains relevant and reliably sourced details for the battle. To the extent there is duplicated material, AfD is not cleanup - merger proposals should be debated on the talk page rather than here. Bookscale (talk) 10:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. It IS quite appropriate to suggest merge as an alternative to deletion. 11:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoziwe (talk • contribs) 11:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoziwe: - sorry, that wasn't directed at you (as a contributor you are perfectly entitled to suggest a merge), but a comment directed at the nominator whose sole reason for deletion is duplicated content at the main page (which hints at a merge or redirect or keeping the content only on the main page). Bookscale (talk) 11:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bookscale: Cheers. 11:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: a separate assessment article seems a viable topic to me based on the amount of sources that exist per WP:SIGCOV. By way of some background, coverage of this battle on Wikipedia has been complicated by the fact that this is the most publicised battle of Australia's involvement in Vietnam. Indeed, short of Gallipoli, I'd contend that it is probably the battle that receives the most coverage every Anzac Day. It is also complicated by the fact that many sources disagree on seemingly minor tactical aspects (in heavy detail), and the interest of several veterans of the battle/producers of movies who have also published their own versions or their own opinions (and who also seem to edit Wikipedia - see Talk:Battle of Long Tan and its archives). Regarding comparisons with larger battles, agreed to an extent, but...in military history, it is sometimes about economies of scale. As a small middle power, for a variety of reasons Australians have been prolific authors within the military history sphere, but often with a focus on the tactical, rather than the strategic. This is the "muddy boots" approach to military history; the weight of sources do indeed go to these depths. While I agree that the main article needs paring back (and indeed, I believe AC thought that too before he retired), it will be very difficult to do this without privileging one account over others. In this regard, this seems (to me, at least) an argument in favour of Wikipedia:Splitting so long as WP:UNDUE or WP:FRINGE are not breached. The content of this article (the assessment article) is supported by reliable sources, although it might need reworking to attribute the source of the assessments in text (e.g. "according to X..." etc). That said, I caveat all of this by clarifying that the complicating factors that I raise above were a key part in driving a very prolific contributor from the project, and I, too, have no desire to get further involved in the topic. Make of that what you will. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am sure that there must be a policy or essay somewhere that discusses excessive coverage of events and topics. The Battle of Long Tan was a minor skirmish that lasted less than 4 hours and yet the main page is longer than probably every other battle and campaign of the Vietnam War, including those far more important by any objective criteria, other than the subjective criteria of its coverage in Australia. In addition to that overlong main page there are the 2 forks of Assessment and Order of Battle, which to my knowledge no other Vietnam War battles or campaigns have. I appreciate that the battle is significant in Australia, has produced multiple WP:RS in Australia and attracted the interest of multiple Users in Australia, but there must be some balance and perspective to the amount of coverage it warrants on WP. I believe that the sheer volume makes it WP:UNDUE relative to the rest of the war. As you may recall back in March/April 2018 I attempted to reduce the size of the main page, reducing it by 20KB to 138KB, but since then another 10KB has been added, so I'm not sure that any paring back will be effective. We can however try and remove unnecessary duplicative forks, such as this one, which is really a blog argument with references. regards Mztourist (talk) 13:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is sourced properly. While the battle was small compared to many events in Vietnam in that period, that would only be an issue if it was given disproportionate coverage related to other events in the Vietnam War article and the like. Editors are free to write about their interests as long as the relevant sources are present and NPOV, UNDUE etc are obeyed. If this gives rise to a cluster of dense coverage on a specific topic, such as stacks of articles, there is no issue unless it is used for spamming, political/nationalist/sectarian propaganda and the like, which is not the case here. Bumbubookworm (talk) 03:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject of this particular article is of much interest in Australia, and to a lesser extent, New Zealand, and is a reflection of the amount of scholarship in this space. Comparisons to lack of equivalent articles for other engagements seem unreasonable since editors work in spaces that are of interest to them. I have no objections to a Battle of Stalingrad assessment-type article if scholarship and sources warrant it, but I'm not personally motivated create such an article. Zawed (talk) 08:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, probabably offtopic but anyway ... Mztourist, "The Battle of Long Tan was a minor skirmish ..", here and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Order of battle for the Battle of Long Tan ("such a minor action"), according to you it may have been (happy to see your cites for these comments), but from from oz army website: "The Battle of Long Tan is the most recognised Australian battle of the Vietnam War. .. American General William Westmoreland congratulated the Australians, declaring they had won one of the most spectacular victories in Vietnam to date.", and from UNSW: ".. depicting one of the most significant battles of the Vietnam war: The Battle of Long Tan." to quote just a couple. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Coolabahapple If you have read widely about battles of the Vietnam War it is very obvious that Long Tan was a minor skirmish, a 4 hour long engagement with debatable results. Admittedly it was the Australians first engagement and it has been hyped up in Australia ever since and vastly overwritten, creating the impression that it was a massive and decisive battle. Westmoreland was always looking for some positive news and keen to encourage Allied involvement in the war. Mztourist (talk) 07:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Long Tan wasn't the first battle involving Australian forces in South Vietnam. The Australian Army had been fighting in the country for about a year before it. I don't think that anyone in Australia considers this to have been "massive and decisive battle" (much of the literature the article discusses is actually focused on the debate over the size, significance and results of the engagement), but it is a topic of intense interest for various reasons. Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I meant ATF's (i.e. Australians fighting as their own formation (excluding the NZ artillery and US air support)), but yes its a good point it wasn't even the Australian Army's first battle of the war. IMO the volume written about Long Tan in Australia does create the impression that it was a massive and decisive battle, I certainly had that impression before I read the page thoroughly, and I would assume (with no RS) that the same is true for many in Australia, just like they think that Australians fought at Khe Sanh because of a Cold Chisel song. Mztourist (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I accept Mztourist's point that Long Tan has had far too much written about it, but in Wikipedia terms that amounts to WP:SIGCOV. Yes, it could be in the main article, but moving material into a subarticle is valid under WP:SPINOFF. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:30, 19 February 2020 (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kaissar Saady al-Juboory

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

I think WP:BLP1E applies to this otherwise non notable individual. Mccapra (talk) 06:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete incidents of killing multiple people are far too common to make their perpetrators default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2020 (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 Move to draft for further development. There is a clear consensus that among participants that regardless of the name of the article this is indeed a list. However, WP:LISTN itself notes a lack of consensus on notability for some kinds of lists so it is unsurprising that this has been so controversial. Those arguing this topic is notable point to some elements of WP:LISTN such as the fact that it has a defined criteria for inclusion (which need not only include notable topics). Some keep editors also suggest there is sourcing available that discusses this topic as a set which would further suggest notability. Those arguing against notability contest that sourcing and also suggest that this article runs afoul of WP:NOTDIR. Over the course of this extended discussion a consensus has emerged to move this article to draft. This will allow for any of several outcomes including for additional sources to be added demonstrating this article is indeed notable, for content to be merged into other applicable articles, and/or for the article to be reformulated into a new (and hopefuly notable) topic (such as Methodism in Leicester). While not strictly mentioned by editors, I will be placing an WP:AfC tag on the draft and would strongly recommend (though I cannnot require) that it be approved by an uninvolved AfC participant before being moved back to article space. Note I have read the talk page here, the first AfD, Jo-Jo's DRV close, as well as the related AfDs on Baptism and Congregationalism. Barkeep49 (talk) 05:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Methodist churches in Leicester

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

Per the prior overturned deletion: the guideline WP:LISTN states "Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group." Methodist churches in Leicester has not received substantial independent coverage even if individual churches may have. I do not find the lack of a current consensus on how to handle "List of Xs of Ys" reason enough to not delete. The article should be considered on its own merit as the existence of WP:OTHERSTUFF related does not mean it itself meets the requirements. Jerod Lycett (talk) 03:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This project page was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Overturn and allow new AFD, 22 January 2020, see deletion review.
Delete, 8 January 2020, see discussion.

Links: first AfD, DRV for first AfD, related AfD for Baptist churches in Leicester, related AfD for Congregational churches in Leicester. — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- PLEASE DON'T ANYONE START PARALLEL/DUPLICATIVE AFDS OR DELETION REVIEWS ABOUT THE SIMILAR LISTS OF BAPTIST AND CONGREGATIONAL CHURCHES, SO WE DON'T HAVE TO RESTATE OUR NEARLY IDENTICAL POSITIONS ABOUT THOSE. PLEASE ALLOW JUST ONE PROCEEDING TO FINISH. IT WOULD NOT BE HELPFUL FOR ANYONE TO PROVE THEY CAN OPEN ANOTHER PROCEEDING, JUST BECAUSE THEY CAN. (HOPEFULLY THIS IS A LESSON LEARNED FROM FIRST ROUND OF THESE.) --Doncram (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- - - What is the relationship of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Methodist Churches in Leicester, closed by User:Sandstein by "Delete" decision on 12 January, to this AFD. Was the article recreated after deletion, with just a tiny change in title (to use "churches" not "Churches")? Why does this article still exist, and why is this AFD going on? I thought this AFD was closed then reopened; it is instead a different AFD i guess. Could anyone pls. explain?--Doncram (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Doncram, the result of that AfD at DRV was to overturn the decision and restart the AfD using the same AfD URL, not the a new nomination or a relist of the existing AfD, as I understand it. If you look in this page's history, you'll see the original AfD, and the DRV closer restarted it. Doug Mehus T·C 21:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      No, this AFD is in fact a new deletion nomination started on 30 January, not a re-start of the old AFD. The old AFD started on 8 January and was closed "Delete" on 18 January. Then there was a deletion review which was closed 22 January with decision to "Overturn and allow new AFD". Okay, i guess the current article is in fact the one started way back in 2012, which on 8 January must have been named with "Churches", and which was renamed on 12 January, during the AFD. It was deleted (and Sandstein also correctly deleted the redirect from its old name). And implementing the "Overturn" it was in fact restored, at "churches" name.
      
      Confusing to me was the fact that the old AFD shows a redlink for Methodist Churches in Leicester, as if deletion was accomplished and not reversed. The redirect should have been restored, too, to avoid confusion. To remedy that I am right now re-creating a redirect from that old title to the new title.

- - - Note when creating the redirect, i am overriding messages there:
      - "06:52, 18 January 2020 Sandstein talk contribs deleted page Methodist Churches in Leicester (Delete redirect: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Methodist Churches in Leicester closed as delete (XFDcloser))"
        
        "07:35, 12 January 2020 Djflem talk contribs moved page Methodist Churches in Leicester to Methodist churches in Leicester (per MOS:AT) (revert)"
    - Now, anyhow, should all the !votes and comments in the old AFD be considered part of this AFD? I am not sure if everyone who participated then has also re-stated their views or otherwise participated here. --Doncram (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - There were just 2 participants in the old AFD who have not participated here (User:DGG and User:PenulisHantu). I just gave them notices at their Talk pages of this AFD. --Doncram (talk) 01:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Jerod Lycett (talk) 03:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Jerod Lycett (talk) 03:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jerod Lycett (talk) 03:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jerod Lycett (talk) 03:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: In addition to the notability of the group (i.e. not that there are sources on the individual churches), this list falls under the policy WP:NOTDIR#6: (the exceptions to There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists per WP:LISTN). In particular, "Methodist churches in Leicester" is no different from the given example of "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y" in NOTDIR#6, and there is no evidence whatsoever that the intersection of "Methodist churches" and "churches in Leicester" is a culturally significant phenomenon (the only permissible exception in NOTDIR#6). — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Disappointing to see this here again. Wikipedia is not a directory listing every place of worship, local business, whatever – past or present – regardless of their notability. It is not appropriate to have arbitrary combinations of qualifiers, with countless combinations of denominations, geographic areas, etc., listing places merely for their existence (or prior existence) when there is notability present. We should list those churches that are in fact notable or designated as historic, not any ever that have not been discussed as a group as a directory. Reywas92^Talk 05:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Doncram. If you want to write about Methodism in England (per Pontificalibus that's fine as a topic, not as a directory. Reywas92^Talk 01:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't Oxbow lakes in North-West Saskatchewan - the topic of Methodist churches in Leicester meets GNG. You are arguing for the current list in the article to be trimmed, which is a reasonable request but not an argument for deletion. In fact it would be easy to remove all the lists in the article and instead write prose using the existing sources because there is in-depth coverage there.----Pontificalibus 06:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP~~HEY Easily passes GNG -- Djflem (talk) 06:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC) (!vote changed and added below 09:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Administrative note: I've taken the liberty of reformatting this section to more closely follow standard AfD conventions. Generally, each top-level bullet point is one user's comment, with commentary that applies specifically to that comment indented below the bullet point. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:SALAT: This list fulfills objective as it is limited in size and topic and is not trivial and is encyclopedic and related to human knowledge
Wikipedia:LISTPURP #1: This list fulfills requirement because the list structured around a theme and is annotated.
Wikipedia:CSC: This list fulfills this criteria explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles. The lack of a parent article in which it can be embedded does not exist and there no need or requirement for it to exist in order for the list to exist.
Wikipedia:LISTCRITERIA: This list fits this criteria because listed items fit its narrow scope and are topically relevant making it encyclopedic, comprehensive (and possibly) complete.
Wikipedia:NOTDIR#1: This list does not contravene this policy as it is not a loosely associated topic and its entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic.
Wikipedia:NOTDIR#7: This list does not contravene this policy as it is not a simple listing without context information and it contains information about relevant single entries with encyclopedic information added as sourced prose.
Wikipedia:LISTN: This list fulfills this because as it is discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, items in the list do not need to be independently notable, it is not a large list, it is informational, and there is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists.
Wikipedia:Other stuff exists: The list follows the precedent of List of X churches in Y, of which there are likely hundreds, many of which are much more complex and cross-categorizational. as seen in Category:Lists of churches -- Djflem (talk) 06:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course ignoring NOTDIR#6, ignoring that LISTN explicitly defers to NOTDIR#6, ignoring that not violating any other part of NOTDIR is irrelevant, and ignoring that “Other stuff exists” is an essay. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:NOTDIR#6: Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, is about categories and makes no mention of lists or articles and is not applicable. You are applying a section about categories to this page, which is not a category and for which no category exists. To do so is farfetched and not a policy-based argument.Djflem (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you’re completely misreading the policy. NOTDIR#6 is about articles and not categories. A cross-categorization is not necessarily a category. WP:NOTDIR literally says

Wikipedia articles are not... Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations... Cross-categories such as these are not considered a sufficient basis for creating an article

I’m done seeing your blatant misreadings of WP policies. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is as "culturally significant" as Anglican churches in Leicester, Baptist churches in Leicester,Catholic churches in Leicester, Congregational churches in Leicester, all which Wikipedia have determined are notable.Djflem (talk) 07:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia hasn’t “decided” on any of them; they’re all different; and the intersection of Anglican churches and churches in Leicester may indeed be culturally significant on its own merits because Leicester is the seat of an Anglican Diocese with an Anglican bishop, 1000 years of archdeacons (500 Roman Catholic & 500 Anglican), and an Anglican cathedral. But the Anglican cultural significance is unrelated to any potential cultural significance for the Methodist analogue. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused about the claim this has "information about relevant single entries with encyclopedic information added as sourced prose." Literally the whole list is indeed just bullet-pointed names of "simple listings without context information". Some are denoted as demolished or with a random fact, but this is not prose or notable context, just a directory of non-notable places. The large majority of other lists in the category are limited to churches that are notable or historic or otherwise not just for being a directory for any that have ever existed. Many may need clean-up too though. Reywas92^Talk 07:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Passes GNG, plus Wesleyan Chapel, Bishop Street and Belgrave Hall Methodist Church are two items on list have or will their own entries, which has been a determining standard on Wikipedia for lists (& one cited by yourself if I recall correctly), for satisfying lists.Djflem (talk) 07:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That consensus on how to assess the notability does not exist does not mean that the consensus is to keep them all regardless. Further, this AfD itself is part of the process of creating said consensus. Lastly all consensus can change over time. As for other stuff existing, the essay you linked literally says that it's not a valid argument for keeping it. Further WP:VALINFO is again not an argument. You have made the point that it's a list. We've pointed out it doesn't meet the criteria for notability. Like I said last time, these are the barriers to being included not excluded. Jerod Lycett (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as I've indicated elsewhere, an article on Methodist churches in Leicester is something that meets GNG because there are reliable sources that detail the history of Methodist churches specifically in Leicester (as a whole) (see, as only a couple of examples, Rimmington's article on 1918-39, and another one 1945-1980 and an extract from Victoria County History of Leicestershire on non-conforming churches. No doubt there are further sources that are not online (which I do not have time to research). Djflem is right about this meeting criteria (other than NOTDIR). To the extent there are concerns about that policy and the page being a potential directory and breaching Wikipedia standards, that can and should be addressed by the article being cleaned up (which I accept is needed), not by deletion. Bookscale (talk) 09:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Rimmington papers are self-published by the local historical society, and the County History, which has been considered RS before, is not showing significant coverage. It includes four paragraphs which is a trivial mention in something that size. It could, with other sources to show significant coverage, be useful to establish an article on non-conforming churches in Leicester. WP:ITEXISTS is not an argument for inclusion, and I've only seen two types of sources brought, those showing the different churches exist (and a few may be worthy on an article), and those showing that Methodist churches have existed. As for NOTDIR, if it can't get past that, then it fails to be what Wikipedia is for, and fails to meet the barrier for inclusion. My argument the last time and this time is that if the notability of the group cannot be established to the point that it gets an article then, whether the article is a list or prose or a haiku, it should be deleted. Jerod Lycett (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's simply wrong to discount the Rimmington papers as the "local historical society" and completely disregard them aside as reliable sources; that sort of comment really suggests you're not willing to put an open mind to this debate and what can be done to it. The Society Transactions (from where these papers are taken) are contained in a journal published by the University of Leicester, which has submission guidelines for articles, the journal is independent of the Methodist Church and the articles are thoroughly sourced.
I will say again, because AfD is not cleanup, this article can be rewritten to include the long history of Methodist churches in Leicester, where there is significant coverage and reliable sources. Bookscale (talk) 08:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Userify or at least prune it of the list -- We cannot allow this article in its present form. Nevertheless, an article or Methodism in Leicestershire or even Methodism in Leicester might well be worth having, but this is not it: except an initial paragraph, it is merely a list of churches, which will need to be maintained as churches close or merge. The right place for that is a denominational website, where the church (denomination) will have an incentive to keep it up to date. The sources found by Bookscale are RS, which could well be used in such an article. Leicestershire Archaeological and Historical Society is the county archaeological society, whose articles will be refereed. It is not merely a local history society, of a kind whose publications can be of very uneven quality. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All these Leicester church lists should be merged into a List of places of worship in Leicester, which may be split by postcode if this proves to produce a list of excessive length. Leicester postcodes run from LE1 to LE9, which would give nine lists each with a clearly defined purpose. Mjroots (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – or else deprecate WP:NOTDIR. I can't think of a more obvious example of NOTDIR than "List of all X in City Y". We are not a telephone book or a travel guide. Do we want to list all the pizza parlors in Leicester? All the people named Smith in Leicester? Sheesh. It's an encyclopedia. Levivich 00:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - except there is notability on Methodist Churches in Leicester and reliable sources covering that. The article can be fixed up. Bookscale (talk) 08:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  @Bookscale: Although it doesn't have "list" in its title, this article is now and always has been a list. I don't doubt that it could, instead, be an article, about the history of Methodism or maybe just Methodist churches in Leicester or Leicestershire, or some other kind of spin-off of Methodist Church of Great Britain. If It were WP:TNTed or WP:HEYed I'd consider changing my !vote on those grounds, but even if this list is deleted, I don't see why a new page with the same title couldn't be re-created and used for an article (rather than a list). Levivich 20:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  See WP:TNTTNT - deletion and recreation is not appropriate if this is a valid topic as we’d lose the page history. You are arguing here for WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM.--Pontificalibus 06:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  No, I'm arguing for the page, with it's history (which is not worth keeping) to be deleted, because a list of churches doesn’t meet GNG. The topic of the history of Methodism in Leicester might meet GNG, and if so, a new article could be recreated after this one is deleted. The new article shouldn't have the history of this list. Levivich 17:28, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see why we’d have a history article without a broader article such as the current title. In any case such a recreation would be as a direct consequence of this article’s deletion and the work done on it prior to deletion to find sources. Therefore deleting the history wouldn’t correctly attribute all those who contributed to the new article.--Pontificalibus 18:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Methodist churches in Leicester is obviously a notable topic as demonstrated by the current sourcing. All the delete !voters are viewing this as a list article and invoking NOTDIR, ignoring the notability of the topic. Deletion and recreation of a prose article is not viable because we would not preserve the edit history which contains significant contributions of sources etc. I would happily trim the current list in the article, perhaps moving it to the talk page, and begin re-working the article with additional prose and new sectioning. However I am reluctant to do that while it is still at AfD. Decide it's a notable topic already and people can get to work improving it and addressing the NOTDIR concerns.----Pontificalibus 06:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you include me in the list of voters, but my argument has been on the notability. The prior AfD had more on that too. The issue is that the majority of keeps last time were arguments that since the churches exist we should have this list. The deletes here are the same people just annoyed that we have to run this again after a closure that was based on the consensus that it should be deleted and left deleted, deleted and draftified, or deleted and merged (where was not determined), and we're attempting to counter the same arguments that were made last time. Methodism in Leicester may be notable, this article, which even lacking the words List of in the title is still a list of the churches is not. As I stated in the last AfD I have no issue with it being changed into something else, but the AfD is based on what it is, not what it could be if changed (not improved). Jerod Lycett (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jerrod Lycett, except that AfD is not cleanup. If the topic is notable, and the sources exist (and both of those are right), then even if the article is in a terrible shape, it should survive AfD, except where TNT applies, and what editors here are arguing is that it's not at that point. Pontificalibus makes a valid point about the history being kept because some of the sourcing on individual churches is quite good. Bookscale (talk) 23:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree that this list is notable. If the individual buildings are notable, create their articles. As is, this is a directory. Just curious, from the consensus from the last one that regrettably got overturned without proper notification to those of us involved, which option do you think was most suitable: Delete, delete and merger, or delete and draftify, because even at the overturn that was what was discussed. Keep was not the consensus. Jerod Lycett (talk) 10:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it does have valid information but needs more prose content but the topic is notable as a book search will show and there is no valid reason for deletion if the topic is notable, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-this article is mainly of use to people who live in or near the city, or who are going for an extended visit. We need more articles with lists of important, historical buildings that have been demolished. Such knowledge turns a city into so much more than what Google Maps will give you. Yet a list of demolished buildings of no use to some 95% of Wikipedia simply because they have no chance to visit the demolished buildings.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a travel guide per policy. The use for people living in or visiting a city is completely irrelevant. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was already aware of that policy. The article is not written in a travel guide tone or format, and so does not violate the policy.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that the usefulness of an article to tourists or residents is completely irrelevant to keeping a WP article, and any argument to that effect is discouraged and unsupported by WP policy. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge, either to List of Methodist churches or to Leicester. Note neither of those potential target articles are ever going to include much from this list, because it is stupid for Wikipedia to include non-encyclopedic material (e.g. "sold in 1953 for furniture storage in 1953,[4] now the Ecumenical Church of the Nativity[11]") This is clearly a list-article. It clearly does not meet standards required for list-articles, and instead is a directory-type list of compendium. Despite protestations otherwise, the only sources specifically about a supposedly general topic of Methodist churches in Leicester are local history catalogs, which do not establish notability of the topic. There exist local history catalogs everywhere. We absolutely do not want to have thousands of similar list-articles for churches in cities of Leicester's size (population 348,000). There is no sourcing asserting the topic of Methodist churches in this city is any more important than the same in other cities. I respectfully disagree with User:Pontificalibus's opposite view; the sources in the article are routine/predictable, not good enough, and all or most provide only trivial, non-encyclopedic info anyhow.

Wikipedia's process of listing churches has been working well, with top-level world-wide list-articles now existing (see navlist Template:Lists of religious worship places). These are intended to include all churches seriously documented in a significant historic registry (e.g. Level II+ listed or higher in UK) or being a mega-church or otherwise seriously being documented. Only if a lot of development about a geographic area has been done, such that the number of churches in a large area (such as the United States as a whole, or the UK as a whole) has become too great, is it justified to split out a sublist.
In the list there are one or a few individual churches which are individually Wikipdedia-notable; these should definitely be included in the world-wide List of Methodist churches and _possibly_ they might be mentioned in the Leicester article. Leave it to editors of the world-wide list-articles to consider revising their standards for list-item-notability to include any more there.
Outright deletion would be simply WRONG, because we are obligated to seek good wp:ATDs, and here there is available the good alternative of redirecting/merging. This preserves editor contribution history (regarding material that is merged, and allowing for re-creation of the list-article if ever truly justified by new sources) as required by our standards. I cannot understand the several votes for DELETE, except for those editors wanting to overstate their true position in order to counter the overly extreme votes in the other direction. Delete voters User:MarkH21, User:Reywas92, User:Levivich, User:Peterkingiron, could you please strike/modify your policy-non-compliant votes. (The KEEP voters have similarly been too extreme IMHO, but frankly appear less amenable ~~to being reasonable, IMO~~ to changing their vote [revised--Doncram (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)])[reply]
This has all been said before. The first AFD should have been closed with this decision, because this is by far the best-reasoned argument IMHO, rather than, essentially going with vote counting. Am I the only editor seeking a compromise? (I am not sure about that, but what I have pointed out is not disrespecting the developer(s) and is in fact between the two extremes.) --Doncram (talk) 01:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Doncram:, it's very unfair and not in good faith to imply that the keep !voters have been unreasonable and are not attempting compromise. Even on the keep side there is general acceptance that the article needs significant rewriting, we have put forward sources to redo the article so it does comply with Wikipedia policies, and in the case of Pontificalibus they have offered to do the work of rewriting. And I need to say again, the definition of the sources that have been put forward as "local history" is not true - they are reliable sources and are not "routine". See my comments above. Bookscale (talk) 06:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sure, I revised my statement to say that "Keep" voters appear less likely to be willing to change and choose the option I suggest, without saying that is unreasonable. Sorry for being a tad too negative/dismissive in a perhaps unfair way.

But a long time has gone on and the article has not been developed. It is more than fair now to remove the article by redirecting it; you will still have access to what was written before and you could still later try to produce a better version in user- or draft-space and seek approval to replace the redirect by MFD or RFC or otherwise.

I simply don't see the sources as providing basis for a separate article on this too-narrow topic. You point to two works published/recognized only by the Trans. Leicestershire Archaeol. and Hist. Soc (and one other, previously discussed). That appears to me to be a local journal determined to catalog whatever a local author sets out to catalog in Leicester, whether or not there is anything distinctive/noteworthy about it. Note I am very aware that there are many local catalogs/inventories of trivialities of local history done by local governments, which are routine and absolutely do not bear copying into Wikipedia. Like if one town publishes its consultant report exhaustively detailing its perfectly normal sewer system, say, it is just not encyclopedic to put that detail into Wikipedia. If excessive detail happens to be available somewhere, just give a reference to the source and let any rare extremely interested reader follow the link.
More specifically, Rimmington's "between World Wars one" includes local statistics which are not worth covering in the Leicester article, and seems to be only documenting national trends like the declining(?) "response to Methodism in the mining and quarrying communities [vs.] the membership increases in some manufacturing centres". It has no comparative data and identifies nothing different about Leicester, and includes statements emphasizing that, such as "What was true of the national leadership was true also of the local leadership in Leicestershire". You could possibly use the source to mention Leicester's local stats as an example of some national trends within the general article about Methodist Church of Great Britain, but it is not proper to copy the cataloging into Wikipedia just because more detailed cataloging happens to be available about this one place.
Rimmington's 1945-1980 one is likewise about the national trend, with nothing distinctive to say about Leicester. Its abstract/summary is: "Methodism, with its circuit system of organisation and its reliance on local preachers, fared better in the post-1945 years than the older Nonconformist denominations. In Leicestershire, as elsewhere, [etc.]" (emphasis added).
The four paragraphs in the history of Leicester County have already been properly dismissed above by another editor, and I evaluated it within the first AFD. It is relied upon in the current article which you agree is poor. It is the horrible source of trivialities such as one church having been "sold to be a furniture repository in 1953", with nothing to say about the church itself, which should NOT be put into Wikipedia. Like i said in the first AFD, perhaps one or two of the churches cataloged there could conceivably be mentioned in the "Leicester" or "List of Methodist churches" article, but for all or almost all it is not appropriate for Wikipedia to mention them at all.

I respect your efforts to argue here, User:Bookscale, but you simply have not established that a decent article could be written on this too-narrow topic where there is nothing exceptional at all to write about. I don't think you can do it successfully, but it remains open for you to try to create one later. --Doncram (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Doncram - (1) I think we're going to have to agree in good faith to disagree about the sources. It feels like the sources are being picked apart a bit too much to deny notability in a way that never happens on other AfDs. Another editor has explained above that Rimmington's articles are not just a "local journal", they are a county journal published by a University with strict requirements for submission. Rimmington's articles, for example, do describe in a sentence or so the founding of particular churches at particular times, which does not justify individual church articles but would be ok with a general article on Methodist churches in Leicester and their history more generally. (2) I get that this is a niche topic but I think there's enough here for an article. I appreciate you have not argued for deletion and are seeking a genuine compromise, and I'm grateful for that. However (and I'm speaking generally here, not at you) it does feel like I (and Djflem) are the ones who seem to be doing the heavy lifting on explaining why the article should be kept, but are still being asked to justify absolutely everything in a way that never happens on other AfDs. I have a real fear that even if there was an attempt at properly recreating the article (which editors here have expressed that they are very happy to do) the same editors who hate religious-themed articles (NB - I'm not talking about you at all, I'm thinking of some who participated in the last AfD including the one who said something explicitly to that effect) will come back and decry all notability no matter how hard you try. Bookscale (talk) 11:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Draftify fails WP:LISTN woefully; most of the listing of churches are unlinked churches, not even redlinks. Most of the "keep" arguments are vague waves and incorrect as lists, like navboxes and portals, are navigation aids. Thus, WP:GNG does not apply...full stop. This is, unquestionably, a list, regardless of how it is titled (i.e., List of Methodist churches in Leicester). There's nothing here worth keeping, so this should be (a) deleted, without prejudice to recreation as a pared down list of bluelinked Methodist churches in Leicester or, considering alternatives to deletion, (b) draftified. Doug Mehus T·C 01:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Dmehus:, you clearly haven't read any of the material at all in this AfD about the sources that are available to justify why Methodist churches in Leicester is a topic that has been sufficiently covered in external sources elsewhere to justify a page, and the offer to rewrite the article to fix any notability problems, and the reasons for retaining the page history. Your comment ignores Wikipedia policy that individual items do not have to be notable of themselves, only the churches as a whole. The accusation that keep !votes are "vague" is quite simply a bad faith accusation. It would be helpful if you added something constructive to this discussion rather than accusations. Bookscale (talk) 13:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  @Bookscale: I don’t see how Dmehus saying that an argument is vague is an example of assuming bad faith. That’s an editor‘s assessment of an argument, not another editor’s intentions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 13:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Involved Comment @Levivich, MarkH21, and Peterkingiron: and Doncram from the previous AfD make the most compelling, rational, and correct policy-based reasons for deletion, draftification/userification, or merge (which I'd prefer in that order) here. Djflem and Pontificalibus make references to WP:GNG, which is incorrect, and either, in part or in whole, the basis of their arguments. Doug Mehus T·C 01:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your contention that GNG cannot be used as grounds to keep an article that is in list form is simply wrong. If a topic passes GNG it's irrelevant whether the article exists as a list or prose. You might argue for a rewrite, but not deletion.----Pontificalibus 08:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noting your point about arguing for a rewrite, which I completely agree is necessary, per WP:CLN and WP:AOAL and other policies, this rewriting of an unencyclopedic content should occur in Draft: namespace, which I've so endorsed. Doug Mehus T·C 15:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please see, and contribute to, thoughts about further rationalizing Wikipedia's lists of churches, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Methodist churches in Leicester#further lists to AFD after this AFD is closed: top-down vs. bottom-up. Brief version: "top-down-type" lists like "List of Methodist churches" are okay; "bottom-up-type" lists like "Methodist churches in Leicester" are not. Other too-narrow ones to be AFD'd next are listed. I try to cut through evident confusion about idea of "Lists of X of Y". --Doncram (talk) 23:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - to assist, this discussion is actually here. Bookscale (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list fails under the policy WP:NOTDIR#6. Wikipedia is not a directory listing every place of worship, local business – etc. Lightburst (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Involved Comment To expand on what I said above, since it was raised by Bookscale, this list does fail WP:LISTN in that every entry is at least supposed to link to a bluelinked article (that's the principal reason of a list, which this is). Per WP:CSC, some redlinks are acceptable, if each redlinked entry would meet our notability guideline(s). Even still, per WP:CLN, since these are primarily navigational aids, most (a substantial majority) of the churches should be bluelinks. We don't have that. Like Lightburst and MarkH21, I favour deletion here as there is nothing in the history worth keeping beyond a simple listing of the churches and some bibliographic references. However, one alternative to deletion that would also likely survive DRV is draftification in that no one would be pleased but it would (a) get this non-qualifying list article out of Google-indexed Main: namespace (for those arguing deletion), (b) preserve history (for those arguing "keep" or "redirect"), and (c) allow editors to work on this list, without deadlines, in non-indexed Draft: namespace. Discussions could continue on what to include in the list, without said fear of having a deadline and then a strong consensus could emerge. As long as it's being edited, or discussions are taking place, there'd be no rationale for deletion in that namespace. And, we've got quite a deletion history here from this, so this would save having to re-add those tags to the talk page. End result: everyone would satisfice without the outcome. Doug Mehus T·C 17:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Involved reply This is a misinterpretation of our policy on lists. There is no requirement at all for bluelinks, and this is made clear in WP:LISTCRITERIA which states "While notability is often a criterion for inclusion in overview lists of a broad subject, it may be too stringent for narrower lists; one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles". Your grounds for deletion that there is "nothing in the history worth keeping beyond a simple listing...and some bibliographic references." is also flawed. There is the addition of significant referenced content e.g. [8], and the addition of the references alone is worth keeping as they contain additional information which could be used to improve the article, or any merge target or renamed article that comes out of this.----Pontificalibus 08:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I referenced WP:CLN, which applies to lists, so it's not flawed, particularly when you consider WP:AOAL which says that, although unlinked items can be included if there is consensus to do so (I've seen no evidence of such), such as in the case of a comprehensive list of works of a published author, composer, etc., in this case, we're just creating a list of mostly non-notable Methodist churches in Leicester. So, I go back to WP:NOTDIR cited by others. The point about the references, potentially, has merit in Draft: namespace, and note I've
endorsed draftification. ;-) --Doug Mehus T·C 14:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to determine whether further discussion can either break the current impasse or develop an alternative solution that is more broadly accepted. BD2412 T 05:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 05:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would modify my delete !vote above to anything but keep. What this article is, despite its title, is a list-article, and it's not a notable list. The list should be removed from the encyclopedia. Something else can exist with the same title: a redirect, or article–if someone takes the time to write one with proper sourcing. So whether the list is deleted, and then something else (an article, a redirect) is recreated thereafter, or whether it's changed into a redirect or article before this AfD closes, or as part of the AfD close... doesn't matter to me. So... I guess that's technically a delete but allow recreation as anything but a list, or redirect to anywhere, with or without merge, or draftify or userfy. Levivich 05:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally a list article trying to pretend it isn't one. It should just be turned into one or deleted outright. It's questionable if the vast majority of the buildings it lists are even worth mentioning in Wikipedia and doing so might entice people to create spin off articles for them when they shouldn't. Maybe Wikidata instead would be a better place for it. Either way, the article should probably be deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
' Merge ' - As above, there are several options other than delete. I couldn't find coverage of the topic to justify keeping the article, However, there are other articles that could be usefully merged. E.g. Places_of_worship_in_Leicester appears to be a poor list with inappropriate links. The article for this AfD contains more information, but only about Methodist churches. It seems to me that merging and developing this topic is the best way forward. Ross-c (talk) 09:15, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - @Ross-c: - have you read any of the comments above which suggest that there are in fact sources available? Doing a Google search is not good enough. Bookscale (talk) 09:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with merge also. Although, I don't know if I can change my "vote". --Adamant1 (talk) 04:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1:.The way to change your vote is simply to replace ~~Delete~~ with Merge.Djflem (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or optionally draftify/merge if someone wants to actually do that. This is a non-encyclopedic cross-categorisation of the type prohibited by WP:NOTDIR point 6. "List of Methodist churches in Leicester" is essentially the same as the "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y" mentioned in that policy, with religion substituted for food. Granted, the title isn't "List of Methodist churches in Leicester", but that's basically what the page is. It's certainly a list and not an article, in particular there's essentially no prose. It doesn't have navigational value because hardly any of the entries are links. Regarding the sources discussed above, they seem to me to be discussing the topic of Methodism in Leicester (or Leicestershire), which suggests that Methodism in Leicester may well be a notable topic. However this isn't an article about Methodism in Leicester, any more than a list of restaurants in France is an article about French cuisine. If someone does want to use the contents of this page to write an article about Methodism in Leicester then that's fine with me and I'd be happy for it to be moved to draft space for that purpose. But the fact that someone could use the sources in this page to write a completely different article is hardly a reason to keep it. Hut 8.5 20:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - @Hut 8.5: - for the millionth time, read the comments above. There are people here willing to rewrite the article to make it meet Wikipedia policies, and there are sources available to support the notability of Methodism in Leicester. The article does not need to be moved to draft space to be improved. Bookscale (talk) 10:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - What you're talking about isn't improvement. An article about Methodism in Leicester would have a different title, different scope and completely different contents. It would be a completely different page, not an improved version of this one. This page isn't encyclopedic and shouldn't remain in mainspace. The fact that someone may be able to write a completely different page on a related topic does not change that. If anybody needs access to the sources in this page to write the other article then draftification will allow that. Hut 8.5 14:21, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm getting really tired of replying to unfair comments like this. There seems to be a real dislike of anything on Wikipedia to do with churches or religious articles and a push to get rid of anything to do with them. Comments like "shouldn't remain in mainspace" are uncalled for. The proposals I've set out are an improvement to the article. The sources for some of the churches can be used to support the article, and there would still be some discussion of the churches in an article on the Methodist Church in Leicester and its history - that goes without saying. The article can be improved. Why not show some good faith and allow the editors who have volunteered to do that? It doesn't need to be draftified in a way that relegates the article and those who want to improve it to the status of some editor with few edits to their name who can't be trusted. Bookscale (talk) 10:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not supporting getting rid of it because it relates to religion and I'd appreciate it if you comment on the content and not what you think the contributor's motives are. I don't think a list of Methodist churches in Leicester is encyclopedic content, because it fails WP:NOT#DIR. Yes, every time we decide to delete an article that constitutes a decision that the content shouldn't remain in mainspace. Quite possibly an article about Methodism in Leicester would have some discussion of churches in it, but it would be a discussion of those churches with paragraphs of prose and not a list of them. When I say that what you're suggesting isn't an improvement I mean that what you're suggesting is writing a completely different page as opposed to making this one better. I'm entirely happy with someone writing an article about Methodism in Leicester, but I don't see why that means this page should remain in mainspace. Hut 8.5 12:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would conditionally support the merge supported by @Ross-c and Hut 8.5:, but this article cannot wait for that merge to be carried out and, given the controversial nature of this article, consensus to merge with the target should be discussed at the talk page of the proposed target article. It's not our place to deliver edicts to merge said content into a target. Thus, I think a merger is ultimately appropriate down the road, but that the correct outcome as an alternative to deletion is to draftify this list which fails the above-noted policies for lists and lists, categories, and navigation templates. It's non-qualifying encyclopedic content and cannot remain in the Main: namespace. While it's being draftified, incubated, and so forth, a parallel discussion can emerge on the talk page of the proposed target. But, at present, consensus is now firmly against "keep"-ing this article, and since "merge" is a variant on "keep," we really do only have two (three, actually) possible outcomes: delete, draftify, or userify. Userify isn't likely a good option as there's a number of willing editors to contribute. Doug Mehus T·C 20:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - @Dmehus: the article does not need to be draftified to be improved. If there is notability (which there is and which has been established above, several times), and there are reliable sources (which there are, again, established above several times), then the article can be cleaned up. It's that simple. Bookscale (talk) 10:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Bookscale WP:GNG doesn't apply to lists. It does, however, fail our requirements for lists, navigation templates, and categories, as been pointed out above and which even one or more "keep"/"redirect" !votes acknowledge. It is thus unencyclopedic and unencyclopedic content cannot remain in the Google-indexed Main namespace. Consensus is firmly against keeping this list and, in my view, we should not be dictating the potential merger target at the close of this AfD. Thus, draftification/userification is the best outcome here. Doug Mehus T·C 14:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. The sourcing of the list entries is primary, at best, with little indication that they would be notable on their own. Either way, Wikipedia is not a directory. The article should have remained deleted. Ajf773 (talk) 20:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)'[reply]
- Comment @Ajf773: again, can you please read the comments above about sources and editors who are offering to improve the article? It's not fair to just come in at the end and make an unconstructive !vote without reading all of what has been mentioned before. Bookscale (talk) 10:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

Discussion has narrow point of view focus on religion (nominator position in wikiproject) and disregards of other uses of such an article-list and how it contributes to an understanding of cultural significance of architecture, urban development, and city/regional history

This list is tightly focused and finite and NOT indiscriminate.

There are Wikipedia:Reliable sources and the Wikipedia:Verifiability they provided to page. Several editors believe satisfies. :Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Currently only those sources which are online are given used. Since such coverage exists online, it can be presumed that there are more sources which are not digitalized including those are offered in source list.

Though it not necessary that there be any blue links, a common standard used for lists on Wikipedia is that when a list has at least one blue link the whole list is kept, a practice not being applied here. There is one blue, any likely more red links can be turned into stand-alone articles. As per Wikipedia:LISTCRITERIA, Wikipedia should not contain indiscriminate lists and only certain types of list should be exhaustive. While notability is often a criterion for inclusion in overview lists of a broad subject, it may be too stringent for narrower lists; one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles, so common sense is required in establishing criteria for a list. This list is exhaustive, and common sense is keeping the complete list, which is not likely to change.

Wikipedia:NOTPAPER and inclusion of this material not in any way undermine Wikipedia's goal to document human knowledge, but rather supports it.

Wikipedia:Merging into an article List of Churches in Leicester or Churches in Leicester (currently a re-direct) (which would dispel any concerns about DIR#6) would produce a page with over 350 entries, which would then lead to Wikipedia:SPLIT. There is no reason to go through that process, when the split has already taken place.

Citing DIR#6 is vague because it in itself is vague and does NOT by any means preclude lists of this type. As clearly stated the policy Wikipedia:GNG, there is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists." DIR#6 touches upon the subject without the clear direct statement made in GNG, which is that lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Any attempt to ignore this and state that one vague policy trumps another clear one is cognitive dissonance. It also ignores the fact that Wikipedia does indeed have Category:Lists of churches, which is filled with exactly the same type of lists.

NOT KEEP is not a AfD discussion option and does not, should not, and cannot be taken to mean DELETE. Djflem (talk) 09:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Djflem: Can I ask why you moved your keep vote and restated what you already said above? Jerod Lycett (talk) 10:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:HEY is appropriate header to indicate that an article was changed since last AfD. What restatements?Djflem (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that in the essay, however what you changed to hey was your vote section, with discussion under it, you've restated what you wrote there, and moved your vote here. I'm asking why you did that. As is it could cause confusion and accidentally cause you to be counted twice. Jerod Lycett (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then please read HEY again, as it does describe how articles should be evaluated after they have been re-worked/sources added. Please clarify what you believe is being re-stated, because that's not what I nor any honest reader can see.Djflem (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith:, Noting Jerodlycett's reply, I see no reason for Djflem's comment to be moved-duplicated from above when you consider that the argument is essentially the same and the !vote has been moved but the preceding !vote is still a bolded "HEY"— from above. Can you perform some procedural actions here in your capacity as a non-involved admin?? Doug Mehus T·C 14:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To which duplications are you referring in your claim?Djflem (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Djflem, I assume the same thing Jerodlycett was referring to, which is your exhaustive preliminary analysis. You've essentially repeated much of what you said before and moved your "keep" !vote. Noting to the closer that your earlier HEY is a "keep" !vote and that this repeat should be disregarded. Doug Mehus T·C 22:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please identify what has been repeated. If you cannot do so, stop repeating the false claim.Djflem (talk) 22:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Djflem: For the second time, please read WP:TALK#REPLIED about editing your comments after others have replied as you did again here. For what it’s worth, it also does look like a double !vote since first-level bolded text is reserved for them. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Final comment and note to closing administrator - Borne out of a message Doncram sent to me, I thought I'd make a final apology and comment (both to the editors and whoever closes this) in good faith to explain some of my edits above and then bow out gracefully to let this take its course.
I'm sorry if I have contributed to this AfD being unpleasant and unconstructive. I like to take the Wikipedia philosophy of alternatives to deletion seriously, and think that there are too many AfDs where a little bit of research and thought by individual editors should result in an article being kept or merged instead of deleted where that is possible. In this AfD I have commented often out of frustration because I can see a very clear way to keep but substantially improve the article to meet Wikipedia policy, spurred on not only by having found genuinely reliable sources, but also the fact that I and others are happy to do some of the improvement work and editors like Pontificalibus have specifically mentioned that. I also feel frustrated because it feels like this article has been subjected to far more scrutiny than others, which I think is unfair. My thought above was that it is perhaps religious-themed articles that are disliked but that is probably an unfair generalisation that reflects badly on the editors who have commented here, so I apologise for that. My frustration also comes, thirdly, because I don't have the time and space to improve the article in the course of the AfD but would be prepared to do it after, so I don't want to see the sourcing that is already in the article (some of which can and should be kept in respect of individual churches) lost entirely.
I would like to see this article turned into something good that is worthy of the encyclopedia, which is why I have asked for it to be kept. If that's not the consensus, then draftifying should be the only alternative to that if editors are supposed to look for an alternative to deletion. That's all I'm going to say on this AfD. I'd love it if other editors could support a means by which there is a way to continue to improve the article. I think the best way to do that is to leave it to be improved, but appreciate others may have different views. Thanks. Bookscale (talk) 11:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said earlier, Draftify for improvements: According to WP:GNG, it is appropriate or things of the same sort that are not sufficiently notable for a separate article to be covered in a list--an analogy very familiar to me is the many articles on "Schools in..." . Once draftified, the first step is to add some documentation for each of the items listed, which should easily be possible, for the potential sources are given in the bottom on the list (plus local newspapers). Then, try to expand the sections, it should be possible to add at least dates and locations and first minister for every one of them. Then for any that do seem to meet notability -- and some may if only because of their buildings, as is frequently the case for articles on churches, expand those to articles. The only merge that makes sense to me, is a combined list, for Churches in Leicester. Most of the list will probably be Anglican churches, of which some are certainly old enough to be notable. It doesn't really matter what we call it, and we could equally well call it a combination article. DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a perfectly legitimate list of like items that is not indiscriminate and consistent with like lists already throughout Wikipedia. Lists are one method of organization; categories are another, and they both serve different functions. I would disagree with draftifying for cleanup, and kind of surprised the DGG would suggest such. Wikipedia is a work in progress, it is never finished. An article being sloppy is not a good reason to remove it from mainspace or delete, it's a good reason to fix it. Worst case, you delete the sloppy and/or unsourced parts and work from history to restore the data in a better format. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:35, 21 February 2020 (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 lack of policy discussion in this AfD suggests that this is not a deletion issue but an editorial issue. Further editorial discussions about possible mergers should be held on the relevant talk pages. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Order of battle for the Battle of Long Tan

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

Completely unnecessary fork from the already overlong Battle of Long Tan, all relevant information is already contained on that page. A separate order of battle is completely unwarranted for such a minor action involving small forces. Mztourist (talk) 04:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 04:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 08:47, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Someone needs to go through the battle article and deal with the excessive level of detail. I'm also going to nominate Assessment of the Battle of Long Tan. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a perfectly viable article. The Battle of Long Tan is the most important Australian battle of the Vietnam War, and the huge number of accounts of the engagement usually include detailed descriptions of the forces involved. Nick-D (talk) 07:35, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment with all due respect to those who participated, Long Tan was a trivial 4 hour engagement that has been vastly overwritten. Far more significant battles of the Vietnam War: Battle of Ia Drang, Battle of Dak To, Battle of Khe Sanh, Battle of Hue, Battle of Hamburger Hill, Cambodian Campaign and Operation Lam Son 719 and other wars don't have such extensive pages describing the battle and then also supporting pages such as this unnecessary order of battle and the excessive Assessment of the Battle of Long Tan.Mztourist (talk) 08:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - With respect, your views aren't relevant here per Wikipedia's usual emphasis on reliable sources rather than what individual contributors happen to think. There are a vast number of RS on this topic given its significance in Australia. We also have plenty of other articles which provide orders of battle for individual engagements, some of which are FAs. WP:NOTPAPER also applies. Nick-D (talk) 09:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Given its significance in Australia" appears to sum up your whole argument. This isn't about the existence of RS, its about whether or not this page is needed as a standalone when its all more than adequately covered on the main page. The fact that we may have "plenty of other articles which provide orders of battle for individual engagements" is unconvincing as such pages usually are where large diverse forces are involved (see [9]) which isn't the case here. WP:NOTPAPER is similarly unconvincing Mztourist (talk) 09:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Already covered in way more detail then it needs to be in the original article. There's zero reason to have a unique article for the order the battle was in. Unless there was some uniquely notable thing about "the order the battle happened in." Which there doesn't seem to be. So it shouldn't have an article on it's own as a subject just through association. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Adamant1: I think that you've misunderstood the topic of the article. An order of battle is a list of military units, not the order something happened in. It's quite common for military history works to have annexes setting out the order of battle for the units involved in the topic the work covers. Nick-D (talk) 09:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's possible. I still think what I said would apply though. Unless there is something uniquely notable about the order of battle for the units (or whatever) it doesn't warrant it's own article. At least not in this case IMO. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I do not see how this warrants its own article. It is, however, direclty relevant detail for the battle. Put it into a show hide collapse div at the end of the main article. Aoziwe (talk) 12:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article contains relevant and reliably sourced details for the battle. To the extent there is duplicated material, AfD is not cleanup - merger proposals should be debated on the talk page rather than here. This is also a bad faith nomination - Mztourist expressed a merge proposal on the article's talk page and then started the AfD without bothering to let it run its course. Bookscale (talk) 10:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Bookscale nothing bad faith at all, I never proposed a merger, I made a comment on the Talk Page questioning if the page was necessary, having received no response after a week I put the page up for AFD. The page is entirely duplicative of information already contained on the overlong Battle of Long Tan Mztourist (talk) 11:02, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - you didn't wait a week, and you didn't even contact the author of the page. And I repeat my comments about AfD not being for cleaning up articles. Bookscale (talk) 11:10, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Response Bookscale I don't have to wait any length of time (yes I was 5 hours short of a week - sue me!), nor do I have any obligation to contact the author of the page (who I know has Retired). This is not a matter of cleaning up articles, it is about deleting a totally redundant fork that is already covered on the main page. Mztourist (talk) 11:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment - if you thought it was redundant and you think the editor is retired, why didn't you just merge (or redirect if you contend there is nothing to merge) the content then? Bookscale (talk) 11:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Because there's nothing worth merging, its all on the main page. Rather than blanking and redirecting I put it up for AFD so that other Users can express their views on it. Mztourist (talk) 11:21, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        It clearly wasn't the original intent behind the AfD to use it for something they aren't intended for. But If an AfD does lead to cleanup, then surely that's to the benefit of Wikipedia. So why even make an issue out of it? --Adamant1 (talk) 04:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: there seems sufficient coverage to support a stand alone order of battle article, IMO. Orders of battle are quite common in the coverage of battles (not just on Wikipedia, but in books and other mediums etc), and IMO it makes it easier for the reader to quickly determine what units took part, using a list format, without having to wade through the prose of the main battle article (which should arguably just focus on just the main formations, IMO). If the main battle article has too much detail in this regard, I'd suggest paring it back to utilise the OOB article/list to provide the detail. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Response I refer to my comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assessment of the Battle of Long Tan regarding SIGCOV and Australiocentricity. I am not sure what criteria there are (if any) for creating separate stand alone order of battle articles, but on my quick skim of pages in the Category:Orders of battle, Long Tan seems to be the shortest and simplest and is the only Vietnam War battle order of battle. My understanding is that an order of battle is used to add clarity where there are multiple units/squadrons/ships/fleets in a battle that might confuse a reader and that just wasn't the case at Long Tan. One Australian infantry company was engaged by a VC force of unknown size composed of 2 or 3 different units, air and artillery support was provided and then 2 more infantry companies and some APCs arrived and that was the battle. It all fits easily into the Infobox with no confusion. Mztourist (talk) 13:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nick-D and AustralianRupert Bumbubookworm (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have plenty of OrBat articles, and putting this detail in a separate article is valid under WP:SPINOFF. I accept Mztourist's point that Long Tan has had far too much written about it, but in Wikipedia terms that amounts to WP:SIGCOV. "Uniquely notable" is not the criterion for lists; significant coverage in reliable sources is. Yes, it could be in the main article, but moving material into a subarticle is valid under WP:SPINOFF. That no other Vietnam War engagement has an OrBat falls under WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST: "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do or do not exist, because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Hawkeye7 I see your WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST and raise you WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in relation to "We have plenty of OrBat articles". In relation to WP:SPINOFF as I have pointed out above the Long Tan OrBat is not sufficiently complicated to justify its own page, fitting easily into the Infobox and it appears to be the smallest OrBat on WP. There needs to be some commonsense applied here, an OrBat is only justified if it clarifies a complicated mix of forces and that wasn't the case at Long Tan. Mztourist (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2020 (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vichy (company)

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

Only 50 edits in 8 years. No WP:RS sources. Recent edits indicate intent to promote. Zefr (talk) 04:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally not notable or worthy of an article. Maybe a mention in the L'Oréal article as a subsidiary, but that's it. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:00, 9 February 2020 (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. Opinions are split between "keep" and "merge". A decision on which can be taken outside this AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beerware

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable injoke. The fact that it's been used a few times (as demonstrated by the 'sources') does not constitute significant coverage. Amisom (talk) 16:38, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per list of sources from the previous nomination. Renomination contains no substantial new arguments and therefore fails WP:BEFORE. Modernponderer (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the speedy keep criteria apply...? {Clue: none.} Amisom (talk) 14:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Amisom, that would be the first one: The nominator [...] fails to advance any argument for deletion. By the way, "{Clue: none.}" is WP:UNCIVIL; please refrain from using language like that here. Modernponderer (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Modernponderer: Oh dear, did you accidentally forget to read the whole of WP:SK#1? Bless. That criterion is for where what is actually being proposed is something other than deletion, eg. redirection or nomination. I am definitely proposing deletion. The article doesn't meet WP:GNG, and the previous discussion (nine years ago) reached the wrong conclusion. Renomination is explicitly allowed here at Wikipedia, especially nine years later, and if you think a rule should be introduced to ban it – or that a new Speedy Keep criterion should be created to cover it – you'll want to propose that at WP:VPP. In the meantime, don't scream "speedy keep" when you just mean "I don't like this nomination and I wish it wasn't happening", and we'll get along just fine. Amisom (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Amisom: Your reading of that criterion is not accurate: perhaps only proposing an alternative action such as moving or merging (emphasis mine). Neither is your understanding of my !vote – I have no objection to renomination per se; I am objecting to a renomination without valid reasoning. And your language has crossed into WP:NPA territory now. Modernponderer (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Modernponderer: Nope. You're mistaken. On both counts. Go ahead and file a report at WP:ANI if you're sure you're right though. I wont' stop you. Amisom (talk) 17:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep' I did a search on 'beerware license' on Google News and I found many discussions of the Beerware licence in various technical journals etc. I believe that's good enough to establish WP:GNG. Ross-c (talk) 09:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ross-c: Care to link to any so we can test whether they're WP:SIGCOV? See also WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. Amisom (talk) 09:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Amisom: As an example, Linux Insider, Hewlett-Packard, etc. reliable sources. Yes, there are situations where something is mentioned in many sources, but is still not notable. However, after going through a lot of sources, I do not believe that this is the case here. Ross-c (talk) 09:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ross-c: Read what I said again. I didn't question whether Hewlett-Packard is a reliable source. I made two points: (i) I invited you to link to the pages you say you found, and (ii) I explained that this is so we can assess whether or not they discuss 'beerware' "directly and in detail". Happy to wait. Amisom (talk) 09:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Amisom: If you want a front page Washington Post article solely about Beerware, then obviously I can't produce one. As I said, I have looked through many resources. E.g. a google search on "Beerware License" on google scholar shows that the terms is discussed in peer reviewed research on open source licensing such as [10] It's discussed in the bookMakers at Work: Folks Reinventing the World One Object or Idea at a Time by Steven Osborn - searchable on Google books. Listed among other licenses in this paper [11], Mentioned in 'The Cathedral & the Bazaar - Musings on Linux and Open Source by Eric S. Raymond ' (again available through Google Books, etc. Discussed in Alfred Glossbrenner's Master Guide to Free Software for Ibms and Compatible Computers (again google books), and so on. This is the kind of coverage I found - and yes there are many sources, but many sources does not mean that something is not notable - just that the number of sources by itself does not prove notability. (Which I was aware of before you pointed it out, thank you.) I have not just counted the sources, but looked into what is said about the license, and its use in the world. And, I believe that in this case notability is achieved. Ross-c (talk) 10:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ross-c: The Kim and Bae paper doesn't contain "significant coverage"; a one-word mention in a list is clearly not sufficient. The same goes for the Dempsey et al article: the only mention is in this sentence: Reflecting the informal attitude of many contributors, the information here runs the gamut from authors who claim a copyright on their software (rare) to "beerware," "freely distributable," and many variations along these lines. That doesn't count as "directly and in detail" by anyone's standard. Got anything else? (And no, it doesn't need to be a front page from the Post. It just needs to meet the WP:GNG.) Amisom (talk) 10:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to shareware. I do not agree with the other keeps above that this meets notability requirements for an article in its own right. However it does deserve mention somewhere and the logical place is the shareware page that has a description of licenses. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 21:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while a merge to shareware would work as a second choice, I believe the sourcing is just about good enough to suggest notability. Lepricavark (talk) 06:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Likely keep (holding off on a bolded !vote until I can find sources). I'm not in the programming world, but even I've seen this around for years and it doesn't quite seem like a good fit for merge in shareware. TBD. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:59, 15 February 2020 (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. Lourdes 18:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Area News Group

AfDs for this article:

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

This article on a small local news publisher survived AfD in 2015 with a ‘no consensus’ result in 2015. I can’t find any reliable independent sources to support it. Mccapra (talk) 12:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 12:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 12:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 12:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 12:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Because I think that it is useful to be able to validate the existence and respectability of news sources, because some of the component papers are older than the group, and because I have added sourcing from regional dailies Boston Globe, The Sun (Lowell) and New Hampshire Union Leader.IceFishing (talk) 23:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Totally not notable. Two of the articles added by IceFishing seem to be about how their news papers ran something that helped someone get a spleen or something. I wouldn't call that worthy of the parent company the article is about being notable. There isn't automatic notability by association. Same goes for two of the news papers having a supposedly popular column. That might make them (questionably) notable, but it doesn't by proxy make their parent company notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per IceFishing. Useful and encyclopedic, and considerably more sensible than having separate articles for each of these three newspapers. -- Visviva (talk) 06:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Visviva:, except none of the three news papers have their own article. Probably because they aren't notable either. They are listed here, but it just forwards back to the Area News Group article. Which makes me think they had articles at one point that where removed for lack of notability. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 12:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per IceFishing (talk · contribs); see also draft notability criteria for newspapers here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Newspapers/Notability. Please note, I have expanded the article a great deal with citations from other (independently owned) newspapers. These include coverage of two ownership changes, a lawsuit around conflict of interest, and impact of the paper's coverage on other local media and local politics. I found these through my library's subscription to NewsBank, so they are not available online for easy review, but your library may also have this subscription. The article was borderline when nominated, but I think with this expansion it's a clear "keep". I would welcome assistance in better organizing the info I've added, though. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Bogie. Sandstein 20:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Radial steering truck

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

"somewhat experimental" with patent citations. No reliable secondary sources indicating this topic is notable enough to be worthy of an article of its own. Graywalls (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment The article is terrible: these are actually pretty standard in current locomotives. That said, I'm not convinced that it needs an article on its own; there's probably some place related to diesel locomitves where it ought to be merged. Mangoe (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merege to Bogie. I note this 1906 journal article states "..the unnecessarily complicated radial bogie truck now in use on the London and North-Western Railway" so it has clearly been around for some time.----Pontificalibus 15:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:20, 9 February 2020 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Political science of religion

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

This article reeks of original research. There is no reference to a source which even uses the term 'political science of religion'. Furthermore, the article is full of unsourced claims. This does not seem like a generally accepted field of political science, but the article is trying to make it into one. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 02:04, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 02:04, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete even if this article could be rescued, its title has a uselessly broad scope - every religion has different politics - so why keep this turd? Elizium23 (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This makes no sense. ⌚️ (talk) 02:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost certainly mostly OR in its current state. Term appears to be in some sort of use, as evidenced by articles I found with titles "Political Science of Religion: Demarcating the Field" and "Do We Need a ‘Political Science of Religion’?", but this article would not be the right way to cover this topic. TNT delete, and if this topic is a notable one, a functional article can be made by another editor. Hog Farm (talk) 03:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because I'm not convinced why this article needs to exist when we already have Religion in politics. -- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 05:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - not trying to justify the article's existence at all (it's in a really terrible state), but you do realise politics and political science are different things? Bookscale (talk) 11:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:SNOWBALL or whatever it is. As I don't see five keep votes in a row coming along. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:SYNTH creation at best. The article's unsupported claims are quite problematic. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The whole thing has the feel of a NEOLOGISM, or perhaps the initial proposal submitted by a doctoral student for his university to approve his research programme. Not encyclopedic. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article should not be deleted because it reveals the nature of deliberate use of religion as a part of "Psychological Operations" to manipulate public opinion by politicians. The specific examples can be found in every culture, but this is a level of specific analysis in sociology and political science and definitely deserves to have its own entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.23.87.189 (talk) 18:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ngram viewer results cannot be found for the term.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:06, 13 February 2020 (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shruti Merchant

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

Fails WP:GNG, written in promotional tone and filled with her notable relatives. Only one movie to show as an independent coreographer. The9Man talk 07:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:03, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:04, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject may become notable in future but it is not as of now. GargAvinash (talk) 19:32, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm actually not sure about this one. Yes, most coverage appears to be directly linked to her husband, Dhruv Bhandari, but there appears to be some coverage like this...she might've worked in a few notable productions too, strengthening her claim. And lastly, I might give her the benefit of the doubt due to the language component: i.e. there might be quality Marathi sources I'm not aware of. So, I'll abstain from a !vote until these aspects are elucidated. It goes without saying that the article needs serious cleanup. Best, PK650 (talk) 04:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete notability is not inherited. Whatever non-significant coverage, and non-significant work she is getting is because her family. Other sources are routine coverage, some look like press releases/paid content for the "Taj Express" that she is direcor of, and the tours that they have performing theatrical musical “THE MERCHANTS OF BOLLYWOOD” as the assistant choreographer. The story of the show is based on the life of her sister Ms. Vaibhavi Merchant and her grandfather Late Shri B.Hiralal. which she is assistant director for (the quoted text is from article). The source provided above by PK650 is an interview where she is promoting herself/her work. She fails WP:NCREATIVE; and as she doesnt have significant coverage, she fails general notability guidelines as well. Even the wikipedia article had to mention her grand-father, father, sister, and what-not. A lot of the credits mentioned in the article cant be verified in reliable sources. More like, it seems she was an off-the-record side-kick ("assistant") for her elder sister. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:37, 9 February 2020 (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. And salt; should not be recreated w/o some discussion at e.g WP:DRV Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey Youth Hockey League

AfDs for this article:

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

A youth sports league with no discernible notability. Nearly all of the "sources" provided are links to sites for the member clubs. No reliable and verifiable sources are provided to show that the league itself is notable. Alansohn (talk) 01:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Alansohn (talk) 01:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Alansohn (talk) 01:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no claim to notability anyway, but in any case I find nothing resembling notable coverage. Mangoe (talk) 01:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with previous comments. Dorama285 03:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the above. This article is just a list. Maybe it could be refactored as a category, but even in that case I'm not sure I see the point. -- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 05:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: Nom said it all. Given that this was AfDed a decade ago, salting probably is on. Ravenswing 09:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: Totally agree with what's already been said and salting seems appropriate as it was AfDed once already. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Organization does not meet WP:GNG and should not be recreated a third time. Flibirigit (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local youth leagues are very rarely notable, and sources are all WP:PRIMARY or lacking depth. Youth games don't even get WP:ROUTINE game coverage from local media, much less anything of depth more than a local interest piece. Yosemiter (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- For reference, the user was probably basing it off Atlantic Metropolitan Hockey League, an org that used to oversee a couple of longtime junior leagues before folding them and is now just a youth league. However, that is also unreferenced and could be subject to an evaluation. Yosemiter (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable youth league. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Judge Dredd characters#Chief Judge Cal. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Judge Cal

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

One last holdout from the Great Dredd Topic Massacre, this one as the others is pure WP:PLOT that fails WP:NFICTION. No indication he warrants his own stand alone article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Direct with Judge Dredd. — Hunter Kahn 13:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main article. It currently fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 12:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to List of Judge Dredd characters. Surely this is betting than destroying. I fear the wording of the nomination says it all about the intentions of these nominations and the joy of destruction. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:28, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Piotrus has previously displayed signs of nominating articles for deletion for the sake of deletion. JIP | Talk 12:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Quite. Richard75 (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- - I agree with Necrostep here. I'm not familiar with the Judge Dredd universe, but note that this is a major character. Has this character been the lead character in various storylines? If so, Keep. If not, Merge. I note that the article only discusses in-universe topics and doesn't discuss real-world material on the character. It would be better if the article was improved to do so. Please tag me if evidence is given of the prominence of this character. Ross-c (talk) 09:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Judge Dredd characters#Chief Judge Cal, where he is already covered in detail. Merging is not really necessary, as most of the article is comprised of in-universe plot summary, which is already included in the target list, and un-sourced WP:OR about Caligula, which doesn't need to be merged. Rorshacma (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Judge Dredd characters#Chief Judge Cal. The article fails GNG, being sourced entirely to primary sources and one source in the completely irrelevant original research about Caligula that is not about the character. Since all information is either in-universe or original research, there is nothing to merge. The accusations of User:Necrothesp are disgraceful, and are an extremely blatant violation of WP:AGF. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You think describing previous deletions as the "Great Dredd Topic Massacre" is good faith? It implies an enjoyment of deletion and a desire to delete all articles relating to a particular topic, which personally I think is "disgraceful". That is not what Wikipedia is all about. There is absolutely no need to delete articles when they can be legitimately merged and/or redirected. If nominators want to avoid such "accusations" then they need to moderate the language they use in the nomination and be a little less triumphalist. Hundreds of similar articles have been nominated for deletion in the last couple of months, mostly by the current nominator and a handful of others. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:30, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Generally, I do not consider receiving a measure of satisfaction from what they consider a job well done or telling a one-sentence joke in the nominating statement before moving on to the reason for the article to be deleted to be traits indicative of being a sadist who subsides upon the deletion of articles that you seem convinced the nominator is. Someone disagreeing with you does not make them worthy of the derision with which you treat people attempting to improve this encyclopedia. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sadist? No, not at all. Delighting too much in such deletions? Sometimes seems to be the case, as per the language used above. I do not believe that considering mass deletion without redirection "a job well done" is in any way in the spirit of Wikipedia. And the comments above would tend to suggest that I'm not the only one who thinks this. Don't get me wrong, I respect the nominator's many contributions to Wikipedia in most ways, but not here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Judge Dredd characters, where the character is already covered. I found this one tricky, as given the real world info presented, I thought sources would be easy to find. Sadly, all that I've come across have been either primary, or passing mentions in articles about Judge Dredd. I suspect better offline sources may exist, but until they're located, a redirect is cheap and offers an easy way to recover info. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 10:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to IBM Research. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IBM Research – Tokyo

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

I prodded it with "No evidence this company passes WP:NCOMPANY/GNG. Could redirect to IBM research, through it's dubious this sub-lab is a likely searchable term." Then it was redirected/merged, then this was reverted. Most if not all others country specific IBM labs have recently ended here and did not survive AfD, since they don't tend to be independently notable, and I don't see what makes this different. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with IBM Research. The precedent rationale is strong. Yet, there seems to be enough meat in this article that its information should be included in the main article.-- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 05:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to IBM Research, which will improve the merge target article (WP:ATD-M). Other similar articles have also recently been merged there, as per these two AfD discussions: IBM Research – Brazil discussion, IBM Research – Australia discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:21, 9 February 2020 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas W. Campbell

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

Not notable. Self-published author with no third-party sources available to refer to him. Crank with a Youtube channel. cagliost (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable self-published writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable exponent of the simulation hypothesis. His paper "On Testing the Simulation Theory"^[1] was published in the International Journal of Quantum Foundations, a peer-reviewed journal whose Editorial Board includes Roger Penrose. His YouTube channel has over 7.5 million views, and he raised over $230,000 in a Kickstarter to fund experimental tests of his theory. The experiments are now being carried out by a team at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona.^[2] Tim Smith (talk) 01:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On it's own, having some scientific papers published does not make someone notable. Neither does having a fairly popular YouTube channel. Neither does running a moderately successful Kickstarter. Are these together enough to establish notability? I don't think so. There appears to be a total or near-total lack of third party sources about him. cagliost (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also take issue with the claim he is a notable proponent of the simulation hypothesis. Lots of people are proponents of the simulation hypothesis, but to make him a notable proponent of the simulation hypothesis, there would have to be third party sources saying so. cagliost (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:15, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:15, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete. Seems plenty notable to me, given authored books and a deep reach to viewers on YouTube. We shouldn't delete notable articles just because we think they are a "crank" (explicit hoaxes aside, of course!) -- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 05:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: After reading the other arguments, I'm persuaded that this should be a delete.-- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 02:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self authoring books and YouTube views don't make one notable. It's unfortunate the original nominator used the term "crank" to describe the person though. As it kind of taints this. As can be seen by the keep vote above. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (from nominator): article currently has no third-party sources (except socialblade.com youtube statistics). Please can those advocating Keep add some third-party sources? cagliost (talk) 10:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

^ Campbell, Tom; Owhadi, Houman; Sauvageau, Joe; Watkinson, David (June 17, 2017). "On Testing the Simulation Theory". International Journal of Quantum Foundations. 3 (3): 78–99.
^ Updates | Center for the Unification of Science And Consciousness

Delete per nom. This reads like an advertorial for the subject's YouTube channel and his paid workshops. Clearly no third-party sources referenced nor can any be found in a search. An incomplete effort toward a Ph.D. is not notable, even though it is included in the Wiki article. Fails WP:GNG and does not come close to meeting WP:BIO. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
His name is in an old NASA document.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20090014192/downloads/20090014192.pdf

"THOMAS W. CAMPBELL is currently consulting in the field of Probabilistic Design Analysis for NASA. He has over 36 years of experience working with the Department of Defense in several fields, including systems engineering; technology development; physicsbased modeling and simulation"

I am not sure it refers to him, but he said he worked for NASA 145.87.242.203 (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ACADEMIC: 4 citations for the paper specified above. No relevant positions held. No SIGCOV...no coverage at all, in fact, so also fails the GNG. Therefore delete. PK650 (talk) 08:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROF and discussion above by AuthorAuthor. A proponent of a fringe theory does not inherit notability. We are not a publisher of original research. Bearian (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2020 (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. Black Kite (talk) 11:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Beere

AfDs for this article:

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

No decent evidence of notability Rathfelder (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and if we had an article for every headteacher in the world, then Wikipedia would have way more articles about non-notable people! Minecrafter0271 (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:47, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:47, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable educator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think, like last time around, her OBE shows notablity in her field.Jahaza (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jahaza: Can you show me one decent citation about her that's from a reliable source? --Minecrafter0271 (talk) 04:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Our article is somewhat promotional and should, if kept, be cut back. And I'm not at all convinced that OBEs and headmasters are automatically notable. But I found four reviews of her books, making a borderline case for WP:AUTHOR. The most colorful of the four is in The Guardian, which describes her Perfect Lesson as "A cynical, stupid, and deeply misguided bag of tips that is destined to make you a worse teacher." [12] But bad reviews are still reviews. I can't read [13] but it looks reliable enough. The other two are [14] and [15]. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think a CBE or upwards makes you notable, but not an OBE on its own. Head teachers need to have attracted public attention. Happy to withdraw if someone can introduce some external sources. Rathfelder (talk) 08:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR based on the reviews above. TJMSmith (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real accomplishments, this is basically a run of the mill educator. The certifications are fringe at best. Bad writing can be notable, but in a marginal case like this, it's a BLP violation. Bearian (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would love a bit more feedback. Anyone able to find any sources that help establish GNG? Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not trying to be mean, but I don't see a single line in this that contributes to GNG! -- Dorama285 18:58, 05 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The discussion seems to be inching towards a consensus to delete but we aren't there yet. Giving this another week in the hope for some clarity.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She has an OBE, and this clearly passes WP:ANYBIO. Ross-c (talk) 08:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:BIO "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." An OBE is very obviously a well-known and significant honor, moreso I daresay than many acting awards or minor academic awards. Also passes WP:GNG, regardless of whether the reviews and coverage is positive or not. Uwe Boll's critically panned films are still notable, if not highly recommended.IphisOfCrete (talk) 17:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OBE on it sown is not significant. CBE certainly. MBE maybe.Rathfelder (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2020 (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 Romance languages. There is a general consensus that this should not be a stand-alone topic; however given that there are a number of suggestions for merging content from this I have not deleted the history. Black Kite (talk) 11:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Romance peoples

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

A WP:POVFORK page for a contentious topic.

Delete and redirect to Romance peoples as nominator. Non-salvageable as its very nature begs the question. In fact, the exact relationship between different peoples who speak Romance languages is conceptualized differently in different countries, yet this page presents it as a sort of primordialist ethnic "kinship", super-ethnicity, or "ethnoclub" -- a very specific POV. Even if we accept that POV, it struggles to adhere to important policies, and the reason it does so is because its sourcing is by its very nature problematic. The list of "Romance peoples" meanwhile is far from a majority view ("Savoyards" are presented as some stateless people, yet Moldovans are presented as Romanians), yet at the same time, mysteriously, Romance speaking ethnic groups in the Americas are excluded. All of these Romance peoples are said to have origins "traceable to the process of Romanization, which was carried out through the expansion of Ancient Rome", yet in many cases this is rather dubious as Romanization happened after the Empire collapsed. The sourcing relies on Minahan and Pop, who clearly represent a very specific viewpoint on the matter (Minahan in the same publication presents Californians as a "stateless nation" -- one of many examples I could pull). But the very premise of the page is grounded on a POV that is not "the Truth", it is but one of many rival POVs, and it clashes with rival views such as French civic nationalism which conceptualizes "Frenchness" as merely "loyal citizenship as a part of France" (not some specific "heritage"), various views that emphasize the non-Latin origins or influences of various Romance speaking groups, as well as non-static views of ethnicity. We have discussed this on Talk:Romance peoples and with one dissenter we all seem to agree the page is quite problematic; although similarly disputable cases like Slavic peoples and Germanic peoples do -- rightfully -- have their own pages, this one is different as while "Slavic peoples" and "Germanic peoples" are thought by the majority view to have been a meaningful grouping at some point in history, Romance peoples as a super-ethnic group distinct from Roman citizens (who also included the ancestors of Welsh people, Berbers, Albanians, Greeks etc) and ethnic Latins did not exist until it was conceptualized by Romantic nationalist movements in the 19th century, and today the view is only really widely popular in Romania. --Calthinus (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some other specific issues:

linguistic/national minorities -- if being a "Romance people" means speaking natively a Romance language and having an identity whose "decisive factor" is Ancient Rome, does that mean not only immigrants but also Bretons, Basques, Germans in Trentino-Alto-Adige, Arbereshe, Grikos, etc are incapable of being French/Spanish/Italian?
Ethnic origins are controversial and we are assuming a specifically Ancient Roman POV by equating language with "origins" -- the Romanization of many of the involved peoples did not actually happen then. In Sicily in the Middle Ages, Sicilian Romance replaced Siculo-Arabic and Greek. Gaulish was still spoken at the time the Empire fell. Whether the Romanians emerged during Roman times with the Romanization of Dacians or much much later remains a heated controversy nowadays. Does this mean Sicilians, French people, and Romanians are "disputed" Romance peoples? Or do we give up the equation of origins with language in this case, and thus admit that the raison d'etre of the page falls apart?
Ancient Rome as "decisive factor" in identity? -- I seriously doubt that most French people, Spaniards, Portuguese, or Italians would tell you that "Ancient Rome" is the single "decisive factor" in their identities. Most sane people would acknowledge it is a factor, not the decisive one, and the same would hold for ideas of "kinship" -- French people for example have a civic national identity that bonds people based on the present rather than the past, and acknowledge (yes) a Roman heritage which they share with Spaniards, but also a Frankish heritage shared with Dutch/Germans, a generic "European" heritage shared even with Finns, a Celtic heritage shared especially with Bretons, et cetera, and how do you in an NPOV way say one is "more important" than the others? Yet Ancient Rome being a factor is also true for many other peoples in Europe and elsewhere. The Legacy of the Roman Empire is not just Romance languages, after all.--Calthinus (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Calthinus (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Calthinus (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Calthinus (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:POVFORK of what? Romance peoples are a notable and distinct topic. It passes WP:GNG. As mentioned in the article, the distinguished scholars Paul Robert Magocsi and Ioan-Aurel Pop refer to Romance peoples as being, along with Germanic peoples and Slavs, one of the three major ethnolinguistic groups in Europe. The topic is one which Wikipedia's readers clearly want to know more about. If this article should exclude Savoyards or include Latin Americans, then that issue is best solved through editing, rather than deleting an entire article. Deleting this article is not an improvement to Wikipedia. Krakkos (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Krakkos: Could you please provide some specific references to show how this passes the GNG? – Joe (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Romance languages. The article seems to be strung together from passing mentions of "Romance" and "peoples" in the same sentence (e.g. as shorthand for Romance speakers). I haven't been able to find any sources that treat Romance language speakers as a coherent ethnic group – neither Magocsi nor Pop do, as far as I can tell. – Joe (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am not posting my !vote just yet, but a few observations. First, Calthinus, you can remove the word delete from your own observations as AfD assumes a delete vote from the nominator. Secondly if this is a POVFORK then a merge rather than a delete appears to be the appropriate route. Third, the arguments about the problems with the article are not deletion arguments as deletion is not cleanup. Of course, WP:TNT could apply, and is the one reason I might go with delete after some more thought and research. However there is a clear case for notability of the article. A quick search shows that Romance Peoples are treated as a group in a number of WP:RS, such as this one. On the other hand, some of the sources do indeed caution that the term Romance Peoples doesn't make sense in the way other terms (Celtic Peoples, Germanic peoples etc.) because of the later date of emergence of Romance languages. See page 7 of this source. So the difficulties in writing the page are clear, but the notability is not really in question. It may be that the page needs to be blown up and rewritten in a different way though. I will see what others say on that point. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sirfurboy I originally considered this, however the problem is -- what NPOV notability does Romance peoples have that is separate from Romance languages?--Calthinus (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We also already cover the idea of pan-Romance identity in Pan-Latinism. What this page does separately by its very existence is assert that the idea is true. Which is a valid personal POV to have. But not a consensus view. --Calthinus (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirfurboy: I don't think the topic is "clearly" notable. You've linked to the one single mention of the phrase "Romance peoples" in a work of racist pseudoscience from 1890. Your second link is about an entirely different ethnolinguistic group that happens to have Romance in its name. Do you have anything better? – Joe (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Really this should have been covered in WP:BEFORE. Here goes: [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]

I could go on, but do I need to? -- Sirfurboy (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source one -- puts "Romance peoples" in quotes in the source, and is talking about historical Romance philology in this case before 1950. Source two -- is about philosophy. Source three -- your quote is He [WEB Du Bois] had read American and British historians in earnest discussion about the "Latin" spirit of the Romance peoples, and perhaps he believed some of it -- that's Appiah mocking the concept. --Calthinus (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Helmolt is from 1907 [[24]].--Calthinus (talk) 19:13, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This one you had [[25]] is only about "the Swiss Romance peoples".--Calthinus (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaaaaand the last one was originally published in 1929.[[26]]--Calthinus (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a deletion discussion. The question is whether there is anything notable to say about "Romance Peoples". What we say about them, how we define them, problems with the definition etc. are editorial discussions for the page, which I have already indicated I believe is problematic. The point is that these are a small seelction of hundreds of sources that refer to "Romance Peoples" in various contexts and either discuss the term or assume (perhaps unwisely) that the definition is understood. As I said, I think WP:TNT is a reason to delete the page - if you can argue that there is nothing salvageable on the page, and for that you could argue that the term "Romance People" is too nebulous and this page too specific (for instance), but if you just wish to dismiss the many many sources one by one, then I am not seeing any reason for deletion here. Note also that date of publication is not a reason to dismiss a source - if the notion is an outmoded concept then it deserves an article explaining that. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it matters to you, I would be fine with you writing a page about the history of the concept (i.e. Ancient Egyptian race controversy) but perhaps that would better be accomplished by expanding Pan-Latinism. Sirfurboy you misunderstood what I was doing with the sources. It was not "hahah your sources suck sucks to suck". I was using them to point out what I've been saying all along -- that the concept itself is an aspect of romantic nationalism popular before 1950 (hence all the non-RS sources from those times you found) and furthermore, that modern authors even in the sources you produced are giving it the side eye, hence Posner's quotations around it, and Appiah's sarcastic retort "Latin" spirit... and perhaps he believed some of it. --Calthinus (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the issue of many of these books being so outdated as to fail WP:RS, "hundreds of Google Books hits" does not equal "hundreds of sources". WP:GNG requires depth of coverage. With the possible exception of the 1907 Helmolt book, these are all passing mentions of the article title with no actual discussion of it as a coherent topic. – Joe (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Another point I would like to clarify. The nominator, Calthinus,says this is a POVFORK. I am unconvinced. The page history shows it was created in 2006, and although it was renamed from Latin Peoples to Romance Peoples, I don't see any evidence it was forked from any article. The Romance languages article is older but I cannot see any fork from there. What is the evidence for saying this is a POVFORK? -- Sirfurboy (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The origin of the page does not matter for what should be done with it. If you use POVFORK to specifically mean "was created to circumvent an existing consensus" then yes I used the term wrong. If you use colloquially as many do POVFORK to mean "a page or category that relies on assuming one side of an argument for its defined topic when neutral presentation of the same material exists elsewhere" (in this case: Romance languages for the languages, Pan-Latinism for the viewpoint) then that's what I was saying. --Calthinus (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or restore the redirect to ~~Romance peoples~~ Romance languages per Joe (and my own talk page comments). Srnec (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Srnec You mean restore redirect to Romance languages? Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Thank you. Srnec (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, I agree, "Romance peoples" simply means peoples who speak Romance languages. This is not an ethnic group. Should we have two separate pages, this one and Romance languages? I think we could, just as English language and English-speaking world. My very best wishes (talk) 23:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting proposal but I would note that no one disputes the common origins of the English-speaking world in the British Empire, nor the sense of connectedness that comes with actually natively speaking the same language. We do have Celts (a pretty good page), Slavic peoples, Germanic peoples... but in those cases there was at least a concept of a unified ethnic group that eventually branched out (perhaps Tacitus and Strabo did not present "the Truth"... but the concept existed).-Calthinus (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Romance speakers are not discussed in scholarship as a group of people related to each other. Instead, Romance languages are. AFAIK. I do not see any sufficient reason why the short content of this article can not be moved to Romance languages or Romanization (cultural). Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Krakkos (talk) 14:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Krakkos (talk) 14:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Krakkos (talk) 14:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Krakkos (talk) 14:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Krakkos (talk) 14:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Krakkos (talk) 14:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Krakkos (talk) 14:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging SrpskiAnonimac, Rosenborg BK Fan, Staszek Lem, Rgvis, Bird Vision, GliderMaven, Simostar, Malcolm77, Maximajorian Viridio, P Aculeius, Dimadick, DavideVeloria88, Tursclan and Dk1919 Franking, who are active editors that have made substantial edits to Romance peoples or related articles such as Latin peoples, Latins and Italic peoples. Krakkos (talk) 14:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Orser67, Llywrch, GliderMaven, Codrinb, Dbachmann, Diego Moya, Cnilep, Rob984, Borsoka and Krakkos, all active editors who participated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latin peoples. Krakkos (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A few you missed from the Latin peoples AfD. Pinging them, though not including =the Paleolithic Man sock or the Che sock. Of the ones you missed, 3 voted keep, 3 voted delete so it's clearly a good faith error, no worries. Pings: Fakirbakir, Lankiveil, Meclee, Stalwart111, Ilywrch, Orser67. --Calthinus (talk) 02:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't believe I've ever contributed to this article. Skimming over it and its sources, I do think the article has some major issues that need to be addressed. However, my first impression is that it's perfectly salvageable, with work. Try to remember that all cultural groupings are by definition artificial constructions—they're defined by the ethnic, linguistic, racial, religious, or geographic boundaries we set for them. The only question we need to answer in order to determine whether this topic should exist is, whether it's received significant coverage within the scholarly community as a whole. I'm not sure that the existing sources cited by the article are adequate to answer that question: some give the impression of being heavily dependent on the point of view of a small number of scholars with something to prove about their own ethnic background. One of them that just looks problematic is a source identified as "GP". What the heck does "GP" stand for, and why is it authoritative for anything? Maybe I'd have a clue if I knew what it stood for. That said, the concept of "European cultures derived from Romanized peoples" does strike me as a valid categorization and topic. So could the principal authors of this article—or anyone else, really—please find some sources that might feel more scholarly and less-narrowly focused, which clearly state a justification for this article? If it's going to continue as though it represents a mainstream concept, and not a fringe theory, it needs to demonstrate wider acceptance within the scholarly community. P Aculeius (talk) 15:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and open Merge discussions with either Romance languages and/or Pan-Latinism articles Redirect to Romance-speaking world - see comment - updated rationale, Sirfurboy below. I have had to read and think a lot about this one, but I think the deletion arguments are all misconceived, although there is not much in the article as it stands that we may wish to keep, as it is clearly heavily reliant on a single authority and some of the conclusions are, to put it kindly, "debatable". Despite this, my view is essentially to keep, and to understand this I will deal with each of the points made by those arguing for delete. I believe this will cover all arguments made:

~~The deletion argument by the nominator was that this is a WP:POVFORK. Yet he later admitted it was not a POVFORK, and there is indeed no evidence that it is. Thus the primary deletion argument fails.~~ - see updated rationale below.
The nominator then followed up that there was non salvageable content on the page. Yet that is not wholly true. The page presents a particular point of view that is problematic, but it is sourced and put forward by a notable academic. The space the view is given may not be WP:DUE - indeed it definitely needs balancing - but there is salvageable content here, so WP:TNT does not apply.
I see no evidence that a WP:BEFORE was carried out. This is problematic because, as per my comments, a search for sources pulls up literally hundreds of references in books and scholarly articles, discussing Romance Peoples. I have read through over a hundred summaries of papers now, and read several of the papers more deeply, and established that the clear majority of these talk about matters of language, and reference to Romance Peoples is simply understood as people who speak Romance languages. Yet a significant minority of the papers talk about aspects of Romance culture as though it were something identifiable (for instance talking about the literature of Romance Peoples or about their art. The construct "art of the Romance Peoples" being no more problematic than "art of the Bretons" or any other such category). Many of these papers are old, but they are in published papers and published books. Moreover even the language references are notable of something - although what that something is has to be considered carefully. I am left in no doubt that some article about the Romance peoples is notable. But the question is whether the article that is notable is this article. This article does not reflect the array of sources, and many of those sources would support the same material in the Romance Languages article. So WP:GNG is satsfied but that does not mean this is the article that should exist. The main argument for notability of the information in this article is the sourcing on the article itself, because the main source is himself a notable academic.
The material is controversial and the existence of this article gives credence to a minority viewpoint: Yet this is easily fixed by editors by refocusing the article and discussing criticism of the concept of Romance Peoples as a single group. There are sources making that exact point. To that end this article is salvageable as a whole and could stand in its own right, but as an analysis of the concept of Romance Peoples. Yet that material could be subsumed in the pan-latinism article.
srnec's response appears to be just a WP:VOTE but does mention the talk page of the article. I thus read through the talk page, where editors discussed this AfD before proposing it. Per policy, AfD is not a vote. It is the arguments that matter, and there should be policy reasons for deletion.
Many of the talk page comments are the same but Austronesier makes pertinent comments about what can actually be in this article that is not found elsewhere. This, to me, is the best argument for not having this article. If we had no Romance languages article then his article would contain all the language material, but here the language material is merely being duplicated. Likewise the pan-latinism aspects of this article are covered in the pan-latinism article. There is information in this article that is not in those yet, and should be merged. Indeed Austronesier's argument on the talk page is for a merge into Romance languages. His arguments are sound for merger, and that is now my view too. There is information in this article that should be retained, and the merger process is required as per policy to comply with Wikipedia's license and relevant copyright law. Merger retains the page history and authorship, whilst ensuring information is presented in more focused and fuller articles that can do justice to the subject without needless repetition.

Merger must be carried out per WP:MERGE. AfD is for deletion only, so my view is necessarily to keep the article, so that a merger discussion can be opened and perhaps a merger enacted. It is not the role of the admin closing an AfD to impose a merge. That has to be proposed separately. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these points are good. Perhaps I should have done this as a merge discussion, that's entirely on me, my bad. But I want to point out a few things. In addition to WP:AGEMATTERS (please let us not go back to that exchange regarding Helmolt, or uh... Brinton......) your statement about "Breton art" suggests to me you should review WP:CONTEXTMATTERS -- Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article. -- i.e. a statement about the "art of Romance peoples" in a book not about anthropology/ethnology is emphatically not reliable for stating that Romance peoples are a salient and well-bounded category. Nor would "Breton art" be usable to say Bretons are a valid group -- thankfully, we have plenty of actual RS for Bretons though. Also, replying to because the main source is himself a notable academic : the main source, who at the time of writing still has half the citations on the page is James B. Minahan. His career (GScholar: [[27]]) -- all books about "stateless nations" such as... California. Erm, no, that book establishes the notability of Romance peoples to the exact same level as it would a hypothetical page for Stateless nations occupied by the United States. The other, Pop, is cited less currently and as KIENGIR noted, his views are not consensus even in Romania. Which author exactly are you referring to?--Calthinus (talk) 02:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crimesmith

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

This topic fails to establish notability. The sources added in justification for removing the PROD are trivial coverage. 1 - Simply a factual description of the character. 2 - Preview is a bit jumbled, but again seems to be just a factual description of the character. 3 - Literally the only commentary is: "I liked the Crimesmith, I remember at the time thinking it was a little different." That is nowhere near meeting the criteria of significant coverage. TTN (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Keep: The three sources that I added to the article are:

The Encyclopedia of Comic Book Heroes vol. 1: Batman by Michael L. Fleischer and Janet E. Lincoln, Macmillan (1976)
The Essential Batman Encyclopedia by Robert Greenberger, Del Rey (2008)
"Flashback: Batman Rising" in Back Issue #113 by Michael Eury, TwoMorrows Publishing (2019)

These sources "address the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content". I agree that the sources provide factual information about the character. -- Toughpigs (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You would describe "I liked the Crimesmith, I remember at the time thinking it was a little different." as significant coverage? TTN (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Neither version of the character has any kind of notability. If the information in the article is correct, one of them appeared in a single issue, and the other appeared in two issues. The sources cited are not substantial and are pure plot summaries, aside from the one sentence quote by Marv Wofman mentioned by TTN. Also, as the actual author of the story being discussed and the creator of that version of the character, the quote would not be considered independent. As both characters were very minor, with no substantial coverage or lasting impact, merging or preserving the information here is not necessary. Rorshacma (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and Rorshacma. Non-notable comic-book cruft, fails WP:GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Toughpigs. — Hunter Kahn 13:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While WP:NOTPLOT is different than WP:GNG, and does not form part of it, being more about how to write an article rather than notability, the sources presented discuss the different iterations, and I do not regard them as being about the same character. I also do not see that the brief information presented in each source gives enough to be regarded as substantial. While there may be an argument for a redirect to List of Batman villains, that page is on the verge of breaching WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This character, in my opinion, does not pass WP:GNG. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 10:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Killer Moff. There doesn't seem to be any notable impact or general chatter about this character on the Internet, other than its inclusion in lists.-- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 05:53, 9 February 2020 (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. Despite being relisted twice, there seems to be a hesitance to !vote delete. Noone commented on the sources provided by Paul_012, making it more difficult to identify a consensus. Clearly it is a borderline case, but relisting it a third time seems futile considering how little input the first two relistings produced. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saemapetch Fairtex

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

Subject is a kickboxer and a mixed martial arts fighter. Subject fails WP:NKICK for has not fought for a world title of a major organization or promotion and subject fails WP:MMABIO for has not fought for any top tier promotion. Sources provided are mainly trivia routine sport coverage and thus fails WP:GNG CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Profiles by Fox Sports,[33] Sanook.com,[34] and Thairath Online.[35] --Paul_012 (talk) 09:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's true he does not meet the notability criteria for MMA fighters or kickboxers. My search did not find significant independent coverage that was not either promotional for an upcoming fight or routine sports reporting of results. I don't believe that what I found is sufficient to pass WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. However, I won't vote yet in order to give proponents of keeping this article a chance to find additional sources. I also must admit I had to rely on machine translations for articles in Thai. Papaursa (talk) 02:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete My own search found either articles promoting his next fight or results (or from onefc). I don't believe that's enough to meet WP:GNG and there's no evidence he meets WP:NKICK. I would never want to underestimate a Fairtex fighter, but the burden of proof is on those who claim notability and they haven't made their case. I don't doubt that my inability to read Thai articles puts my search at a disadvantage. Papaursa (talk) 03:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per WP:AGF-and appears to meet WP:BASIC by reliable sources posted above. Thanks Idolmm (talk) 08:26, 15 February 2020 (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.

[1] Campbell, Tom; Owhadi, Houman; Sauvageau, Joe; Watkinson, David (June 17, 2017). "On Testing the Simulation Theory". International Journal of Quantum Foundations. 3 (3): 78–99.

[2] Updates | Center for the Unification of Science And Consciousness

[3] Magocsi, Paul Robert (2018). Historical Atlas of Central Europe: Third Revised and Expanded Edition. University of Toronto Press. ISBN 1487523319.

[4] Cole, Jeffrey (2011). Ethnic Groups of Europe: An Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 1598843028.

[5] Waldman, Carl; Mason, Catherine (2006). Encyclopedia of European Peoples. Infobase Publishing. ISBN 1438129181.

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]