Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 December 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 30	December 02 >

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 redirect to List of Border representative cricketers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Baker (South African cricketer)

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

Does not appear meet WP:GNG or WP:NPEOPLE. ProofRobust 22:47, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Cricket, and South Africa. ProofRobust 22:47, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. OliveYouBean (talk) 01:17, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Baker played in ten first-class matches over a lengthy period and the article could be expanded with content from South African sources in addition to Wisden, CricketArchive, etc. Even if sufficient sources cannot be found to meet SIGCOV, the article qualifies for WP:ATD-R and, as Baker played nine of his matches for Border, the obvious redirect target is List of Border representative cricketers where he is already included. By the way, the fact that he played in ten first-class matches is itself evidence of notability. I agree, however, that the article should be expanded and that more citations are needed. Bc Jvs UTC 09:35, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the fact that he is notable, however I couldn't find any more sources that would make this article pass WP:GNG. I support a redirect to List of Border representative cricketers. ProofRobust 17:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's fair comment. I've added a bit to it but we could really do with something from a South African source. Bc Jvs UTC 18:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Border representative cricketers Sourcing for SA cricketers has always been difficult to find, especially for players of this era. Obviously he played a handful of names so has some notability, but not enough for a GNG pass. Redirect is a suitable WP:ATD and preserves the history if something does crop up in the limited archives we have or Afrikaans sourcing. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very true, I'm afraid. I'll stick with keep in case something can be found but I admit it's unlikely. Bc Jvs UTC 21:09, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the list of Border cricketers as a sensible alternative to deletion. The chances are that if we could get access to paper copies of South African newspapers from the 50s and 60s we'd find stuff on him, quite possibly enough to keep the article. Access anytime soon to those sorts of sources is unlikely however and there's not enough to build a biography of just now. But it's not unreasonable to assume that when someone does get access to that that we'll be able to do so, so to preserve the attribution and sourcing we should redirect here. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Ruby

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

Does not appear to pass WP:GNG. Smirkybec (talk) 22:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Smirkybec (talk) 22:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NPEOPLE. ProofRobust 22:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources found, nothing in Google, JStor, Gscholar, Gnewsapapers. No listing in the Getty ULAN search either. Oaktree b (talk) 22:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:Artist. I could find only one reference (Irish Examiner), which I added. No RS for DoB or place of birth. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:03, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST are not met. As noted by WomenArtistUpdates, the only independent/RS news coverage I could find (which covers the subject as anything like a primary topic) is that Irish Examiner piece. One such news article doesn't add up to SIGCOV though. And, while there are two other trivial/passing mentions elsewhere in the Irish Examiner ([1][2]) and one in The Echo ([3]), I can't find anything in the Irish Times or Irish Independent or RTÉ other national news sources. As noted elsewhere, the subject doesn't appear to have been covered in any books or academic works or similar. Guliolopez (talk) 09:56, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if the artist is notable and so many users above missed it in some incredible way, this short and unsourced article would be better to re-create from scratch. --Suitskvarts (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW, WP:TNT, and WP:SIGCOV, without prejudice for later creation from paper and electronic sources. Bearian (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a pity but simply does pass WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST from any readily accessible source. Perhaps there is a book with a decent article... SeoR (talk) 11:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cedarview Middle School

AfDs for this article:

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

Unnotable middle school. In Wikipedia:All high schools can be notable, it says that 'Elementary and middle schools do not merit their own article unless they have an exceptional claim to notability.'. This middle school has no exceptional claim to notability, even though they set the largest simultaneous yo-yo, but that doesn't make them notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. The last deletion request for this happened in 2008, but that was when notability guidelines were not as strict.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 22:19, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Canada. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 22:19, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - It's comparatively well written and the yo-yo information could be considered borderline notable as it is a world record. That said I agree Wikipedia doesn't need to be a compendium of every school in the world and their accompanying number of classroom VCRs. BogLogs (talk) 22:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The largest simultaneous yo-yo record is not currently held by this school per the Guinessworldrecords website. Rupples (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:NTEMP, it needn't currently hold the record to be notable. Having held it in the past would still contribute to notability. — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Ottawa-Carleton District School Board, per ATD and the longstanding precident outlined at SCHOOLOUTCOMES. 174.212.228.83 (talk) 01:42, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Found a number of sources including: 1, 2, 3. This, along with the sources in the article, should be sufficient. ProofRobust 23:04, 1
~~Delete~~ Keep It would be inconsistent to have this entry included while at the same time lacking entries for thousands of middle schools Flibbertigibbets (talk) 00:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ProofRobust, they are pretty much the same thing about bullying in that middle school, one is a newspaper about the bullying, another is a essay and the last one is another newspaper, which all of them don't really pass GNG in reliability.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 05:24, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say that? I think that specifically number 2 and 3 can be seen as reliable sources. They seem to be from reputable publishers: Toronto Star Newspapers Limited, and Metro International. ProofRobust 18:46, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All articles should be evaluated on their own merits, the fact that other middle schools do not have articles is irrelevant, see WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. Jumpytoo Talk 18:50, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per sources provided. User:Flibbertigibbets seems to fundamentally not understand the AFD policy, if their delete argument is that other middle schools aren't notable! Nfitz (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For clarification, Looking at WP:NSCHOOL. "This middle school has no exceptional claim to notability; and no clear claim to notability - agreed per the nominator's justification; in that context -It would be inconsistent to have this entry included while at the same time lacking entries for thousands of middle schools - 'unless notability could be established to build an article that can stand on its own merits. "In support of User:HelpingWorld perceptions that content within the articles found must speak to notability. Attribution, or the necessity to attribute sometime in the future, being a core content policy whereby secondary sources can actually be quoted to build an article that meets guidelines. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 02:55, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "keep" to support what I see as the consensus built here, and in light of prior afd discussion which outline the exact same issues. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 05:03, 4 December 2022 (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. "Delete" was the most common and best-argued position in the discussion, based on the argument that political dustups involving the former president often attract a lot of shorter-term coverage, but are not necessarily notable enough over the longer term to justify independent articles per WP:NEVENT – several cited the WP:NETRUMP essay about this. (I note that this is true of political controversies in general, not just ones involving Trump.) The pro-keep arguments claiming long-term notability is likely in this case necessarily involve some speculation and were not accepted by most participants, who either rejected them entirely in favor of deletion or were skeptical and favored merging or moving to draft instead. Some pro-keep sockpuppetry was of course discounted, and a few of the non-sockpuppet claims were implausible, claiming a proven, definitive long-term notability that simply isn't possible at this point in time.

The alternative options of merging or moving to draft did not attract enough support to form a consensus. However, given that there is reliably sourced material here and it might prove out as notable over time, I am open to restoring the content as a userspace draft if there is an editor willing to take responsibility for it (keeping in mind that it contains WP:BLP material) and to acknowledge that any speedy recreation will be subject to WP:G4 deletion. RL0919 (talk) 23:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Fuentes, Donald Trump, and Kanye West meeting

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

This article is well meaning, but it is born of WP:RECENTISM. The dinner itself fails WP:NEVENT as it is unlikely to pass the WP:10YT. Kanye and Fuentes' antisemitism and Trump's ongoing campaign are ongoing issues that can be documented at their own pages. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United States of America. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify: WP:DELAY applies. This news story is only a few days old; stand-alone notability can not yet be inferred. Condemnation of Trump sympathizing with anti-Semites (which seems to be the true topic of note here) can be interspersed and incorporated into other articles like Post-presidency of Donald Trump, Racial views of Donald Trump, Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign, Views of Kanye West, or others not yet created with more broad subject-area coverage. In my estimation, the actual dinner itself will likely fail the 10YT. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 06:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Draft- or user-ify. It's just a meeting. Things that were said at the meeting can be documented on the appropriate pages. It can't currently be established that it was a groundbreaking, historically important meeting that deserves a dedicated article. --174.95.87.151 (talk) 22:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[Note: Accidentially double posted. See my main comment below.] The subject clearly meets the criteria of notability. It's clear that this has significant, long-term repercussions from a variety of angles. It's impossible to summarize the events of the article in each individual article's page. Multiple foreign leaders and almost every major American political figure has commented on it. This isn't to mention the impact on Kanye's legacy and the impact on the American Christian and white nationalist movements. KlayCax (talk) 01:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but how can it be clear that it has significant and long-term repercussions? It happened last week. Any repercussions beyond commentary will not have occurred yet. --174.95.87.151 (talk) 04:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my recommendation. Why delete and lose the work already done, when we can make it a draft and have it ready if/when it establishes notability? --174.95.87.151 (talk) 06:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Snap Keep At this point, the balance of evidence indicates that this is notable event that will have a relevant historical impact on the 2024 election, like a number of other political scandals, is garnering interest, and provides useful contextual background for the current election, popular culture, and the global far-right/anti-semitic movement. Should the passage of time bear out your WP:CRYSTALBALL Prediction that this event will totally fade from interest, it will be simple enough to remove it later, whereas removing it now deletes the article at the precise time when people are most willing and able to contribute to it, thus permanently reducing the usefulness of the article. 2600:4040:90C5:8000:FCA5:5BDC:B261:6E8A (talk) 22:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)^{Struck per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/There-being Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2022 (UTC)}[reply]

Comment: Deleting this article does not forbid the topic from being covered at Kanye West, Donald Trump, and Nick Fuentes, where, in light of our policies regarding breaking news topics, it is best covered at this time. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 22:52, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, no shit that (pointlessly and short-sightedly) deleting this article doesn’t forbid this topic being mentioned elsewhere, but who cares? There are some readers who will be interested in reading about this topic in particular- the Nazi dinner party scandal- the meeting , the reactions to it, and its repercussions, etc. Why should such readers have to read the Nick Fuentes or Kanye West page to find that information when what they came here to read about was THIS topic? This is a demarcated topic , a particular delimited political scandal (a former president dining with 2 Nazis at his home a few days after announcing his campaign) whose encyclopedic notability is basically unquestionable, which has been commented upon by every political figure in the country. I’ve not seen one non-spurious justification for deleting it other than people think the week-old article currently sucks. So go improve it. 2600:4040:90C5:8000:2DF7:A4AA:1898:D63E (talk) 05:28, 3 December 2022 (UTC) — 2600:4040:90C5:8000:2DF7:A4AA:1898:D63E (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of There-being (talk · contribs). [reply]

It would be impossible to adequately summarize the meeting on individual, respective pages. Topic clearly meets the criteria of notability. KlayCax (talk) 01:31, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rest assured that bludgeoning on the part of the page creator is not a good look. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 01:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft where developments can be documented, and the question can be revisited if this becomes more than the splash in the news cycle it currently represents. BD2412 T 23:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft This article is very shoddy, but I reckon it could probably stay on Wikipedia if it is properly rewritten to be up to quality standards. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 23:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree. As this topic has received a lot of attention in the news, I think we should take the time to write it out to standards, iron out the kinks, etc. instead of rushing to publishing an article that wasn't properly looked over. Unknown0124 (talk) 03:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The nom's comments about recentism are spot on. If this is notable for inclusion in an encyclopadeia, it is not notable as a meeting, but rather, in a wider context. It should be covered in Donald Trump articles, or an article that contextualises this within a larger whole. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article clearly meets the criteria of notability. It's been headline news on almost every major newspaper and website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KlayCax (talk • contribs)

Unsigned commentator, this misunderstands the concept of notability. Donald Trump is notable, Kanye West is notable, and so their meeting is reported, but we are writing an encyclopaedia, not a newswire, and so what is notable for an article is not an individual meeting that is widely reported, bu rather a much broader subject, which is to say Trump. If this is relevant, as suggested, for a 2024 bid, and if (and it is unknown at this point) but if that is a major factor in that bid, then the encyclopaedic subject is Donald Trump's presidential bid, and this will be a section of that. This page is a bit of nonsense. We might as well have a page on Donald Trump's views on raking forests (also widely covered in the news), but we don't, because being talked about is not notability of the subject in any form. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning move to draft, as per both @HadesTTW and @2600:4040:90C5:8000:FCA5:5BDC:B261:6E8A. Lucksash (talk) 00:15, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify: while this particular dinner seems to be in the news a lot right now, will this be the actual event the article is about, or will this event just be part of a different article? I'm leaning toward the latter. Andre🚐 00:25, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep — Clearly has significant, long-term notability. It's been consistent, headline news on the front of almost every major website for over a week. The meeting has received attention from multiple foreign leaders (including heads of government and state), the Majority/Minority leaders of both the American House and Senate, represents an unprecendented moment in modern American history, and has received overwhelming attention in reliable sources. The criteria of WP:10YT will almost certainly be met. Reactions from domestic and international political figures — as well as the specific details of the meeting — can not be well covered in their individual respected articles. Clearly merits an independent article.

It's clear that this is far more than a mere splash in the news cycle. KlayCax (talk) 00:56, 2 December 2022 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: KlayCax (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Keep: Seconding the arguments here. CJ-Moki (talk) 03:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. It's relevant enough to mention in each respective person's biography but not significant enough for its own article. --TocMan (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not news. But that does not mean it can not have articles about subjects presently on the news. KlayCax (talk) 01:31, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the meeting itself (and the fall out) is notable in and of itself. It would be a small mention (at most) in each of the individual's biographies, which would fail to adequately cover the meeting. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 01:14, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I believe there should be a dedicated page to Kanye West's antisemitism, as more and more news is coming out from it. This could be included in that page, and become a blurb in the page for Trump and Fuentes. TheRealOj32 (talk) 03:32, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In my experience the community tends to follow the "Just wait and see" principle when it comes to articles like these that have received widespread RS coverage in a short period of time and their passing the WP:10YEARTEST. If it does become a short-lived news story, it will be evident within a year or so (possibly even sooner) and can be deleted with confidence at that point. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:34, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Putting it in article space now with the idea that we can delete it later seems like a worse idea than draftifying this so that if it does prove notable in draft space "within a year or so", it can be mainspaced then. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It already is notable by the sheer volume of significant coverage in reliable sources. I'm not convinced that this event is non-notable because of recentism unless someone can provide actual evidence of that and not just subjective skepticism, especially when this event has received new coverage each day since it occurred. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:22, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A clearly notable and consequential meeting. And I am unclear why a former US President (and current candidate) meeting a Holocaust denier, alongside one of the world's most famous musicians, won't be a notable event in ten years time. Does the proposer know something I don't? 2A00:23C4:6B13:D801:D4CC:98B7:8177:BC80 (talk) 04:37, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Only an understanding of Wikipedia:Notability (events) and experience debating it in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:52, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, given that my question was related to your claim that this event is unlikely to be notable in ten years time, I'm unclear how citing Wiki policies you're familiar with backs up that case. You could know every detail of those policies and practices and still be completely wrong in your belief that this event won't be notable in ten years time. You have to make an argument from the nature of the event i.e. explain what about it makes you think it will become unnotable.

Secondly, I would expect someone with understanding and experience of editing on Wikipedia to know that one shouldn't violate WP:CIVIL (i.e. you claim that the something you know that I don't is "an understanding of Wikipedia:Notability (events) and experience debating it in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion discussions", but as I'm a complete stranger you can have no knowledge of whether I have experience of those things or not, which is quite presumptuous). 2A00:23C4:6B13:D801:D4CC:98B7:8177:BC80 (talk) 15:58, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft. Article has potential. Not ready yet though. DrewieStewie (talk) 06:36, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to Keep. Article has been improved enough since my vote. DrewieStewie (talk) 07:55, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article quality has no bearing on deletion discussions. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 23:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great! that means 90 percent of the delete votes should be disregarded, since they mainly rely on spurious claims about article quality as their justification for deletion. 2600:4040:90C5:8000:1170:7B65:1D8D:63 (talk) 00:16, 5 December 2022 (UTC) — 2600:4040:90C5:8000:1170:7B65:1D8D:63 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of There-being (talk · contribs). [reply]

Strong Keep I read reviewed all the criteria for deletion in Wikipedia:Deletion_policy and Recentism isn't listed as a reason to delete an article. Furthermore, under the Wikipedia:Recentism#Suggestions_for_dealing_with_recentism article cited in the nomination for deletion, the suggested solutions do not focus on deletion. Instead it focuses on patience: "Wait and See." So it seems like patience rather than deletion is a better fit with Wikipedia policy. In the nine days since this event, its significance has continued to grow. Over the last seven years, the Trump campaign has developed a reputation for being impervious to mis-steps like this, but even Fox News has critically covered this event: Trump fires back at 'loser' McConnell, says Fuentes' views 'wouldn't have been accepted' if raised at dinner. While its possible that this event will fade in importance, it's also quite possible that it will continue to grow in significance and having a publicly available article to build on will provide a service to the community. mennonot (talk) 06:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So the argument is strong keep because it may be notable at some point? Wikipedia pages are kept on the basis of notability for an article, not the possibility the subject will be notable one day. If it is notable one day, the page can be created with a clear steer from the WP:RS that will then exist, which will show why it is notable for an article in its own right. Until that time, it is WP:TOOSOON to have this article, and your argument here reinforces that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think I was pretty clear that I think this is notable, but I didn't use that word because the original nomination did not. I see your argument above that this notability, it it exists, is only notable within the context of the wider Donald Trump campaign. I disagree. I think this is a notable event beyond the Trump campaign because it is the catalyst for a widening rift in the the Republican party that the Trump campaign is just a smaller part of. If your argument is that this is a notable event, but needs to be in a different article then you run into the question of where to put it and I definitely don't think this event can simply be confined within the Trump article or even the [[Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign]. It's implications apply to a variety of political contexts, not simply Trump. mennonot (talk) 05:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article needs a major rewrite and I may consider draftification of the article, if this meeting is not that significant enough which made this event got a lot of attention from U.S. political sphere and media. I think everyone should be given a chance to develop this article in the mainspace. MarioJump83 (talk) 09:00, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redraft under a better name more reflective of how reliable sources refer to the event. IntrepidContributor (talk) 09:34, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator comments. If it isn't deleted, it should be moved to Draft since the article is a mess at the moment. 92.22.180.128 (talk) 10:09, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy for now with no prejudice to republication on the mainspace once it's been properly re-written KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 10:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - not only it gained a lot of media attention, it also influenced some other events later, and is widely referenced everywhere now. --GreenZeb (talk) 11:00, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Lean Draftify over Delete per FormalDude's reasoning (though I don't think Keep is warranted). Agree with Andrevan's arguments. Oppose keep.~~ DFlhb (talk) 12:57, 2 December 2022 (UTC); see below 08:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Drafify Likely a notable event, although can agree that recentism applies well and the article in its current form doesn't do much to make it stand out on its own. Nightmare Rarity_{Enter the palace} 13:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft per WP:RAPID. Not enough time has passed on this event to determine the topic's true notability. Kstern (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This clearly isn't a draft. 2601:C4:C300:A210:4D8A:F430:3257:BFBF (talk) 14:00, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think it's quite telling that there's only one line devoted to the actual meeting and many, many more lines on the reactions to the meeting... KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 14:14, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which is an indication of the notability of what, without the fallout and reaction, would be a rather mundane event. The reaction is an indication of its notability. — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 01:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Perfect example of recentism. Reflecktor (talk) 14:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject clearly does not meet the criteria of notability. It's clear that this has no significant, long-term repercussions from a variety of angles. It's possible to summarize the events of the article in each individual article's page. Most foreign leaders and most major American political figures have not commented on it. This will not have an impact on Kanye's legacy or the American Christian and white nationalist movements. --Malerooster (talk) 17:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- while I would prefer not to comment on other’s rationales, the statements made here are blatantly false . Most American political figures HAVE commented on the meeting, in fact. If you read the article sources you’ll see PBS interviewed no less than 59 Republican federal lawmakers on the meeting. Nor does “has been commented on by most politicians ” describe a reasonable criteria of notability, to begin with, but let’s not shit ourselves and say it hasn’t been commented upon by most politicians when we certainly know that the former president’s dinner party with Nazis indeed has. 2600:4040:90C5:8000:2DF7:A4AA:1898:D63E (talk) 02:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC) — 2600:4040:90C5:8000:2DF7:A4AA:1898:D63E (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of There-being (talk · contribs). [reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS was written for exactly this sort of article. Eladynnus (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Not sure why this piece of recent news can't be covered in the articles of the people in the meeting. Agree about WP:NOTNEWS. This could be reassessed later, but this isn't the time to create this article. Nemov (talk) 22:00, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was an extraordinary action by a US President that will be discussed for a long time to come. More details of the meeting will emerge. Anyone who supports "Delete" on this is complicit with this meeting and its participants, and has no place here on Wikipedia 24.80.7.130 (talk) 23:57, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft and merge contents into other relevant articles. Not really strongly convinced that either keeping or deleting is the best course of action at this time. The high amount of coverage leads me to believe it's notable enough to be mentioned somewhere on the encyclopedia, but I don't think it makes for a great standalone article topic when not a lot of the information is about the meeting itself and we don't exactly know a lot about what was discussed; what makes the event significant is simply the fact that the most recent President of the United States had a meeting with some of the most prominent nazis in America and it was widely condemned by other elected officials. This can be mentioned in articles related to Donald Trump or Kanye West, but I don't think it's ready to be an article on its own. Vanilla Wizard 💙 00:06, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per notnews, move content to related articles. One or two paragraphs is what is needed about this topic, not a whole spinoff article. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 03:41, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I believe this event constitutes a major political scandal, nearly on par with the Donald Trump Access Hollywood tape. It is highly relevant to U.S. politics, specifically with regard to the upcoming Presidential primaries. It will continue to be referenced and discussed both by U.S. politicians and popular media outlets throughout this election cycle and beyond. Cherio222 (talk) 04:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per already mentioned reasons. We could justify an article for every particularly well-attended concert with some of the keep rationales. Making it a draft is also acceptable as a way to hedge the prospect of later or renewed coverage of this event. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:37, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep it is absolutely relevant to current politics and the upcoming election cycle, and there is plenty or precedent for standalone articles on particular gaffes of presidential candidates that received enough media attention, and this is certainly more than a gaffe. I also dont support merging it into the Kanye article, as it has enough relevance to Trump and current political events. One of the most popular living artists going on a Nazi trip and meeting with a former president und current presidential candidate is absolutely relevant enough to warrant a standalone article. --jonas (talk) 07:37, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't like the attention this has gotten (I'm a Trump supporter and I also love Dr. Verwoerd), but it's notable. DieOuTransvaal (talk) 07:54, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to Strong keep. Keep in mind EVENTCRIT states recent events with unproven lasting effect are [not] automatically non-notable. WP:DIVERSE and WP:INDEPTH are met, with domestic and international coverage (in at least France and Israel) over more than a week. Scholars have already commented on this dinner (and the subsequent lack of disavowal) as a significant moment for the "white power" movement in America, which makes it likely that WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:LASTING will also be met in due time; IMO, a meeting between a former President and an out-and-out Holocaust denier and "white power" activist is significant, and will very likely be discussed in future books and published papers on Trump and white power in America. The fact that both Trump and West are running in 2024, and that Fuentes is advising the latter and partially supporting the former, makes it likely that this meeting will be brought up repeatedly during the 2024 campaign, which provides another argument for WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:LASTING. So it meets the WP:EVENTCRIT. I endorse User:FormalDude's reasoning here, and additionally find that the criteria are met. Note that this stuff won't get added to Donald Trump (way too long as is; it doesn't even cover Access Hollywood) and only a small bit about it has been added to Racial views of Donald Trump but that page has over 100KB of prose. Finally, this article's current state has no bearing whatsoever on its subject's notability. DFlhb (talk) 08:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anticipating a likelihood that something will be brought up in the future is a prime example of WP:CRYSTAL. It is equally likely that this will be completely forgotten on the wake of other events. At least a move to draft will provide time to see if further referencing of this event actually develops. BD2412 T 14:48, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL, because the argument isn't "this topic isn't notable but will become so in the future", the argument is "this recent event is already notable and the OP's argument that it won't be notable in ten years time is the crystal ball here". 2A00:23C4:6B13:D801:D4CC:98B7:8177:BC80 (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEVENT is exactly what's being discussed right here right now. You base your argument on the presumption that the event is already notable, which as evidenced by this AfD is very much up for discussion. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 16:23, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article passes WP:GNG, which makes it notable regardless of WP:NEVENT. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe anyone here has disputed that. ––FormalDude (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What? No. The coverage needs to be lasting. A lot of events get a burst of coverage on the date of it and the days after (dog bites man anyone?). Any event that has two sources about it would be notable with that logic. ~Styyx^Talk? 22:44, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is NOTTEMPORARY. It's been receiving new coverage each day since it occurred (now eleven days), including today. [4] [5] [6] ––FormalDude (talk) 22:54, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about this specific article (I have no intention to !vote). Just saying that a GNG pass isn't enough for an event to be notable. ~Styyx^Talk? 22:58, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(The IP comment above isn't mine)

I don't get it. Isn't WP:CRYSTAL about preventing people from making an infinity of placeholder articles, about stuff like the U.S. presidential election in the year 9376 etc? That's a subtly different argument from arguments about how notability evolves, where it's justifiable to use (subjective) common sense. CRYSTAL's about events that haven't happened yet. Leaving CRYSTAL aside: if it was just news articles? Ok, point taken. But with scholars already weighing in; I think my assumptions are good. DFlhb (talk) 20:30, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amazingly, in a truly absurd and farcical development, the opposers of this article cite WP: CRYSTALBALL as their justification, claiming somehow that "We don't know if this event will be notable in 10 years time." YOU are the crystal-ball gazers my friends, not us. (Note CRYSTALBALL's ciration as a reason to not delete this article in the very beginning of the thread! Right now, evidence indicates this article has met notability and relevance criteria, is receiving a wide volume of coverage, and is an important political scandal for the 2024 campaign. While it is of course true that we do not know if historians will find this event significant in 100 years, reference to such as a reason to delete this article is a cruel and absurd farce. YOU are the crystal-ball gazers, deigning to delete material because you have consulted your futurological investigations and decreed that future historians will not find this event relevant. Frankly, who gives a shit?2600:4040:90C5:8000:11B3:CF49:68BE:EB4E (talk) 01:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC) — 2600:4040:90C5:8000:11B3:CF49:68BE:EB4E (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of There-being (talk · contribs). [reply]

Delete and merge - a standalone article for this incident is not necessary or productive. This can certainly be mentioned at relevant articles about Trump, West, and Fuentes, but the event is not notable enough for its own article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 22:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. I don't think we can determine if this is really notable enough for a separate article until more time has passed. aismallard (talk) 23:12, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a new, comprehensive article on the Post-presidency of Donald Trump. That is currently a redirect into the overall Trump bio, but there is more than enough content to warrant a full, comprehensive, standalone post-presidency page. If folks don't have the capacity to do that, then keep this article. It has received extensive media attention (i.e., it has attained "significant coverage in reliable sources"). That is not surprising - this meeting is reflective of a wider resurgent trend of far-right antisemitism in the recent. Neutrality^talk 02:37, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'd find more support for that at Talk:Donald Trump. The excessive length of that article has been something editors there have been wanting to address for some time now. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:11, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with the arguments that state that this is super recent WP:RECENT and also at best something that could work as a subset of other pages. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 02:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have checked quite a few times over the past few days trying to find a Wikipedia article on what is clearly a huge story. Finally I find there is one, and it's very frustrating to see it's already having people trying to delete it. RTredwell (talk) 02:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But per WP:NOTNP, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. News stories do not merit articles because they are news. So far, not one of the keep !(votes) above has provided any WP:RS that shows why this is a notable subject in its own right. And that is literally the only thing that matters. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:54, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"In its own right" is subjective, here are some sources, and people can judge for themselves:

"CREW requests DHS records on Trump's dinner with Ye and Fuentes at Mar-a-Lago". CREW | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. Retrieved 2022-12-04.
"'Dangerous,' 'Unprecedented': Why extremism experts are alarmed by Trump's dinner with Fuentes, Ye". Yahoo News. Retrieved 2022-12-04.
Israel, Steve (2022-12-02). "From haute cuisine to hate cuisine: Why Republicans are finally taking aim at Trump". The Hill. Retrieved 2022-12-04. (opinion, but he makes good points)
Zitner, Aaron. "Some Trump Jewish Allies at Breaking Point After Kanye West, Nick Fuentes Meeting". WSJ. Retrieved 2022-12-04.
Suebsaeng, Asawin; Suebsaeng, Asawin (2022-12-01). "DeSantis Tells Allies to Stay Mum About Trump's 'Nazi' Dinner. It's Part of a Bigger Plan". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 2022-12-04.

DFlhb (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC) ; edited 00:31, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What a joke; now the Deletes are getting so desperate about their flimsy case that they whine the keep votes haven't provided sources in an AFD, when everyone knows you don't put sources in an AFD you put them in the goddamn article. I've said it before and I will say it again: Not a single "delete" vote has described a legitimate reason based in Wikipedia policy for deleting the article. They have falsely cited Crystal Ball, Not News, Recentism, and have cried about the quality of the article. An event being recent does not describe a reason to delete an article. (PS: Has anyone here actually read WP: RECENTISM? Nowhere in the article does it say that RECENTISM is a reason for article deletion. Indeed, it explicitly says the opposite.) An event being a piece of news does not describe a reason to delete an article. ALL events begin life as "news." And the only ones gazing into crystal balls are the deletes, who opine without any basis that this event "will not be important in 10 years" without bothering to inform us how their futurological investigations are conducted. What I likely see here, in truth, is a lot of Trumpkins who are upset that they are not able to whitewash Trump's latest political scandal from this encylopedia. It is well-established that political scandals that receive widespread coverage and comment by politicians across the spectrum are worthy of encyclopedic mention. Indeed, we have covered MANY vastly less important scandals here with standalone articles, such as the Hunter Biden laptop non-story. I am still waiting for a single delete vote to provide a policy based reason for not including this scandal in the encylopedia. The fact of the matter is, you don't have one, and that becomes more and more clear every day. The former president's Nazi Dinner party must stay. 2600:4040:90C5:8000:1170:7B65:1D8D:63 (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC) — 2600:4040:90C5:8000:1170:7B65:1D8D:63 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of There-being (talk · contribs). [reply]

WP:ROUTINE would be the wiki policy. Oaktree b (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROUTINE does not make sense as a justification for deletion here. WP: ROUTINE states "routine news coverage of such things as announcements are not sufficient basis for an article." This was not a "routine event." It was a one of a kind occurrence in which the former president hosted 2 Nazis for dinner at his home. Every major political figure in the country was asked to comment on the event, as documented in the article. Several of these figures have commented that the event will likely preclude Trump's election. Whether or not these analyses are borne out, the event has obviously cleared the low bar of notability for events involving a president (we have an article on Covfefe for crying out loud) and I am unable to understand the acts of mental gymnastics that must be required to label this event "routine."2600:4040:90C5:8000:1170:7B65:1D8D:63 (talk) 00:32, 5 December 2022 (UTC) — 2600:4040:90C5:8000:1170:7B65:1D8D:63 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of There-being (talk · contribs). [reply]

Please do keep in mind Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Etiquette. The conversation is most productive when it focuses on arguments, not people. DFlhb (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DFlhb Agreed, and thank you for providing some sources to discuss. As per deletion guidelines, it is the sources that count to notability, and the article is notable if sources exist, regardless of whether they are in the article or not. But before looking at these, you say "in its own right" is subjective. There is a level of subjectivity in anything we do here, but I think that criterion is objective. What we are looking for are articles that make the case that this meeting will be important as a subject in 10 years time as opposed to broader treatments like "Donald Trump's {failed} 2024 presidential bid", "Donald Trump" or similar. (Note that if this is not notable for the Donald Trump page itself it is not notable for its own article, so really it should be there first and foremost).

So, looking at these links, CREW is a short current affairs article about this. It doesn't pass muster. Yahoo News uses the word "unprecedented" which is better but it is still current affairs comment, and news sources use that word a lot. Israel (2022) is talking about the Republicans turning on Trump, and the meeting is relevant but supporting the thesis. That argues for notability in the Donald Trump article, certainly. Zitner (2022) says some at breaking point over this. Considering the usual level of hyperbole, that seems rather understated. Suebsaeng (2022) is just news reporting about the event. These are all news reports, and WP:NOTNP applies. Of course, news sources can be reliable for verification, but they are not generally great (and here they are not sufficient) to establish that there is a subject here, the meeting, that will have an enduring legacy as a subject in its own right. It appears to be WP:TOOSOON to establish such. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as much as this event may be notable, this article screams WP:RECENTISM, as is mentioned in the nom. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 00:19, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rich people having dinner with former president, isn't terribly notable. High profile for their personas perhaps. I can't see this being any different than other dinner Trump has had or will have. Oaktree b (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is about the former president having dinner with 2 self-described Nazis, not about the president having dinner with "rich people." You seem entirely unfamiliar with the subject of the article. You might learn something by reading it. 2600:4040:90C5:8000:1170:7B65:1D8D:63 (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC) — 2600:4040:90C5:8000:1170:7B65:1D8D:63 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of There-being (talk · contribs). [reply]

Rich "nazis", one that's off his meds and is spouting nonsense. A mentally ill person doesn't generate media coverage for any reason, they're focusing on his actions. Sensationalism that sells papers or generates clicks, is what this is. Oaktree b (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources used aren't even about the meeting, but about the personalities of the different people involved, this appears to have been strung together from a bunch of unrelated facts to attempt to tell whatever story this might or might not represent. Oaktree b (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trump does have a habit of turning non-news into news through his inability to disavow people. IMO what makes this event notable is the likely fallout, and the symbolism of a modern U.S. president being allegedly "very impressed" with a Holocaust denier and neo-Nazi, who he then fails to even condemn. It's not about the knives, forks, food, and tablecloths — i.e. the dinner itself, but about the political significance. DFlhb (talk) 01:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Aside from the NOTNEWS arguments, this is the most obvious failure of the WP:TENYEARTEST I've ever seen. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:53, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: have any of you actually read “10 year test” or the recentism article as a whole? With all due respect, I do not think that you have. The 10 year test does NOT purport to describe a “test” or criterion for deleting articles. Here’s what it says: “Bold textConsider the ten-year test as a thought experiment that might be helpful: Will someone ten years from now be confused about how this article is written? In ten years will this addition still appear relevant? If I am devoting more time to it than other topics in the article, will it appear more relevant than what is already here?” Bold textThe ten year test is not supposed to provide grounds for deleting an article. Closing administrator should toss out all comments that mistakenly cite 10 year test as a reason for deletion. Moreover, I would love to know how these editors have been able to divine whether or not Trump’s Nazi dinner party will be considered notable in 10 years. Is it possible to learn this power? 2600:4040:90C5:8000:B11F:818B:48F1:A0FD (talk) 03:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC) — 2600:4040:90C5:8000:B11F:818B:48F1:A0FD (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of There-being (talk · contribs). [reply]
  - Nice try! This is a very funny response. I quote from WP:TENYEARTEST: Content that seemed notable at the time might, in retrospect, violate what Wikipedia is not and other guidelines. Anybody quoting the 10YT is stating that is newsworthy today will not be notable in the future. This meeting has not proven itself to have any enduring notability, which is an example of Recentism, which is the name of the supplement the 10YT is a part of. It supplements policies on notability and WPNOT which most certainly are grounds for deletion. With all due respect, perhaps you should read the guidelines yourself before criticising other editors for misunderstanding them. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:19, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Let me repeat myself more slowly for your benefit, friend. 1) Unless you are able to know the future, you do not know what will be deemed notable in 10 years. As stated in 10 year test, "Wikipedia editors should not pretend to have a crystal ball." Your speculations on such matters are not important and lack any basis in fact. Do you have any evidence that this event will not be considered notable in 10 years? No. 2) Although you sneer, you exhibit almost no understanding of the material you quoted. "Content that seemed notable at the time might, in retrospect, violate what Wikipedia is not." Of course it is possible that content that seems notable at the time might later turn out to not be notable and violate WP:NOT. At no point does this statement say that the 10YEARTEST provides a criterion for deletion of material. Again, how could it? For the 10 year test to provide a test of notability would require our editors to have futurological powers. As is explicitly stated, the 10 year test is merely a thought experiment that might be helpful (and moreover is just a single paragraph in what is itself merely an explanatory essay, not an official policy providing reasons for deletion). It is not a criterion for deletion, nor could it be. There is a lot of sound and fury in your post, but it exhibits almost complete misunderstanding of Wikipedia policies on deletion, and fails to provide a single policy-based criterion for your recommendation. I know it must be hard for you to be this wrong, but that's just how it is. Tough! 2600:4040:90C5:8000:1170:7B65:1D8D:63 (talk) 03:33, 5 December 2022 (UTC) — 2600:4040:90C5:8000:1170:7B65:1D8D:63 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of There-being (talk · contribs). [reply]
      - Having read your other comments on this AfD, I have no interest in discussing this further with you. I will trust the closing administrator will demonstrate greater impartiality and policy understanding than you. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        That is indeed the kind of thing someone whose claims have been systematically dismantled by the force of the better argument would say. I make a very simple and elementary point. You lack futurological powers, and your inane speculations on this being "the most obvious failure of the 10 year test I've ever seen" have no relevance. The very article you cite explictly states that "Wikipedia editors should not pretend to have a crystal ball." In the future, please try to confine yourself to policy based reasons for deletion, such as claims about the article's verifiability and notability, rather than engaging in unevidenced claims about the unknowable shape of the future. I trust this has been an educational experience for you. Ciao! 2600:4040:90C5:8000:1170:7B65:1D8D:63 (talk) 03:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC) — 2600:4040:90C5:8000:1170:7B65:1D8D:63 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of There-being (talk · contribs). [reply]
        I don't understand why you are being so aggressive towards the other editors here. Calling their comments "inane speculations" and boasting about how you've bested them is not constructive. Eladynnus (talk) 10:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        This editor began being aggressive towards me. "Nice try! This is a very funny response." etc It's interesting when someone can dish it out, but can't take it in response. In fact despite their rudeness, I said nothing negative about this editor as a person, but simply pointed out how their arguments badly misunderstood the 10 year test, which does not purport to provide a criteria for deleting articles. Again, just thinking about it logically, the 10 year test (which is a single paragraph in an explanatory essay, not policy) could not possibly provide a reason to delete articles because editors are not clairvoyant and lack the ability to see the future. Articles should be assessed on criteria such as verifiability and notability, rather than unknowable speculations.2600:4040:90C5:8000:7CA7:32D4:F186:5264 (talk) 12:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC) — 2600:4040:90C5:8000:7CA7:32D4:F186:5264 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of There-being (talk · contribs). [reply]
        
        SNOW is happening. Oaktree b (talk) 12:47, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        
        This is clearly not a case of SNOW. There are a similar number of Keep and Delete votes. SNOW describes a situation in which almost all votes are on one side. Here we have effectively the same number of votes on each side. I would very much like if the deletes stop intentionally falsely citing policies that clearly do not plausibly support their case. Many thanks, and have a wonderful day! 2600:4040:90C5:8000:7CA7:32D4:F186:5264 (talk) 12:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC) — 2600:4040:90C5:8000:7CA7:32D4:F186:5264 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of There-being (talk · contribs). [reply]
        IP 2600:4040:90C5:8000::/64 You have not taken account of WP:NSUSTAINED Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. And Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. This is why WP:TOOSOON applies. This is why all the other policy arguments about recentism also apply. Wikipedia articles are written when notability is already established, they are not kept until it is clear that no notability will ever be established. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        
        with all due respect, you are simply incorrect on this matter. I have taken into account the recency of the event. Indeed, the notability of this event has grown each day since it transpired. Please remember that “Notability is not temporary”. When an unprecedented political scandal like this occurs, when an event has generated this amount of coverage, and has been commented upon by practically every member of Congress, it has cleared the very low bar of notability for events involving a President of the United States. However, I did not comment here to replead my argument, but to request that editors stop misunderstanding 10yeartest, which is not a literal test, not a statement of policy, and not an invitation to peer at your crystal balls and opine on what will be considered important in 10 years. Indeed, the non-policy essay you are citing states as much explicitly! What we SHOUlD be citing here is the actual governing policy page, WP:EVENT, which relevantly states: “Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below).” It is obvious this criterion has easily been met here. 2600:4040:90C5:8000:AC4B:2D83:ECCE:317B (talk) 13:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)- ^{struck per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/There-being - sock reply to me Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2022 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete - Found an interesting essay on this. :ThalassocraticEmperor (talk) 14:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft, the subject meets the notability criteria but it is not encyclopedic in the current state, it's practically the inverse of WP:NOTWHOSWHO. As many others have mentioned, although I doubt it passes the WP:10YT, it's not particularly relevant for the purposes of this AfD - editors are welcome to test the articles relevance in future. Putting notability of the individuals aside, the article effectively speculates what three individuals discussed over dinner WP:NOTSCANDAL - unless there's some radical story development that makes the content of the article any more than a directory of public opinion it'll remain non-encyclopedic, in which case, it'll end up being SNOW - so just delete it. ~ Chip 🐺 14:12, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move/Merge this reeks of WP:RECENT. There is literally an essay [[7]] on this! Merge to Donald Trump, Kanye West or Nick Fuentes. While strange, its exactly what that essay is for! Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What a poorly-thought-out article creation. A meeting of this nature is not notable, it is just usable as a source for other articles that cover the actions of the alleged antisemitism of the participants. We're pretty much in WP:SNOW territories here, as many of the keeps are by single-purpose accounts and IPs. All in all this is just WP:NOTNEWS, WP:10YT, and the charming and recently-discovered WP:NETRUMP. ValarianB (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "We're pretty much in WP:SNOW territories here, as many of the keeps are by single-purpose accounts and IPs." - I wouldn't go that far, most of the keep !votes are from established editors. Only a few are IPs. I probably did a very poor job at counting, but I see a 3-way split between delete, draftify, and keep. Roughly 16 straight delete, 4 delete and/or draftify, 12 draftify/merge, 17 straight keep, 1 wait. Of course, Wikipedia is not a vote, and the closer will have to evaluate the strength of the arguments and take into consideration if !votes from accounts with little activity or anonymous IPs should be discounted or otherwise weighted less. In any case, definitely not a SNOW delete. A lot of thought will have to go into closing this one. Might even be in no consensus territory. Vanilla Wizard 💙 18:31, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not there is a consensus for deletion, those numbers clearly indicate a consensus that this subject is not yet suitable for inclusion in mainspace. BD2412 T 18:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, my personal preference is to develop it elsewhere. Best wishes, Vanilla Wizard 💙 19:07, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A no-consensus would be a bullshit close, as half of the keeps can be outright discarded. ValarianB (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What would be “bullshit” would be to discard a bunch of votes based on one IP editor’s behaviour. It’s also very established that trying to give recommendations to closers, or to intimate which closes will be accepted or tolerated, and which won’t be, is improper. Closes are founded on the strength of policy-based arguments, as carefully assessed by the closer, nothing more. DFlhb (talk) 00:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah this is too recent to justify an article, BUT it is relevant to all 3 of their careers (I mean they already put it in Kanye's article for example). Its wild seeing a WP essay topic form in front of your face Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Recentism and not news. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:34, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but open to moving/merging where sensible - While I understand the arguments that this article falls under WP:TRUMPNOT or is an example of 'recentism' (WP:NSUSTAINED), it would be unclear where this information should be moved to (Donald Trump, Kanye West, and, to a lesser extent, Nick Fuentes, are all notable figures with their own pages). Additionally, beyond the clearly apparent notability of this event (a former US President, a politically-vocal billionaire artist & celebrity, and an influential political extremist having a notable dinner together where politics was discussed as a primary point of conversation), it ties into several large topics: the 2024 US election, the current ideological shifting of the two main US political parties, the mainstreaming of white supremacist ideas in the US and on the Web, and the current mental health crisis/career implosion that a celebrity is experiencing. Regardless of whether or not this specific dinner ends up being well-discussed in the future or simply forgotten, it's clearly relevant in showing a chronological view of several topics and could very realistically be mentioned in several places throughout Wikipedia in the future—if not deserving of its own page, the contents should largely still remain, but I can't think of where it'd all be merged into or moved to. - Emil Sayahi (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its already on Kanye's wests page for example. This is what "controversies" is for. I would 100% just support a redirect! Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into respective sections of Kanye West, Kanye West 2024 presidential campaign, Donald Trump 2024 campaign and Nick Fuentes. Sure, I can't remember a time when a previous president invited Holocaust deniers to dinner but just because something is repulsive and criticised in the media doesn't mean it's noteworthy. It's just too soon to be considered as it's part of the news cycle. But there are useful tidbits in there and if Trump does get the Republican nomination it's likely to be brought up in debates so having that information stick around on Wikipedia in an encyclopedic format makes sense. SITH (talk) 20:39, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean if we count actual segregationists we have Woodrow Wilson (history doesn't repeat but it sure does rhyme) and this a good point Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

: Strong Keep This is a pretty clear keep, as the notability of this scandal and its importance to the 2024 election is basically indisputable. It would not be better spun off into a larger article. The recency of the event is not a good reason for deleting a well-sourced article on a notable topic.There-being (talk) 01:13, 6 December 2022 (UTC) - ^{struck per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/There-being Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2022 (UTC)}[reply]

Importance to the 2024 election is indisputable? That's WP:CRYSTALBALLing. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 04:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Similar to the twitter thing, this is trying to force a whole article out of something that should be a sentence or a short paragraph in each of the appropriate BLP articles. The meeting itself isn't notable, what is newsworthy is a former president associating with people who have expressed openly-racist opinions. Zaathras (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That article is 4 sentences long, and has less than 5 sources. This article is very extensively sourced and significantly longer. I don't see the comparison. There-being (talk) 01:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — There-being (talk • contribs) is blocked for having used sockpuppets in this debate. [reply]

This isn't a eggplant-measuring contest where the bigger refcount wins. This article has been severely bloated with citations to other people's opinions and other ancillary odds & ends, the comparison is to the subject matter itself, i.e. much ado about nothing. Zaathras (talk) 01:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why the hostility and incivility? The fact remains that the article you cited is a topic that was ignored by the media and thus has very few references as a result and consists of no more than 4 sentences, while this is a topic that has received extensive coverage in reliable sources, thus generating a treasure trove of useful references that have formed the backbone of a reliably sourced article and established notability due to ongoing coverage and reaction. Please keep your outbursts to yourself. There-being (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — There-being (talk • contribs) is blocked for having used sockpuppets in this debate. [reply]

There was no hostility nor incivility nor outburst, keep your hyperbole to yourself, all there was here was a poking of a hole in your silly response. The meeting itself is just The Latest Outrageous Thing Donald Trump Has Done. Things that Donald does generate a firestorm of coverage in sources, we here decide what is encyclopedic and what is just news. This is just news. Mention it in the appropriate articles of course, but there's no story to tell about the meeting itself. This isn't Beergate. Zaathras (talk) 02:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to say it but you are mistaken. The volume of reliable source coverage here (including interviews with the entire Republican leadership) indicates that the president's meeting with self-described Nazis constitutes a significant political scandal. You poked no "holes" in my response, but, on the contrary, made yourself look silly both with your outburst and your comparison of an extensively sourced article to a 4 sentence stub with no sources. There-being (talk) 02:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — There-being (talk • contribs) is blocked for having used sockpuppets in this debate. [reply]

I'm sorry to say it but you are mistaken... I do not believe so, but we all shall find out at the close. :-) Zaathras (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge - Per RECENTISM and WP:LASTING. WP:TRUMPNOT also summarizes the issue here well. -- Veggies (talk) 03:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge - Per WPNOTNEWS, RECENTISM and WP:LASTING, WP:TRUMPNOT Eccekevin (talk) 04:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. scope_creep^Talk 06:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There seems to be a misunderstanding of policy. (Note, as mentioned above, that I'm the initial creator of the article.)

Official Wikipedia policy for WP:EVENT is the following:

1.) Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect. This article passes WP:GNG in spades. Additionally, according to news published by Axios today, it will also be an instance of WP: LASTING and WP: EFFECT. Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else. This may include effects on the views and behaviors of society and legislation. For example, the murder of Adam Walsh ultimately led to the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, among other notable subjects. It's also important to note that it states: It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable. This explicitly rules out the most common justification being used for removal. (And this meeting seems to have clearly met it already.)

2.) Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards. Clearly met. The event has received significant, international attention and has been widely covered on almost every major news network constantly for the past two weeks. It's also received comment from historians, political scientists, foreign politicians, majority and minority leaders of both the House and Senate, and the President of the United States. (as described below).

A multitude of sources have covered it in detail - including Yahoo! News, The Washington Post, Religion News Service, and many, many, many others.

3.) Events having lesser coverage or more limited scope may or may not be notable; the descriptions below provide guidance to assess the event.

4.) Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. Throughly discredited by sources. As of November 6, 2022 — two weeks after the fact — the meeting is still frontpage news on a majority of American news outlets, including Axios (here) and (here), The Wall Street Journal, Rolling Stone, Vice, Salon, Politico (here) and (here), National Review, NPR, Truthout, and Yahoo! News. One can debate the exact details of what merits notability for events, but it is now extensively abundant that this article meets the criteria of notability, including that of WP:10YT. This will almost certainly be memorable in ten years and is clearly not a WP:ROUTINE event.

Additional problems with proposed consolidation into each figure's page:

Instead of keeping the page: other editors have suggested merging the article into the Donald Trump and Kanye West pages.

This has its own problems. The current articles for Donald Trump (417,202 bytes) and Kanye West (333,646 bytes) are already among the longest on Wikipedia. Yet, merging the articles would require us to somehow both simultaneously preserve the overwhelming majority of the notable information contained within the article. In this case, editors are suggesting something that's frankly quite impossible. There's simply no way to easily consolidate the multitudes of information that are already existent on the situation. (And is rapidly growing everyday.)

The suggestion would almost certainly lead to a majority of *important information* contained within the article to be permanently lost.

Other misunderstandings of Wikipedia policy:

Firstly, Wikipedia:TRUMPNOT is explicitly not Wikipedia policy or a criteria for determining AfD's. As the lead of itself states: ...This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

Secondly, even if Wikipedia:TRUMPNOT was policy, it still would not be applicable in this case. Wikipedia:TRUMPNOT is simply a reaffirmation of existent Wikipedia policy. Stating that 1.) A lot of chatter on politics Twitter is neither reliable nor secondary. If no "real" media source has covered this latest outrage, stop there. 2.) Wikipedia can't cover it either. If there are at least some news stories talking about the issue... it depends. Was this an actual policy change, or just everyday celebrity churnalism? Are the sources heavily partisan ones (far-left, far-right, or opinion blogs)? 3.) Even if there is media coverage, if it's passing insubstantial coverage, consider leaving the topic alone, per WP:DUEWEIGHT. None of these sentences apply to the article. Editors seem to be using the concept of Wikipedia:TRUMPNOT to argue that there's an exceptional criteria for notability for articles related to Trump. That's simply not the case. Nor is it argued by Wikipedia: TRUMPNOT. As mentioned above in my initial comment on the AFD: this seems like a clear keep. It passes WP: GNG with flying colors. It will almost certainly pass WP: LASTING and WP: EFFECT. Ex cetera, Ex cetera, Ex cetera, Ex cetera.

Does it clearly meet the criteria of WP:DEPTH? Yes. Does it clearly meet the criteria of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE? Yes. Does it clearly meet the criteria of WP: DIVERSE? Yes.

As I mentioned before, this seems like an extraordinarily slam dunk case to me. KlayCax (talk) 09:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @KlayCax:, you have made your point repeatedly. Several experienced editors do not agree with your interpretation of the guidelines. Please stop WP:BLUDGEONing. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As shown by the article's edit history, I've only made three major posts/responses about the matter. (And cast one vote.) One of them was my original post. One was a response. The other the above. All of them were in light of updated information. It's Wikietiquette that editors should respond in a new comment than retroactively alter edits in AfD's that are multiple-days-old. The fact that "several experienced editors do not agree with your interpretation of the guidelines" is precisely why I replied to their concerns above. Comments after casting a vote are normative and in line with Wikipedia editing. Since many of the suggested arguments were not mentioned at the time I originally responded, it was needed.

As mentioned in the guidelines: If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.. So the number of comments I make is irrelevant to the final decision made. Ultimately, it's the strength of the arguments that matter. Not the numerical tally of the votes. Thus, it's not my intention to WP:BLUDGEON. Like other editors here who have made multiple comments/responses - there's nothing illegitimate about making multiple comments within reason.

I've only commented on a small minority of votes. Thanks. KlayCax (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You just added a monstrous variably-colored text wall, formatted differently from the normal comment flow to make your opinions (appear) more prominent. This is beyond bludgeoning the process and into obliteration. So please, for your sake and ours, it is time to back off. ValarianB (talk) 12:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps read WP:BLUDGEONing? To bludgeon is to constantly repeat an old argument without addressing new criticisms. This post is the contrary; it's the most comprehensive attempt so far to address new !delete arguments. If you’re going to quote an essay to question an editor’s conduct, I’d instead quote WP:AADD and especially WP:JUSTAPOLICY, which encompasses a great many one-liner !votes so far (and sadly, especially the !delete ones). If some people cite an essay (RECENTISM, NOTTRUMP) as justification to delete (and for quite a few, without presenting any arguments), and someone attempts to present arguments for that essay not applying, it's hard to fault that as nonconducive to a constructive discussion! DFlhb (talk) 13:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEONing is, more generally, to "dominate the conversation in order to persuade others to their point of view"; repeating one's arguments is only one common example. This WP:WALLOFTEXT eyesore could have been much more succinct, and yes, lots of points have been addressed previously and didn't need to be repeated. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 18:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~The guy with the Wall of Text is right, though. They've made the best arguments in the entire thread, and it's not close. There-being (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC)~~ — There-being (talk • contribs) is blocked for having used sockpuppets in this debate. [reply]

+1 Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 19:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you, seriously, knock it off. This isn't social media, you don't gain or give status with upvotes.... ValarianB (talk) 19:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uh oh! My my, getting testy that the intellectual bankruptcy and manifest lack of policy basis of the "delete" votes has been exposed, are we? Again, within the entire thread this comment does the best job of identifying the relevant governing policies and the proper policy outcome. It's a good thing this isn't a vote, since that means the delete votes don't count because they all consisted of erroneous appeals to non-governing policies, as the above comment adequately explains. There-being (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — There-being (talk • contribs) is blocked for having used sockpuppets in this debate. [reply]

Please be mindful of your tone, @There-being:. You've been here fairly recently, we assume good faith in one another. You are coming off as very condescending. Wikipedia is WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, discussions are resolved through WP:CONSENSUS. At the same time, you can't simply say "the delete votes don't count because they all consisted of erroneous appeals to non-governing policies", because others do not agree with your interpretation of the guidelines. It's not helping your argument. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 04:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It may also be worth re-iterating, just as a general comment for people on all sides of the issue, that if anyone has inadvertently left a !vote while logged out, and then a second one after they logged in, they might like to voluntarily strike the errant extra !vote. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Views of Kanye West#Donald Trump–Nick Fuentes meeting. The topic of this article is covered there. JeffSpaceman (talk) 13:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't need its own article, could easily belong somewhere else, such as where the user above has suggested.GeorgeBailey (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete easily covered elsewhere in their respective articles, every meeting of controversial politicians does not need a Wikipedia article. EoRdE6^(Talk) 01:58, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge likely into a section under Donald Trump, Nick Fuentes, etc., for the same reason as the others. Among Us for POTUS (talk) 03:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I say keep, this episode has been the most talked about things in US politics for the past couple of months, many politlical leaders of both parties have talked about it, and it might also have major political influence during the 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries and the 2024 U.S. presidential election. This will be a major political event in the US history. I say Keep.La lopi (talk) 10:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The meeting happened two weeks ago. Kstern (talk) 13:24, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTALBALLing on importance of events is not a reason to keep something.soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 22:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete/merge Initially I held off voting as AfDs tend to result in articles being improved/rescued during the discussion. However, after over a week of discussion I see this article is still more about the reactions than anything else, which says to me this is a clear case of WP:NETRUMP. This article could easily be condensed into a few sentences and merged elsewhere. — Czello 16:04, 8 December 2022 (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 Sakshi (media group)#Sakshi Excellence Awards. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sakshi Excellence Awards

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

Circumspect WP:BLAR, nominating since this non notable award doesn't need a standalone article per WP:CORPDEPTH (the award is basically a publicity exercise for Sakshi media). This, and other related articles 8th Sakshi Excellence Awards, 7th Sakshi Excellence Awards need to be redirected without any selective or full merge, to Sakshi_(media_group)#Sakshi_Excellence_Awards. — hako9 (talk) 21:11, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Awards, Andhra Pradesh, and Telangana. — hako9 (talk) 21:11, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 17:11, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
redirect ~~delete~~ all three. Totally agree with nomination. Subject fails CORPDEPTH, WP:NEVENT, and general notable criteria as well. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was a little fast at reading the nomination's ending part. I have updated my opinion above. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. ✗plicit 02:31, 8 December 2022 (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 Wejdene#Discography. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Poto (song)

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

Non-notable song that does not need its own page. The official video only has ~512k views and the song itself fails to meet WP:NSONG. The article itself only contains the YouTube video as a reference and the creator of the article removed the PROD tag without explanation. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with these sources and they may just be tabloids for all I know, but I did find these two [8][9] which might be worth something. If not, I couldn't really see anything else and I'm not particularly confident in this one.

And for what it's worth, RoundTeen, would you mind explaining your reason behind removing the PROD? QuietHere (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Kazamzam (talk) 06:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Little if any media coverage in French sources, one interview in Ouest France/MCE. Nothing for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 00:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wejdene#Discography. Fails WP:NSONG. Not enough coverage since a few weeks after its release aside from the sources presented by QuietHere. SBKSPP (talk) 04:47, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is consensus that this material is not suitable. Further, there is not a clear clear consensus that should be covered in the main article due to the latter's size, rendering that not a viable ATD. Star Mississippi 13:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MEK troll farm

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

This is another one of Ghazaalch's POV WP:COATRACKs. There have been several already deleted such as "Western support of dictators" and "United States hypocrisy". The topic of this article can already be found in the article People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (where it's written with more neutrality). Alex-h (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In my opinion the article speaks to current events regarding a small detail within a larger story, the larger story having a place within a much larger context. The presentation of fact, concisely, in context and with NPOV would be far better for everyone. Looking at MEK (and the many many larger related articles that run-on) from the possibility of keeping I found this quotation that applies to the approach taken to push POV a "fierce battle to control the narrative is now being fought online." Flibbertigibbets (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Iran, and Albania. Shellwood (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whatever good content can be written on this topic, can be added to the MEK article. There are very few details on the alleged troll farm, so it can't have an article of its own. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can be covered in the MEK article. Perhaps a redirect would be ok too. Oaktree b (talk) 22:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment below. There's rough consensus built over the years that the main MEK article must be trimmed, summarized, and/or split. MarioGom (talk) 13:08, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Alex-h nominated this article for speedy deletion some days ago saying that the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page –People's_Mojahedin_Organization_of_Iran#Propaganda_campaign. Because of the duplication. Then I explained that it is not duplicated,(there was not event a mention of the troll farm in that article) and that the main article, People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran, is already too long as has been mentioned many times by nearly all users editing in that article. Then Deb restored the article. After that Alex-h moved some of the content of this article to MEK article to make another point. Two minute later he nominated this article again for deletion saying that it is WP:COATRACK; while it is just a spin-off article for another article, Troll farm#Albania and that there are many analyzes and reports about the subject, MEK troll farm, including the following:

Middle East Eye: the UK's Independent published its own investigation into the MEK - the “darling of Washington” that has “created a state within a state in Albania” - also addressing the group’s generally repressive nature and the existence in the camp of what amounts to a Twitter troll factory'. ... Obviously, the wild proliferation of fake accounts committed to demonising the Iranian government serves not only to warp beyond recognition the reality on the ground in Iran, but also to ultimately justify whatever form of “democracy” the US feels should be violently installed there.

The Guardian: the group’s main work in Albania involves fighting online in an escalating information war between Iran and its rivals. Heyrani, who left the MEK last summer, says that he worked in a “troll farm” of 1,000 people inside the Albanian camp, posting pro-Rajavi and anti-Iran propaganda in English, Farsi and Arabic on Facebook, Twitter, Telegram and newspaper comment sections. ...According to Marc Owen Jones, an academic who studies political bots on social media, “thousands” of suspicious Twitter accounts emerged in early 2016 with “Iran” as their location and “human rights” in their description or account name, which posted in support of Trump and the MEK. These accounts, says Jones, were created in batches and would promote Trump’s anti-Iran rhetoric using the hashtags #IranRegimeChange, #FreeIran and #IstandwithMaryamRajavi.

The Intercept: Any remarks about the group or even Iranian politics in general can be expected to be met by scores of MEK-supporters commenting through replies on Twitter and other social media. Many of the pro-MEK accounts will repeat the same messages, often word for word, swarming the mentions of any commentator. Geoff Golberg, an expert on social media manipulation and founder of SocialCartograph, a social media mapping firm, took particular note of Alavi’s Twitter account, which appears to act as a node in an online campaign to boost the MEK’s profile. The account is heavily promoted by other pro-MEK accounts, as well as supporters of the group’s policy of confrontation toward Iran. ... “The Heshmat Alavi account is part of a group of accounts, which, for years, have engaged in coordinated inauthentic behavior,” said Golberg. “The account is connected to thousands of inauthentic MEK-focused accounts, many of which regularly engage with the account’s tweets. ... Alavi persona is not what it claims to be. The use of fake identities to conduct political propaganda has become common in recent years.

AP News: SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Facebook said Tuesday it has removed hundreds of fake accounts linked to an Iranian exile group and a troll farm in Albania... Facebook determined the accounts were being run from a single location in Albania by a group of individuals working on behalf of MEK. Facebook found other telltale clues suggesting a so-called troll farm, in which workers are often paid to post content, including misinformation, to social media... For one, researchers found that the activity seemed to follow the central European workday, with posts picking up after 9 a.m., slowing down at the end of the day, and with a noticeable pause at lunch time. ... “Even trolls need to eat,” said Ben Nimmo, who works on Facebook’s global threat intelligence investigations, on a conference call with reporters Tuesday.

Al-Monitor: what many Iran observers had suspected from the outset, a Twitter troll factory meant to influence the already contentious debate over Iran. According to the Al Jazeera report, the exiled Iranian opposition group Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK) has set up a center at its headquarters in Albania, where 1,000-1,500 "online soldiers" are instructed to promote hashtags in support of overthrowing the Islamic Republic. Two former MEK members told Al Jazeera that they would receive specific daily orders on what to highlight regarding Iran and also which specific Iran analysts to attack on social media, often sharing the White House's critical messages against Iran and amplifying their tweets via bots.

Middle East Eye: Facebook removed hundreds of fake accounts linked to an Iranian exile group and a troll farm in Albania. The social media company said in a statement on Tuesday that it removed more than 300 accounts that were a part of a network tied to Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK), an Iranian opposition body previously designated a terrorist group by the US. The social media giant observed that while the network had limited success in gaining any kind of meaningful audience, it was run by "what appears to be a tightly organized troll farm linked to an exiled militant opposition group from Iran". The accounts, including Facebook profiles, pages, groups and Instagram accounts, posted content critical of Iran's government while it "routinely praised the activity of the MEK". A number of tactics were used to disguise the fake accounts, including using photos of Iranian celebrities and dissidents, and also changing profile names.

The New York Times:I wasn’t shown the computer suites, which defectors had portrayed as a kind of troll farm: junior members using multiple accounts on Facebook and Twitter, typing messages that criticize the Iranian government, lionize the M.E.K. leadership and promote its paid lobbyists. When Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Bolton made public speeches in recent years, members were ordered “to take a particular line and tweet it 10 times from different accounts,” said Mr. Mohammadian, the former member.

The Independent

... MEK members based in the organisation's Albanian headquarters were encouraged to tweet pro-MEK propaganda. Heyrani noted that MEK members in the Tirana HQ received daily orders and that it was 'their duty' to praise anti-regime comments issued by politicians across the globe. Conversely, anyone who was not sufficiently critical of the ranian regime, or anyone who criticised MEK, were subject to attacks by MEK's troll farm.^[1]

Ghazaalch (talk) 19:33, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Hussain, Murtaza (June 9, 2019). "An Iranian Activist Wrote Dozens of Articles for Right-Wing Outlets. But Is He a Real Person?". The Intercept. Retrieved 2022-11-16.

Keep. The topic is notable, since there is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Merging to the main article is not an option, since there's a strong push to trim, summarize, or split People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran, so split articles make sense. I think the scope of the article could be broadened to cover MEK online propaganda in general, but I think that's beyond AFD scope. MarioGom (talk) 13:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The few sources (some of them not even reliable) used for this article are mainly made up of allegations. These allegations are from people that have supposedly left the MEK (such as Hassan Heyrani?), and we don't include random accusations from the public as the basis for encyclopedia articles. All of this is already in section 'Propaganda and social media', within an article that provides context (such as 'Disinformation through recruited MEK members'). Rather than trimming, the main problem in People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (MeK) has been (and still is) POV pushing. Alex-h (talk) 07:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex-h: As I said before, this article is a spin-off article for Troll farm#Albania. Why are you insisting that this is part of another article? Because you recently moved part of this article to that one? Because we have an article for Philippines, shouldn't we have an article like Fake news in the Philippines? Or because we have an article for Turkey, shouldn't we have an article like AK Trolls? How many sources does an article like this need? And which one of the given sources is not reliable? This article is consisting of two sections. One of them includes the interviews. The MEK does not let people to get inside the Tirana Camp and interview with the online solders working there. So most of the interviews are with the MEK members who escaped from the camp. And they are not a few. The Guardian reporter for example writes that they fled the country to the EU and the US, but around 120 recent MEK escapees remain in Tirana ... I spoke to about a dozen defectors, half of whom are still in Albania, who said ...^[1] We cannot decide whether the interviews are reliable or not, we just rely on reliable sources.Ghazaalch (talk) 09:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and others, this is a small detail part of a much larger context, and anyways it's already in the main article. None of the "Keep" votes addressed this. Clearly a coatrack article. NMasiha (talk) 13:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NMasiha: we have troll farm articles for different countries: AK Trolls for Turkey, Russian web brigades for Russia, 50 Cent Party for China, Fake news in the Philippines for Philippines, Public opinion brigades for Vietnam, and so on. Why shouldn't we have the same article for Albania and MEK that has a state within a state in Albania? Ghazaalch (talk) 04:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran, no independent notability. This is not a keep vote. Stifle (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment None of the comments that have been voted for deletion could challeng WP:Reliability and WP:Notability.They mostly talk about the integration of new content created for this article into the so called main article, while the main problem of the main article is that it is too long, and the effort is not to make the problem worse. In the source Terrorists, cultists – or champions of Iranian democracy? The wild wild story of the MEK we read: MEK paid western political influencers fees to pen op-eds and give speeches – and to lobby for its removal from the list of designated terrorist organisations.Ghazaalch (talk) 03:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Due to WP:COATRACK. And I look forward to Ghazaalch's WP:BLUDGEON-ing reply :) MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:44, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Petroleum Data Management Association

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

Fails WP:NORG; a standard WP:BEFORE shows only brief mentions in Google Books. All the sources in the article are WP:PRIMARY and I can't locate any third-party sources online. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - please note that I am a staff member of the PPDM Association (paid contribution notice).

I have some articles proving our notability (I think at least), I can request them to be added if they are the right type but here they are:

- Journal of Petroleum Technology - https://jpt.spe.org/ppdm-launches-data-as-a-national-resource-hub

- Journal of Petroleum Technology - https://jpt.spe.org/indonesia-adopts-ppdm-data-model-industry-standard

- Digital Energy Journal - https://www.digitalenergyjournal.com/company/PPDM/f8c6fa95.aspx

- Ministry of Oil and Gas India - http://petroleum.nic.in/sites/default/files/GIPIP_Final_approved.pdf

- ETL Solutions - https://etlsolutions.com/understanding-complexity-in-ppdm-data-management/

- OSDU - https://osduforum.org/data-def-ppdm/

- Calgary Geoscience Data Managers Society - https://www.cspg.org/common/Uploaded%20files/pdfs/documents/technical/division_talks/operations/02202019.pdf

- Daily Oil Journal - https://www.dailyoilbulletin.com/article/2021/8/11/ppdm-launching-what-is-a-facility-initiative/ EliseMS2022 (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The references provided have to be interpreted in the context of Primary Sources Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources. When I "drilled down" (inadvertent pun) into the links I didn't see anything that would establish notability. Here is an independent link https://www.mrt.com/business/oil/article/Reducing-emissions-will-be-done-through-innovation-16612688.php but I really cannot find enough (in my opinion) to support the article. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG. Most of the above sources are not really independent. We need independent sources like mainstream press. LibStar (talk) 00:05, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, but if and only if someone adds the found sources. Bearian (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:15, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are many networking, training, and associations on many topics; there is nothing I see which makes (or has made) this particular organization notable. In the edit history; There are two "single use" accounts responsible for an article with no support, this suggests (but may not be the case) that this entry may have been established as marketing without disclosure. In the AFD discussion "paid editing" is being acknowledged which is good. I will look at the sourcing provided to see if I should reevaluate my conclusion. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 22:11, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are few mentions of this association, they seem to have set a data standard for the industry. I saw mention of it in a few items in GScholar, one was from a peer reviewed journal in Azerbijan. I don't think it's a RS, but there seems to be some usage of this association and their tools. Oaktree b (talk) 00:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:25, 1 December 2022 (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. ✗plicit 02:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2014 FCBL season

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

WP:GNG. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 16:37, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be nice if the nominator would say more about why this article should be deleted than "WP:GNG". Or bundled all of these similar nominations.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:17, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:31, 1 December 2022 (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. ✗plicit 02:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2013 FCBL season

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

WP:GNG. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball and United States of America. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 16:37, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be nice if the nominator would say more about why this article should be deleted than "WP:GNG". Or bundled all of these similar nominations.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:16, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:31, 1 December 2022 (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. ✗plicit 02:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2012 FCBL season

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

WP:GNG. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 16:38, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be nice if the nominator would say more about why this article should be deleted than "WP:GNG".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:16, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:31, 1 December 2022 (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. ✗plicit 02:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2011 FCBL season

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

WP:GNG. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:06, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:06, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 16:39, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be nice if the nominator would say more about why this article should be deleted than "WP:GNG".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:15, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:22, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1994 NECBL All-Star Game

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

WP:GNG. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:03, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 16:48, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be nice if the nominator would say more about why this article should be deleted than "WP:GNG".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:30, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, not sufficient for a standalone article. Wizardman 22:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge the result into a table on New England Collegiate Baseball League - insufficient coverage in independent, reliable sources for a standalone article. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:22, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2003 NECBL All-Star Game

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

WP:GNG. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 16:47, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be nice if the nominator would say more about why this article should be deleted than "WP:GNG".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:30, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, not sufficient for a standalone article. Wizardman 22:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge the result into a table on New England Collegiate Baseball League - insufficient coverage in independent, reliable sources for a standalone article. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:23, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2004 NECBL All-Star Game

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

WP:GNG. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 16:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be nice if the nominator would say more about why this article should be deleted than "WP:GNG".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:30, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, not sufficient for a standalone article. Wizardman 22:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge the result into a table on New England Collegiate Baseball League - insufficient coverage in independent, reliable sources for a standalone article. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:23, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2005 NECBL All-Star Game

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

WP:GNG. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 16:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be nice if the nominator would say more about why this article should be deleted than "WP:GNG".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:30, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, not sufficient for a standalone article. Wizardman 22:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge the result into a table on New England Collegiate Baseball League - insufficient coverage in independent, reliable sources for a standalone article. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:23, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2006 NECBL All-Star Game

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

WP:GNG. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:05, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 16:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be nice if the nominator would say more about why this article should be deleted than "WP:GNG".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:12, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, not sufficient for a standalone article. Wizardman 22:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge the result into a table on New England Collegiate Baseball League - insufficient coverage in independent, reliable sources for a standalone article. Also, don't we have some way of making mass nominations on a single page, or is that disallowed? —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:24, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2007 NECBL All-Star Game

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

WP:GNG. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:05, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 16:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be nice if the nominator would say more about why this article should be deleted than "WP:GNG".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:12, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, not sufficient for a standalone article. Wizardman 22:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge the result into a table on New England Collegiate Baseball League - insufficient coverage in independent, reliable sources for a standalone article. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:24, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2008 NECBL All-Star Game

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

WP:GNG. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:06, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 16:44, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be nice if the nominator would say more about why this article should be deleted than "WP:GNG".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:12, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, not sufficient for a standalone article. Wizardman 22:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge the result into a table on New England Collegiate Baseball League - insufficient coverage in independent, reliable sources for a standalone article. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:24, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2009 NECBL All-Star Game

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

WP:GNG. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 16:44, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be nice if the nominator would say more about why this article should be deleted than "WP:GNG".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:11, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, not sufficient for a standalone article. Wizardman 22:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge the result into a table on New England Collegiate Baseball League - insufficient coverage in independent, reliable sources for a standalone article. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:25, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2010 NECBL All-Star Game

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

WP:GNG. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:08, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 16:44, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be nice if the nominator would say more about why this article should be deleted than "WP:GNG".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:11, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, not sufficient for a standalone article. Wizardman 22:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge the result into a table on New England Collegiate Baseball League - insufficient coverage in independent, reliable sources for a standalone article. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:25, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2011 NECBL All-Star Game

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

WP:GNG. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:08, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 16:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be nice if the nominator would say more about why this article should be deleted than "WP:GNG".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:11, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, not sufficient for a standalone article. Wizardman 22:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge the result into a table on New England Collegiate Baseball League - insufficient coverage in independent, reliable sources for a standalone article. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2022 (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. Stifle (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

J. A. Gardiner

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

Clearly a case of mistaken identity as the Olympic database this was article was based on has since been updated so he is no longer listed as a competitor (wikidata Olympedia entry relayed to a profile for John Adam (sailor)). Accordingly, this information has been removed which leaves just a snippet detailing his membership of the committee conducting the events. Unable to find any significant coverage of this individual. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Olympics. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:44, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure if he's notable for Wikipedia or not but there are sources that say "J A Gardiner" was a member of the silver medal winning crew: YACHTING OLYMPIC RACING ON THE CLYDE in the Scotsman 13 August 1908; Merseyside Olympians: The crew of the Mouchette; Results of the early modern Olympics; https://web.archive.org/web/20161203052522/http://www.sports-reference.com/olympics/athletes/ga/j-a-gardiner-1.html Piecesofuk (talk) 14:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I say, Olympedia (more up-to-date copy of the same database maintained by Bill Mallon et al, and used by sports-reference.com) has been updated and no longer lists Gardiner as a member of the crew of the Mouchette, with a note explaining his role as an official and that Adam was the crew member [10]. Unfortunately, sources are often not definitive for this era and must be used with caution, but Olympedia is probably the most authoritative, having been accepted by the IOC. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:05, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The 1908 report in the Scotsman lists him as a crew member and Adam as the reserve, it also mentions a J A Gardiner as one of the officials in charge, so there might be two J A Gardiners? Similarly the Results of the early modern Olympics source suggests Adam was the reserve and Gardiner the crew member Piecesofuk (talk) 15:15, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if he was James Alexander Gardiner mentioned in a profile and obituary in the RNLI archives, he was a member of the Clyde Yacht Club where the 1908 Olympic races were held: https://rnliarchive.blob.core.windows.net/media/1261/0274.pdf#page=23 and https://rnliarchive.blob.core.windows.net/media/1318/0333.pdf#page=41 Piecesofuk (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a reasonable deduction. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:05, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments intended for a different AfD discussion

::Comment It was forked from the main article, so it wasn't becoming toooooo long. The podcast is notable. We have lists for seasons of every other TV show out there, the fact that this is basically an audio only program seems moot. Oaktree b (talk) 16:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe User:Oaktree b's comment may pertain to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Episodes of Off Menu With Ed Gamble and James Acaster instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:02, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, yes... Let me go there now. Sorry everyone. Oaktree b (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:43, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sozo Water Park

AfDs for this article:

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

Refs provide no evidence of notability. Searches reveal a whole raft of mentions but all seem to be either advertisements from the travel industry (expedia, Booking.com) etc or personal reviews and social media including Pinterest, Facebook etc.. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:24, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Amusement parks and Pakistan. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:24, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- There is some independent coverage:

Insight 3 (talk) 04:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commment - as noted in the nomination, there are many "review" sites out there re-posting press releases or advertorials. Of these only the last one seems independent, and advertising that the site lost its captive Dolphins due to negligence is probably not the greatest selling point for a water park. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:55, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the first two sources are reliable mainstream news sites in Pakistan and can't be promotional about any non-notable park. The rest also don't appear to have any connection with the park admins.

There is some coverage in Urdu news media as well:

Urdu Point

City42 tv

Also, "independent coverage" doesn't necessarily mean "negative coverage". Insight 3 (talk) 10:22, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - 3 children and 2 adults were killed at the park in December 2004 when a merry-go-round collapsed. This became the subject of a scholarly paper looking into the cause. Rupples (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2022 (UTC) These sources are known to the nominator of this AfD as they were pointed out as reasons to keep the article when the same nominator initially proposed deletion in 2020, yet have not been added to the article. Not sure where this leaves us. Rupples (talk) 01:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:25, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am working on the article - but it is clear that it is a notable water park. It is the largest water park in Pakistan. Lightburst (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The park is notable, and proper sourcing is beind added by other users. TH1980 (talk) 18:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources support that WP:GNG is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:09, 4 December 2022 (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. Randykitty (talk) 22:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Mychajliw

AfDs for this article:

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

This is the THIRD time this page has been recreated, see here The Second Discussion Overall, I would argue this is a GNG violation Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 17:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Journalism, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:00, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notable and improve-able —¿philoserf? (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the number of time an articles has been created of deleted has no standing. This subject stands as it is today and should be judged for today. What was not worth keeping in 2014 or 2018 bares no relation to late 2022. Our world is not static. —¿philoserf? (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The positions he held (county comptroller, local newscaster) do not inherently convey notability, and no significant coverage to suggest he's out of the ordinary. He ran for a number of positions that would have certainly been notable... if he had won. But trying for such a position and finishing thirds does not make the cut. TJRC (talk) 01:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This figure is a controversial and important politician and journalist from Western New York. His life has been chronicled in over 500 newspaper articles, TV interviews and blogs; he has appeared on national news a multitude of times, has been a candidate for federal office and is arguably more notable that lesser-known NY politicians like Angela Wozniak or Joel Giambra, to name just a few. He is currently pursuing public office; and he is extremely relevant to current affairs in Western New York, a huge geographic area. Deleting this page is a mistake and a disservice to notable, local, politicians everywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KittyHawk2014 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People still do not get articles just for serving as county comptrollers, or for standing as non-winning candidates for higher offices — to be notable for either of those purposes, he would have to be shown to have nationalizing coverage establishing not just a reason why he was notable within Western New York, but a credible reason why he was notable across the entire United States, which is entirely absent here. Once I discount the primary sourcing that isn't support for notability at all (Our Campaigns, YouTube, his wedding registry at Kohl's and the paid-inclusion obituary of his mother), what's left is purely run of the mill coverage within Buffalo's local media market, of a type and depth and volume that's merely expected to always exist for every local politician in every media market. Again, what would have to be shown is that he has a credible claim to being seen as a special case of significantly greater notability than most other county comptrollers or non-winning town or county council candidates in the United States — which has not been shown at all. And neither is it Wikipedia's job to keep articles about everybody who's currently pursuing public office, either — we are not the media, and "equal time for every candidate in the election" is not our mandate. Our job here is to look past the daily news cycle, and ask ourselves "if this person accomplishes absolutely nothing else in his life, such that what's already true today is the absolute peak of his notability for all time, then is this already enough that people on the other side of the country will still be looking for an article about him a decade from now?" — and nothing here is giving me an affirmative answer to that. Bearcat (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per previous AFDs. Stifle (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2022 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Russian–Chinese Winter Youth Games

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Could be a redirect, but is being contested without improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, China, and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 15:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing how this meets WP:NEVENT. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:15, 6 December 2022 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Russian–Chinese Winter Youth Games

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Could be a redirect, but is being contested without improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:02, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, China, and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing how this meets WP:NEVENT. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:15, 6 December 2022 (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. RL0919 (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Babu Shiv Bahadur Singh

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

Only two refs and the second is certainly not relevant as it spans 1857 to 1858 and is alleged to represent the subject's grandfather although no evidence is presented to tat fact. In any case notability is not inherited. The subject of this article took part in a demonstration in 1942 and was not born in 1857. The second ref appears very light-weight but my language skills are not good enough to make a truly informed opinion. Merely asserting that a person is of a ruling lineage does not make them intrinsically notable.Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and India. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:58, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:26, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mark David Gerson

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

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

Advertorialized article about a writer, not properly referenced as passing our notability criteria for writers. The main notability claim here is that a couple of his books won minor regional literary awards that aren't instant notability clinchers in the absence of WP:GNG-worthy sourcing -- but the article is referenced entirely to his own self-published website, with not one shred of third-party sourcing shown at all.
I'm also bundling an article about one of his books, which is not adequately sourced either: it's also based mainly on primary sources that aren't support for notability, except for one deadlinked book review that I haven't been able to Wayback, and one piece of "local guy does stuff" in the community hyperlocal of his own hometown, which still doesn't add up to enough coverage to secure passage of GNG all by itself. And for the cherry on top, these two articles are essentially a walled garden, since the novel is the only inbound link anywhere in Wikipedia mainspace to Gerson, and Gerson is the only inbound link anywhere in Wikipedia mainspace to the novel. Bearcat (talk) 14:14, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Canada, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 14:14, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One hit in Gnews in 9to5Mac, hits in Gnewspapers as by-lines for columns he wrote, and 4 hits in GScholar, thanking him for being a writing coach and one as an author for some non-notable book. Any awards he's won don't even have articles about them and would appear to be minor wins as I don't see anything about them. Not at AUTHOR nor GNG, barely notable at all from the scant information I can find about him online. Oaktree b (talk) 16:24, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom and above comment. There just doesn't appear to be enough coverage to pass GNG. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2022 (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) 21:54, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brajesh Tiwari

AfDs for this article:

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

I'll repeat what User:Alexandermcnabb said in the first AFD: Perfectly normal academic, co-authoring, publishing papers and so on. Article sourced to primary sources (papers etc), University website. Despite impressive looking reference section, subject presents no evidence of notability, no media coverage, no evidence of enduring academic impact. Strange mixture, in fact, of food processing and banking. WP:NOTCV very much applies here, and so does failing WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 16:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Authors. UtherSRG (talk) 16:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was unable to find citations or book reviews that might justify WP:PROF#C1 or WP:AUTHOR notability. Nothing in the article looks like anything that might lead to any other form of notability. And this article has been plagued by repeated listings of publications by unrelated people with similar names. (That's what the "strange mixture" was about: the food processing Tiwari is someone else named Brijesh not Brajesh.) —David Eppstein (talk) 02:42, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage found. Fails WP:NPROF, WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 04:07, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The food processing stuff was in the article. Still a mess, still not WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is notable as an author and academician. Having notable publications to his credit. ABDB1 (talk) 12:38, 4 December 2022 (UTC) — ABDB1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Merely having written things is not enough to establish wiki-notability by any standard. XOR'easter (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 17:19, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough Links and references for notability, mostly single authorship publication. Several Media Links are there. His Research work cited by world Bank. 01234boy (talk) 18:04, 4 December 2022 (UTC) — 01234boy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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. Randykitty (talk) 22:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Danilo (disambiguation)

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

Someone created this by moving a single hatnote entry and a bunch of mononymous uses out of Danilo, and then we had Talk:Danilo#Requested move 17 November 2022 where I pointed this out and stopped that. Looking for closure here. :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Disambiguations. Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The hatnote at Danilo should be enough that a dab for two links is not necessary. Reywas92^Talk 17:23, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, unneeded WP:ONEOTHER DAB. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:07, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine as expanded. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and resolve with a hatnote. BD2412 T 03:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after my expansion. A lot of footballers go by the mononym, there's one guy with the surname, plus the village. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:01, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, no. Mononymous usages of a given name are perfectly fine listed in an anthroponymy list. Having an anthroponymy list, and then a disambiguation page for the same thing that duplicates anthroponymy entries - is, frankly, inane. If we think readers are incapable of seeing mononymous entries in the existing list, reformat the list. What is this reader who is scrolling through the list of names, unable to find their Brazilian footballer in there, and then thinks "oh yeah, I'll abort what I was doing and scroll back to the start of the page and click the hatnote, it will be there!" I'm sorry, but I would have to meet such a reader first before I believe they exist. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored three footballers whose middle name is Danilo, which disqualifies them from the given name page. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Come on now, this is cherry picking. Might as well just mark the given name article as type=both or whatever and not do these trivial escapades. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Type=both includes surnames, not middle names. There shouldn't be any lists of middle names (though I do come across [and delete] those few examples I find in given name lists). Clarityfiend (talk) 05:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even without the three middle name Danilos, a surname, a village and two good See also entries are sufficient justification for a dab page IMO. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I don't understand how this argument is congruent. We should list middle names (and surnames) separately, but the prerequisite for disambiguation was mononymous usage? Also, see also entries can't be a justification for disambiguation pages per se. In fact if we look at the entries there, they are a WP:PTM as we don't have proof anybody refers to the culture as just 'Danilo' and a cognate given name (different Slavic language form), hence it's more appropropriate on the anthroponymy list. Let's just have a simple understanding that the main article is about a human name, and be done with it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have lists of middle names, period. And yes, mononyms routinely populate dab pages. Finally, the main article is about the given name. Middle names are not given names. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see I need to be more explicit. How about you actually read about Portuguese names where it mentions nothing about middle names at all, instead it says they're given names and family names? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese name states "The law also establishes the maximum number of names allowed: up to two given names". So explain the deletion of José Marcio Danilo Pereira da Silva. In any case, the point is moot, as there are three other legitimate entries now. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So in that case it's a surname? In any event this clarifies the lack of point of splitting these off into a separate list. Should we expect the readers to distinguish given names from surnames based on mononymous usage? Seems like a big stretch. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This page is necessary; keeping track of all these different players called Danilo gets confusing, and it can't be easily solved with a simple hatnote. I just added the Danilo I was thinking of (born July 1991). Cielquiparle (talk) 22:18, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Danilo Luis da Silva is already listed in the main page; as noted above, Joy [shallot] objects to those with both the given name and mononym Danilo being added to the dab page. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:40, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How confusing! Then surely there is no need for two pages. I guess I don't understand why the main Danilo page is a list page then, and not a disambiguation page itself, or a set index page per WP:SETINDEX...? Cielquiparle (talk) 07:04, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? An anthroponymy list is a set index article. Notice Wikipedia:Set index articles#Other types of SIAs. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:39, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Put Danilo culture and Danilo, Croatia in a hatnote at Danilo. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Other topics besides a given name include a surname, village, and culture. Per WP:DABHAT:
When a term has a primary meaning and two or more additional meanings, the hatnote on the primary topic page should link to a disambiguation page.
That mononyms should go on the dab too, and there might not be a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC either.—Bagumba (talk) 11:23, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody refers to the culture as just "Danilo". It's just a WP:PTM. And the surname with a single holder is easily folded into the anthroponymy list. Why should the mononyms go on the dab if the anthroponymy list is the presumed primary topic? Do you have any argument for there not being a primary topic? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:32, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the worst case, if an entry is a PTM, it can be accessible via the DAB's "see also", per WP:PTM.—Bagumba (talk) 14:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the determination of whether a page is needed or not cannot be made based on supplementary sections like See also. That would be a slippery slope into all sorts of silliness. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are now two surname entries, plus the village. Game, set and match. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The surname entries can trivially be folded into the anthroponymy set index article, as the etymology is presumably related. I suggested that two days ago but it was probably drowned out by us arguing the other weird point... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Reywas92, Tamzin, and BD2412: The page has expanded from the original two entires since the time you !voted. Can you reassess the current situation? Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I maintain a delete/merge. Why does Danilo have to be restricted to first names only? Put the surnames and place in that article too. Reywas92^Talk 18:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Reywas92: Thanks for taking another look. Surnames aside, there's still three other topics on the dab page. It is also linked from Danylo, and removing the dab would require replicating it's contents at Danylo#See also. —Bagumba (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it wouldn't, why? Nobody refers to the village of Danilo as "Danylo", let alone the culture. You're grasping for straws at this point. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:55, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:DABMISSPELL.—Bagumba (talk) 16:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is this genuine risk of confusion or misspelling that isn't addressed by the exact same see also entry at Danilo since 2012? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are now three other relevant articles- 2 people with the surname, and the place in Croatia. That is sufficient to require a DAB page. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why wouldn't we merge the 2 people with the surname in the article about people with the name? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It (now) looks like a pretty vanilla disambiguation page to me. Nfitz (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because people seem to be playing a WP:GAME of how to make what looks like a vanilla page in some sort of an effort to ignore the spirit and letter of our navigation-related policies. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:56, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you could point to the relevant policies, without using words like 'mononymous' and 'anthroponymy', I'll happily read them, and consider changing my "vote". Nfitz (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this goes against the spirit and letter of WP:D. For example, it says one of the important aspects is 'ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily'. If we already have a list of human names (hence anthroponymy) at Danilo, what reason do we have to believe that a reader who is at such a list will naturally look elsewhere for humans with the same single name (mononymous use) or non-first given name or the same surname? Having slightly different lists with no clear distinction does not seem to be helpful for quick and easy reader navigation. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 06:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...what reason do we have to believe...: The onus is on you to provide a reason for us not to believe a reader doesn't know what a given name is and would not know to follow a hatnote, defined by guideline WP:HATNOTE. For example, Joseph, a given name, is an existing primary topic, and has a hatnote to Joseph (disambiguation) , which itself lists Joseph (surname) and other mononymous Joseph's.—Bagumba (talk) 10:27, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying they don't know that, I'm saying it's an implausible scenario that they will want to be clicking on the hatnote to get to this redundant list. For example, see the stats at https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Danilo - the link to the village (which has been in the hatnote all this time) is recorded at just ~4% and not nearly at the top of the list. The case of Joseph is hardly comparable as there the given name article has a huge amount of entries, and the surname has no less than 67 entries. Per WP:NAMELIST, that separation is warranted. But for 2 extra entries...? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no benefit to deletion, potentially WP:USEFUL. Meets criteria for a mixed dab and surname page. Boleyn (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think these latest edits are actually making navigation better. You added a link to the surname into see also of the given name article, yet there's already a hatnote at the top. Likewise for adding Danilo's with ordinals to the disambiguation - the meaning is still the same as mononymous uses of the given name. At this point it feels like we're looking for ways to salvage the disambiguation page, instead of just doing away with the complexity. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to comply with WP:D. Lightburst (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2022 (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 withdrew. Now that it is trimmed up, fully listified, and used for navigational purposes, I see a use for the page. (non-admin closure) Why? I Ask (talk) 08:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flute repertoire

AfDs for this article:

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

Wikipedia is not a directory or an indiscriminate collection of instrument repertoires. This article claims to try and "present a representative sampling of the most commonly played and well-known works in the genre", but Wikipedia's goal isn't to provide flautists with a list of what to play. It is supposed to present readers with an encyclopedic overview of the flute's use in the orchestra, something that can be achieved with a concise section on the Western concert flute article.

For the page navigation of flute music, Category:Compositions for flute will suffice rather than a crufty list that may contain only twenty or so actually notable pieces.

I'm renominating, as the RfC discussed to deal with these articles also ended in no consensus. I have no prejudice with the title and using it to write something akin to Euphonium repertoire, but a simple list doesn't work. Why? I Ask (talk) 14:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Lists. Why? I Ask (talk) 14:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You recommend the category instead, but that is per alphabet, and a list organised by time and scoring seems less arbitrary. If the list serves some readers, why not have it. It does no harm. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is pure listcruft. It lacks proper selection criteria. If you were to call a piece repertoire, then it needs sourcing. If you want to purely be for navigational purposes, then I could see that. But in that case, most entries would be removed to about 25 or so. Why? I Ask (talk) 16:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Concur with the immediately preceding comment. Tim riley talk 16:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then would you mind sourcing it? If not, then most of the entries will probably be removed due to a lack of notability and sourcing. Why? I Ask (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Listify per keepers. The assertion that the selection is "indiscriminate" is not backed up. The article has been around since 2005, and the same ed did the first, failed, nomination only two months ago. Johnbod (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by listify? It is already a list. And yes, it is currently indiscriminate, lacking sources or reasons for inclusion. Merely existing is not suitable for being listed in a repertoire list. The last one was a no consensus turn-out as people wanted to hold an RfC that also ended in no consensus. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Standard term - it is now not titled or categorized as a list. And yes, your last nom failed. Johnbod (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a list. It is literally formatted as a list. The lede says "these lists". There is no requirement for it to be called "List of..." to be a list. How the heck are you going to "listify" something that is already a functional list.

And yes, my last nom was a no consensus. That's why I'm nominating again. It didn't "fail" and end as a keep. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to list of flute repertoires. CPORfan (talk) 06:12, 3 December 2022 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet of BFDIFan707, see investigation)[reply]
That title makes no sense. It should be List of flute compositions, in that case. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:18, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have now fully listified it and only kept compositions that are sourced or have Wikipedia articles. If no one has any problems, I will close as keep. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:53, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
for those late to this: it looked like this before the socalled cleanup - a call to find sources for the information lost --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You won't find sources for pretty much all of them. For example, if I look up "Monroe in Summer" by Grundman or "Saint Francis and the Animals" by Buss, the top results on Google are either places to buy sheet music, this article, or the author's website. These lists become collections of non-notable pieces by minor composers. You're welcome to add back pieces so long as the WP:BURDEN is met (e.g., a reliable source discussion the piece in full). Why? I Ask (talk) 07:14, 6 December 2022 (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. ✗plicit 14:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Velivada

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

Fails WP:NWEB. Created by an SPA. Editorkamran (talk) 14:08, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Websites, and India. Shellwood (talk) 14:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable fringe website. Accesscrawl (talk) 04:58, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Goldmedal Electricals

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND. Refs are routine business and operations news scope_creep^Talk 13:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Lets examine the references:

[11] Profile. Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:SIRS Non-notable trade award.
[12] Routine annoucement. Press-release. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
[13] Press-release. Routine annoucement.Fails WP:CORPDEPTH
[14] Listing of the companies products. Fails WP:SIRS, WP:CORPDEPTH.
[15] Press-release. Fails WP:SIRS, WP:CORPDEPTH.
[16] Press-release. Fails WP:SIRS, WP:CORPDEPTH.
[17] Profile.Press-release. Fails WP:ORGIND.
[18] Press-release. Routine annoucement. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
[19]] Press-release. Fails WP:ORGIND.

Out of the 9 references, 7 are press-releases, one is a prodcuts listing and one is small insignificant news article from this UPE. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 13:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 14:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can we get some views on this. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 14:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Everybody in India knows this brand since its popular, so dk why nominator wants to delete it Because competitor brands are already on wikipedia, contributors must consider this Sharayugawai (talk) 21:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We do not in fact need to consider whether competitors of a company are the subject of articles; see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Wikipedia is not here to advertise for companies at all, even equally, and it isn't a directory of businesses. The relevant guideline for when to write an article about a business is WP:NCORP, which this business doesn't appear to meet no matter how many people have heard of it. FalconK (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as I wrote last week, in concurrence with User:scope_creep's source analysis; this company is not notable and the article is a promo. FalconK (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No its not promotional point single line its promotional if its there remove its the point of discussion of deletion, if there is any promotional or advertising content editors should remove it Sharayugawai (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
just the the information not the whole article Sharayugawai (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO and WP:NCORP. Sources in the article fail WP:CORPDEPTH because they are trivial coverage of announcements of non-notable awards received by the organization, sponsorship of events, expansion [...] of the business, annual financial results and earning forecasts, hiring [...] of personnel and a product line launch. An online search finds similiar trivial coverage of routine announcements. Beccaynr (talk) 02:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Galilean non-invariance of classical electromagnetism

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

As noted by Tercer, the article is a violation WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. The subject is based on an obscure references like [20] and fringe references like [21]. The topic has some historical relevance but the content of the article as of now is not salvageable and does not seem adequate for a merge. ReyHahn (talk) 13:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ReyHahn (talk) 13:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is just showing the steps of a proof but doesn't actually explain anything in an encyclopedic format. Reywas92^Talk 14:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think the subject is notable enough for a standalone article. In any case, the poor sourcing the article currently has does not demonstrate notability. The fact that classical electromagnetism is not invariant under Galilean transformations is relevant, but should be noted in context, for example as a remark in Classical electromagnetism and special relativity or History of special relativity. As for a merge, there's no content worth merging. Tercer (talk) 14:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The topic is not sufficiently noteworthy or sufficiently separate from other topics to warrant a stand-alone page, and the material is not good enough to preserve via merging, nor is the title a likely search query that would make a redirect worthwhile. XOR'easter (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The topic is nothing but a badly worked WP:TEXTBOOK exercise to show that Galilean transforms are incompatible with Maxwell's equations. We don't generally include counterfactuals in WP. Also unsuitable as a redirect as per XOR'easter. I also fully endorse Tercer's perspective. —Quondum 19:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
note for closer: please delete the redirect Non invariance of maxwell's equation under Galilean transformation too. —Quondum 22:34, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, and this subject is better covered by articles on the history of special relativity. Partofthemachine (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:14, 3 December 2022 (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. There isn't much sentiment for a straight deletion, but opinions are divided among keeping (perhaps with a rename), merging, or redirecting. A discussion about merge/rename options on the article Talk page might be a good next step towards a resolution. RL0919 (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of civil parishes in Greater London

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

This is a little bit of nonsense that seems to have been forgotten. A list of civil parishes in Greater London, consisting of one entry because there is only one. Queen's Park, the one entry has a page where it prominently discusses its unique status as a Greater London civil parish. The information is better treated there and nothing here need be merged there. The information in the lead is unsourced, but is also available at Civil parish where it is sourced and placed in context, so no information is lost if this page is deleted. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:09, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Lists. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:09, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:14, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I almost want to Keep as the article provides a more sensible jumping off point for templates that collate such lists for different regions of the UK than just directly linking to Queen's Park, which could be unexpected. Also provides a pointer to go to the County of London historical list if that is what was wanted, and futureproofs the topic. I can see an argument for converting this to a redirect straight to a relevant section in Queen's Park, and will support that if other editors go for it, but having this article or at least some sort of DAB here seems neater from an organizational perspective. 193.37.240.169 (talk) 13:38, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't make any sense to have a list with one entry which can't be expanded. No objection to a redirect. Hut 8.5 20:37, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Civil parishes in Greater London and keep the redirect. I agree with the IP that this should not be a red link, and given that the only problematic thing about the content is that it is a list of one the best thing to do seems to be to change it from a list to a standard article where the sourcing can be copied and context added if needed (I disagree that the information regarding London is better presented at Civil parish). Thryduulf (talk) 10:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move per Thryduulf, like Civil parishes in Greater Manchester it may make sense to list the unparished areas, see User:Crouch, Swale/List of unparished areas#Greater London as long as the term "unparished area" is used in Greater London from 1965 rather than the rest of England from 1974. Bristol is a single unparished area which is why getting rid of List of civil parishes in Bristol would have made sense but this may not be the case with Greater London. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:27, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think along with the proposed move, it could be merged with List of civil parishes in the County of London in 1891. Reywas92^Talk 15:03, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would likely be inappropriate as that is a lost of parish in 1891 in the (smaller) County of London but a reverse merge could perhaps be don't but I'd suggest just moving and adding the unparished areas here may be better. There is also List of civil parishes in the City of London which starts with the current situation (it being a single unparished area, presumably like Bristol) but then going on to state the former ones. Greater London was formed from many areas thus has multiple unaprished areas if the term is used in Greater London. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:21, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 14:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Italy '90 Soccer

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

Unnotable unofficial video game with only mentions in articles about the company itself. Gabe114 (talk) 13:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Football. Gabe114 (talk) 13:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was able to find multiple reviews on Archive.org: Aktueller Software Markt, Videogame & Computer World, The Games Machine, Commodore Gazette, and MC Microcomputer. Meets GNG. Waxworker (talk) 14:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Waxworker and WP:NEXIST. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources identified above. Seems to be ok. Oaktree b (talk) 22:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Waxworker, seems to be enough. Govvy (talk) 09:19, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per the sources found by Waxworker. Timur9008 (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Waxworker. Partofthemachine (talk) 22:56, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above. Giant Snowman 10:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above. --El Pantera (talk) 08:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems to be a WP:SNOWBALL now. Archrogue (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2022 (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 District of Columbia statehood movement. RL0919 (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iowans for D.C. Statehood

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

Does not meet WP:NORG, the only examples of independent coverage are articles published by DCist [22], [23]. This puts us some of the way towards meeting WP:ORGCRITE, but with only a single outlet providing coverage, we fall short of the guideline as a whole. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:50, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Washington, D.C.. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:50, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ to District of Columbia statehood movement. There are some facts and sources in the Iowans for D.C. Statehood article that could be incorporated into the larger article, which also provides more context. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:50, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I considered that, and carried out a similar merge for 51 for 51, but given the nature of Iowans for DC I'm not sure it's really due for mention at that target. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:53, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a sentence or two at District_of_Columbia_statehood_movement#Political_support_and_opposition? If it makes sense to just mention them there, I can do it now, and then I will change my vote here to !delete. Or is there something else about their nature I'm not understanding? (Intrigued!) Cielquiparle (talk) 08:28, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it could work in that section; my concern is that ideally we'd want high-level sources that describe the impact of support from outside DC to justify that this group (or others like it) are significant enough to warrant mention in an overview of the balance of support for DC statehood. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:55, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Changing !vote based on additional coverage found, including 2016 Washington Post article and 2020 Washingtonpost.com report from the Iowa caucuses, plus others added to the article. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:48, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Those two links go to the same place--I'm assuming that was an accident. WaPo is paywalled for me so I'll leave it to others to assess. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:08, 17 November 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]
Ok, thanks for updating the links. I think that the 2016 example could just barely count towards ORGCRITE, whereas the 2020 one only mentions the subject in a quote from a participant. Even with the the first one though, we're scraping the definition of "significant". _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:54, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I like the 2016 Washington City Paper article though obviously he interviews Strauss and Harrison. It picks up on some details that no one else does (crossover with Polk County Democrats), etc. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:00, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(About the 2020 Washington Post' article though – I like it because it is more than a mention; it discusses action taken by the Iowans for DC Statehood – reaching out to Team Delaney to get his campaign bus and using it for the stunt – it's really what changed my mind about the article because until I found it, I wasn't convinced they did much beyond 2016. To me it's important to know what an ORG does, not just what it "is".) Cielquiparle (talk) 18:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My problem with the 2020 one is that there's no independent coverage of Iowans for D.C. Statehood as an organization--it's mentioned by an interviewee once, but otherwise it's about John Delaney's activities, not the group in question. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I re-read it and agree the 2020 WaPo article is not that great after all. The main thing it adds is that the organization kept going in 2020 (and probably contributed to the issue's national momentum that year, though no one actually says that). Still, it's more than nothing and I think there are plenty of other articles now (Washington City Paper, etc.) that count toward notability. (Ironically I only ended up searching as hard as I did because of your slight hesitation with adding them to the statehood movement page...!) There is also a syndicated Associated Press article focused on the organization that I didn't bother adding, as I think it mostly duplicates the basic facts reported elsewhere. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could you link the AP one? I think that Iowans for D.C. Statehood? You Betcha. - Washington City Paper is also a bit short on independent analysis, whose extent is While Iowa may seem like a choice out of left field, the shadow delegation will be working closely with Iowans For D.C. Statehood, a real, nonprofit organization based in Des Moines that has been actively advocating for the issue for the past year, since a resolution was passed by the Polk County Democrats to support statehood. It’s that resolution that the representatives hope to get on party platforms during the elections.. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Washington City Paper points out, which no one else does, is this one. Obviously it's an indirect quote, but it's a fact which the reporter obviously pushed for, as it seems highly unlikely that Harrison would offer that she was wearing two hats that could be seen as a conflict: While Harrison also acts as executive director for the Polk County Democrats, she insists that the efforts of Iowans for D.C. Statehood are separate and non-partisan. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:12, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In looking at the Associated Press article again...it is more about Strauss than Iowans for D.C. Statehood. So now I'm thinking: If it's not a keep, maybe the "merge" target is actually Paul Strauss. What do you think??? Cielquiparle (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear to me that Strauss is directly involved in the organization, rather than just working alongside him in his capacity as a shadow senator. I think that of the potential merge targets, the general DC statehood article seems best, but I'm still not sure that we have coverage justifying its addition. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but we can use the same sources to say: He went to Iowa in 2015, 2016, 2020. He addressed the caucuses and spoke to reporters. He also had this local organization helping him out. (So yes, just a brief mention for the organization.) I already added IfDCS to the DC statehood page, just a mention of one of the many organizations supporting them, because the cited source totally listed them along with the others. To me that's enough, it's not exaggerating their impact or anything just to list them. Anyway I'm liking this idea more, will go try it out on the Strauss page, and will likely change my !vote. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:45, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: to District of Columbia statehood movement or Iowa Democratic Party. MurrayGreshler (talk) 13:14, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ to District of Columbia statehood movement. Upon re-reviewing each source for the umpteenth time, my conclusion is this: In most of the sources (including the DCist article), Paul Strauss (the shadow senator for D.C.) has a bigger footprint than Iowans for D.C. Statehood (the grassroots organization in Iowa). For this reason, I've gone ahead and added some of the detail about Strauss's activity in Iowa in 2015/2016/2020 using the same sources to his article page, and made sure that Iowans for D.C. Statehood is mentioned there. However, as the organization supports him but is not actually led by him, the redirect to the main District of Columbia statehood movement is most appropriate (and per the above discussion I've added a mention of Iowans for D.C. Statehood there, which seems like enough for now). (I wouldn't redirect to Iowa Democratic Party, as the organization is nominally bipartisan.) Cielquiparle (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 12:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to District of Columbia statehood movement. Although the subject passes WP:GNG based on currently provided sources, the contents are not enough to justify a stand alone article. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 22:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my !vote yet again. I think we were debating what additional content, if at all, actually needed to be moved over to the District of Columbia statehood movement page. As far as I'm concerned, nothing more needs to be added. But for sure there is no need to !keep. Cielquiparle (talk) 23:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elie Khouri

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable marketing person. Being a CEO of a regional branch of Omnicom Group is not something inherently notable. The coverage he received is promotional and possibly paid for. We know editing here is paid for and remains undisclosed. Receiving coverage like interview, quotes of him, or awards in local Forbes non-notable lists is not enough to pass WP:SIGCOV. Zelimkhan Khasanov (talk) 12:24, 24 November 2022 (UTC) (sock strike Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:05, 3 December 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 November 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:39, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Found "articles" in Entrepreneur Middle East (basically an interview) and a Forbes article he wrote, rest are of lesser quality. nothing much found. Oaktree b (talk) 12:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Lebanon. Shellwood (talk) 15:40, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The nominator appears to be an SPA whose aim is only on the page. His edits were reverted by an admin here. Yet he returned with an AFD tag. In any case, the page may need proper rewriting to suit wiki guidelines on Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV). Lanabdeir (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lanabdeir, that's a pretty strong judgment from a brand new account (as is the SPA nominator). I'm wondering how you both learned about AFDs so soon after starting to edit. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, routine coverage, or if there is any it seems like PR read. Agree with Oaktree b, ROTM businessman, completely fails WP:GNG. 2604:3D09:167E:BF00:A1B7:197E:E0A8:9E81 (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Communicate knowledge manifesto

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

Last week I nominated this via PROD with this rationale: "A WP:SPA article describing an unnamed student's 2010 manifesto, referenced only to the ArtEZ institution's website front page and to an article about a distinct discussion by other people in 1972. The article makes vague unreferenced claims of support for the manifesto from elsewhere. Searches on the institution site and elsewhere are not finding evidence that this was a notable initiative." It has been pointed out that a prior instance was deleted via PROD several weeks before this instance was created in 2010; it is therefore ineligible for PROD, so I am now bringing this to AfD, repeating my rationale above. AllyD (talk) 12:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Education, and Netherlands. AllyD (talk) 12:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at the deleted history, it appears that both versions were created by the same editor whose only edits were to create this article (twice). The current version is superior to the first version of the article but that is not a recommendation to Keep this one around. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:36, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Would not even redirect it. gidonb (talk) 02:51, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no hits on Google News, Books, etc... (although maybe I'm not seeing something). I see "The Communication Manifesto" but nothing about this. Quaemenelimbus (🗨 here) ^_^ 15:02, 1 December 2022 (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.

Zipporah Gathuya

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Tylusine : talk 2 me 23:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article does not appear to meet the WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NOT Tylusine : talk 2 me 13:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the articles lack the WP:NOTABILITY as well as display what WP:NOT:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Kenya. Shellwood (talk) 13:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep all - these articles do not appear to be related per WP:MULTIAFD, although all of the articles appear to have been created or improved during Women in Red editathons. Beccaynr (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep: I concur that these subjects are all wildly unrelated, besides being Kenyan medical people. It seems we have professors, hospital administrators, run-of-the-mill doctors, etc., all bunched up. Curbon7 (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The WP:VAGUEWAVE to GNG is not enough to justify bundling together this indiscriminate collection of Kenyan medical women, without any apparent effort at individual consideration of them let alone any application of WP:BEFORE. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Tylusine : talk 2 me 23:30, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Borna Nyaoke-Anoke

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

The article does not appear to meet the WP:NOTABILITY Tylusine : talk 2 me 13:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Kenya. Shellwood (talk) 13:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC and WP:NPROF#7 - She appears to be regularly cited as an expert, e.g. "doctor and researcher in Kenya with the Drugs for Neglected Diseases Initiative, a nonprofit" (Bloomberg, 2022), "a Kenyan physician and clinical researcher" (The Standard, 2021), "cheffe de projets cliniques de DNDi, organisation qui est aussi le promoteur des études au Kenya, en RDC et au Soudan" (Agence Ivoirienne De Presse, 2021), "senior clinical project manager and medical manager at DNDi" (The Conversation, 2020), "a clinical researcher from the Drugs for Neglected Disease initiative (DNDi)" (The Telegraph, 2019), and there appears to be evidence of impact outside academia. Beccaynr (talk) 17:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per source explanation above. Telegraph in particular, rest are of a lesser quality but help balance out GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Tylusine : talk 2 me 22:48, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Wangari Wamae

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

The article is not notable. WP:NOTABILITY Tylusine : talk 2 me 12:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the articles listed below seems to be a curriculum vitae which puts the notability of the following articles in question:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Kenya. Shellwood (talk) 13:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep all - the articles do not appear to be related, per WP:MULTIAFD, although many appear to have been created or improved during Women in Red editathons, e.g. Shitsama Nyamweya, Stellah Wairimu Bosire-Otieno, Risper Alaro, Victoria Sabula, Carol Musyoka, Iddah Asin, Sauda Rajab, Teodosia Osir, Phyllis Wakiaga, Flora Mutahi, Kellen Kariuki, Karen Kandie, Nancy Onyango. Also, the Shitsama Nyamweya article, for the first woman to become a neurosurgeon in Kenya, is not templated with a notice of this AfD. Beccaynr (talk) 17:00, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The WP:VAGUEWAVE to GNG is not enough to justify bundling together this indiscriminate collection of Kenyan businesswomen (and a couple of token men), without any apparent effort at individual consideration of them let alone any application of WP:BEFORE. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. Nominator keeps disrupting own AFD and everyone else is keep or leaning keep. This seems like a waste of time. (non-admin closure) Dronebogus (talk) 14:11, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

World's largest palace

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

Same scope as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fiction set in the 21st century, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flags of counties of the United States, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the shortest rivers for a different time period. CPORfan (talk) 11:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Architecture, Lists, France, and United Kingdom. CPORfan (talk) 11:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep and trim; this should only be about actual royal residences (as defined by Guinness World Records) and not just any large building somebody called a “palace”. Dronebogus (talk) 13:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep. There does appear to be enough to support the contention that there is a live debate over which palace constitutes the world's largest, and how that should be measured. BD2412 T 14:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~If we can say something substantive about the palaces in the articles on the countries it can be done there. There is no justification for this list article. CPORfan (talk) 14:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator you've already made your !vote. Spike 'em (talk) 08:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I deleted then rankings in the table, which were BS original research and highly misleading – I also deleted the House of Bengal and Ak Saray Presidential Complex as not even palaces. This needs quite a bit of clean up, including a move to List of largest palaces, but I think it can give a good overview of major royal buildings better than List of palaces. Reywas92^Talk 16:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BD2412. My very best wishes (talk) 03:43, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ While there's a slightly more coverage than list of the shortest rivers it still shares the same fundamental issues of failing WP:NLIST and WP:GNG. CPORfan (talk) 08:17, 2 December 2022

As nominator you've already made your !vote. Spike 'em (talk) 08:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to list of the world's largest palaces, the page is clearly is a list, but we don't delete it anyway, just move it anyway. CPORfan (talk) 06:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved it back. It really complicates an AFD closure to move pages around to different titles during an AFD. If this article is kept, feel free to rename. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:03, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not move articles before the AFD is closed. CPORfan (talk) 08:34, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She was fixing your move, which never should have happened. PLease also stop multi voting. Star Mississippi 13:46, 4 December 2022 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neff, Arizona

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

There are apparently a lot of people named "Neff" in Arizona, including a reporter and a bunch of criminals, so they overwhelm searching and I get essentially nothing on this place. The topos show a name by the road, with nothing to suggest why it's there, and there's nothing in the aerials to clarify the matter. Just cannot see the notability of a place for which I can find no meaningful documentation. Mangoe (talk) 05:53, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 10:54, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Perhaps this was the name of a ranch, but no evidence of it was ever any community, let alone one with notability. MB 17:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AFAICT, it was a place set up by someone named Neff (Neffs appear as the tract owners in the 1890s), and there is a mine, with little to go on whether the mine had anything to do with the Neffs. I almost gave up, but I found the mine site, and there is still (now?) a road out to it.

I'd say, leave it to the locals. I won't speculate that there is zero history.

1916 : Structures and a quarry are introduced in 1910s topos. Douglas Quadrangle (Topographic map). 125,000. Progressive Military Map. Neff, AZ: United States Geological Survey. 1916. Retrieved November 24, 2022.

1958 : Neff name is applied to the Topos. Cox Ranch is replaced with Banning Toll Station (named for Banning Creek). Certain stuctures remain. Brizbee Quadrangle (Topographic map). 125,000. 7.5 Minute Series. Neff, AZ: United States Geological Survey. 1958. Retrieved November 24, 2022.

Structures are hit and miss on later topos, but the mapped structure sites are still present and in use.

IveGoneAway (talk) 01:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 11:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it relies on the NGIS which WP:NPLACE says isn't valid for establishing legal recognization. Quaemenelimbus (🗨 here) ^_^ 15:11, 1 December 2022 (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 List of slave ships. As an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Liver (1786 ship)

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

No reliable, indepth sources about this ship. All we have are primary sources, databases, and extremely passing mentions (the three references given pay no significant attention to the Liver but just include it in long lists or tables). Fram (talk) 08:34, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Transportation, and England. Fram (talk) 08:34, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of slave ships as an alternative to deletion. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:01, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable ship stub based entirely on databases. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Another NN ship. I suppose that merge is an alternative, but there were so many slaving ships that I doubt that the suggested merge target is a useful article to have. There must have been 1000s of British ships, let along French, Dutch, etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP policy does not require the removal of non-notable articles. There are many articles marked as stubs that lack notability, or even verification, that the community permit to survive, reflecting an inclusionist desire to change Wikipedia only when no knowledge would be lost as a result. Notability is a random outcome of many factors. I am gathering info on a vessel that wrecked about the same time as Liver, with the loss of almost her entire crew of 50 people. The loss occurred on the coast of the United Kingdom, in sight of many people. The loss gave rise to many newspaper articles, with follow-ups as bodies washed ashore. In time a local historian gathered the information and wrote an essay for a book of local history. Liver, by contrast, was captured. Perhaps she will become notable if some historian examining archives finds her (the SlaveVoyages database continues to grow as new archives are discovered), or if someone publishes a paper on captured slave ships. Keeping the article would enable people interested in the slave trade, or Liverpool’s role in it, or some other topic, to learn from it. I have spent much of my life learning and teaching. I therefore give a high priority to facilitating learning. Acad Ronin (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So you agree this isn't notable? Thanks for your delete vote. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All of the referenced sources are lists and databases involving the subject, with none of them ever proving the significance of the subject. Neither the article nor its creator demonstrated why the subject is notable enough for its own article and how is it different from other numerous slave ships at the same time period. Fails WP:GNG. We can't really run on the expectation that "someday the subject might be notable", otherwise the sites will just be flooded by articles on average people and everyday items. Recreate this article when some historian finally found the time to research and publish about the ship, I guess. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2022 (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 Merry Men#Known members. Consensus seems to be that this fictional character doesn't merit having their own stand alone article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David of Doncaster

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

Fails WP:GNG; lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. A search on Google scholar finds no such coverage. BilledMammal (talk) 07:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology and England. BilledMammal (talk) 07:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; with a second choice of move to List of Robin Hood characters or the like if there's a desire for minor characters to appear in list form rather than separate articles (but with no loss of content, i.e. keep the current content but refactor it as a single section). This is certainly an obscure character in the Robin Hood legend, just a name that shows up in Robin Hood and the Golden Arrow and its variants (e.g. Robin Hood and the Sheriffe) but an "OG" one that dates back to the old ballads, hence the name being re-used for characters in later versions. But that's not necessarily a problem, in the same way that most folklore figures have most of the things people "know" about them accreted on in later tellings. (As a side note, my mention of this article as a random side "find an obscure folklore character" in a different AFD apparently caused this nomination... if the nominator had waited a bit, tagged the article first and pinged me on the talk page or the like, I'd have been happy to attempt to track down more sources. I'm busy/traveling for awhile though so that's not going to happen right away, unfortunately.) SnowFire (talk) 06:29, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What policy based reason is there to keep the article? Is there an SNG, and if there is not an SNG then what are the sources that demonstrate compliance with GNG? BilledMammal (talk) 06:43, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Merry Men#Known members as, to my knowledge, the closest thing we have a List of Robin Hood characters. I did not see sufficient secondary source to justify a stand-alone article, but for such a long-standing if minor character, having an WP:Alternative to deletion is surely a good thing. Daranios (talk) 15:01, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The topic wouldn’t need to meet GNG after a merge, but it would still need to comply with WP:V and WP:OR - and at the moment it wouldn’t, because the only sources currently identified are fiction. BilledMammal (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal: For a literary character, the primary source verifies his role in the plot, so I don't see a problem with WP:V. David of Doncaster also appears in this secondary source, but I can only see a snippet preview, so I cannot see how much. Daranios (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For ancient folklore the most the source can do is verify his role in one version of the plot. This is part of the reason there is a WP:OR issue; we need a reliable source to explain his role across multiple versions. BilledMammal (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal: As far as I have seen, what we have here is exactly the roles the character plays in each tale, so I still see neither a WP:SYNTH nor a WP:OR issue if this is merged. In addition, I have seen the character mentioned in an analytical (i.e. secondary) section of this source, which points out the primary importance of the appearance in Robin Hood and the Golden Arrow. Daranios (talk) 11:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Merry Men#Known members - per Daranios. I was unable to find sufficient sourcing to meet WP:GNG, but we have a good merge target. Suriname0 (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Like Little John and Friar Tuck, he is probably one of the best known of the Merry men. Bearian (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I suspect the issue here is the character is less well-known as apart from a relatively small role in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, he has not been used in many of the more modern TV and film versions of the Robin Hood story. Thus I would think it comes down to his importance in the older stories and legends - I think if the article is to be kept more evidence of this would need to be included. Dunarc (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2022 (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 Circle (Finnish band)#Discography. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrant (Circle album)

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

Fails GNG and WP:NALBUM. Its a unnotable song in a album from a small band based in Finland. Couldn't find any sources on the internet to back this page up. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 06:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, and Finland. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 06:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Circle_(band)#Discography per nomination. Found no coverage myself, article is entirely unsourced. QuietHere (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Circle_(band)#Discography as suggested, because the album has received no reliable coverage in its own right, and it is only visible in the typical streaming/retail services. By the way, for a clearly undeveloped album article that only gets a few automated edits per decade, someone can just redirect to the band per WP:BOLD. That could be reversed in the unlikely event that someone objects. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Circle (band)#Discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:12, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I'm unable to find any coverage in Finnish either. -Ljleppan (talk) 10:30, 6 December 2022 (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 Hooverphonic discography. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battersea (EP)

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

Fails GNG and WP:NALBUM. Its a unnotable song in a album from a small band based in Belgium. Couldn't find any sources on the internet to back this page up. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 05:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, and Belgium. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 05:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hooverphonic discography#Extended plays per nomination. Couldn't find any additional coverage myself, article is entirely unsourced. QuietHere (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hooverphonic discography. The album is only visible in the typical retail/streaming services and not reliable or dedicated coverage could be found. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hooverphonic discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:11, 3 December 2022 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tanque, Arizona

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

Another isolated rail spot, presumably a water stop in steam days since "tanque" is simply Spanish for "tank". Otherwise I couldn't find anything about it. Mangoe (talk) 05:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 10:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I also cannot find anything about this spot - WP:NOTDATABASE, no indication that it meets WP:GNG or any other relevant notability standard. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2022 (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 consensus, after 2 relistings, is that this article should be Kept. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vern Miyagi

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

Vern Miyagi is arguably not in and of himself notable. I don't even think the contents of his article are even worthy for merging into 2018 Hawaii false missile alert. See WP:1E and WP:BLP1E. ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 06:03, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 06:03, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Hawaii. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:33, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as he was apparently a Judo champion in his youth and received some coverage for that, which I think combined with his military career and the false alert satisfies WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 09:05, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. passes GNG with the sources provided I also found this MSNBC news report on Hawaii `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 05:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject has been the focus on several of the provided sources, and has been interviewed by the MSNBC in the external link. Passes WP:GNG. But the first cited source needs to be removed, since the site was updated and the subject is no longer referenced on there. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2016 February Tamil Nadu meteorite incident

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

Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING because there is no in-depth coverage beyond the week of the incident. Kent G. Budge (talk · contribs) was unable to find anything except for a paper that briefly describes three different news reports on unexplained meteorite incidents in loose relation to a strangelet hypothesis. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Science, and Tamil Nadu. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Kent G. Budge is sadly deceased (see Wikipedia:Deceased_Wikipedians/2022#Kent_G._Budge), and thus will be unable to participate in this discussion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:47, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SENSATION. This probably was not a meteorite. If I had to bet, I would guess it was a terrestrial explosion. But given the obscurity and sensation surrounding it, we probably will never know since whatever happened has now become more legendary than of interest to any scientist. Absent any further investigations, a standalone article does not seem appropriate and will likely just stand as a magnet for WP:OR. Ironically, eight years prior a real meteorite did hit Tamil Nadu: Sulagiri (meteorite). jps (talk) 12:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that there just aren't the sources necessarry to write about this incident in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:47, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 17:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Caylee Cowan

AfDs for this article:

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

~~Renominating due to the previous AFD being affected by several sockpuppet votes. MrsSnoozyTurtle 04:16, 24 November 2022 (UTC)~~ Nomination withdrawn. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well sourced, but they all appear to be tabloid stuff. the first one in particular is a photo essay. She's only had bit parts in movies, nothing substantial. No awards won, no major roles and little to no critical acclaim. She's only ever mentioned in relation to her famous partner. Oaktree b (talk) 05:11, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Photo at least has an OTRS ticket, that's a welcome change. Oaktree b (talk) 05:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and California. Shellwood (talk) 10:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She passes NACTOR for her roles in Sunrise in Heaven, Willy's Wonderland and Frank and Penelope. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, she stars in Incision, which appears to be borderline notable through reviews in Rue Morgue and Film Threat. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 01:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is significant external coverage by the press at events (fashion, who she is with, and "star or celebrity power"). To me, The subject is "shallow" compared to a "rocket scientist" (or just about anyone else who has a pulse) but there is considerable public and press interest "in her" which may frame notability. See the, quasi misogynistic, concept of the It girl for comparison or better yet Cousin Itt Flibbertigibbets (talk) 01:07, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Her significant roles: the lead actress in an independent feature film called “Sunrise in Heaven” in 2019, Articlethe lead actress in “Frank and Penelope” In 2022 Deadline Article. Supporting roles in “Willy’s Wonderland” in 2021 Interview and “Incision” in 2020. Also have “Spinning Gold” in Interview , and "Holiday Twist" set to be released in 2023. Actress has had 2 lead roles in feature films and 5 supporting roles in feature films. 2 films she has been in have been theatrically released. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunterandgather43 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 3 December 2022 (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 Satara district. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History of Satara district

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

The history of a place does not require a seperate page to be on wiki (Better to Either delete OR merge into Satara district article. Iamsanatani (talk) 03:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Iamsanatani (talk) 03:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Satara district - insufficient coverage in reliable sources to indicate separate notability, and can be significantly shortened to meet WP:SUMMARY style as well, so no split for length is necessary. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 17:15, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: As Ganesha811 said above. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 06:01, 5 December 2022 (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 Grönland Records. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lockdown Project

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

I have been unable to find any independent coverage of this band beyond directory/sales listings of their releases. A search on the members' names didn't shake anything loose, there is no indication they charted, and Grönland Records is not a major label. The article has never been referenced; the fullest version appears to be this from November 2006, after much work by Jayden54, which has a discography and material on the style of music both of which seem to derive from the label page. In 2006, Wikipedia did not require references. I found the article without discography (removed by Shajure on 1 November 2010 and tagged "no footnotes"; I have referenced what I could, including the lineup, and listed the release titles with references. The band appears to have faded out; perhaps there was newspaper/magazine coverage that someone else can find to demonstrate notability, but WP:BAND is not met. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Grönland Records or delete. I have access to a fair number of older sources and still wasn't able to find anything of interest—just the usual passing mentions in magazines, tabloids, etc. A redirect to the record label probably wouldn't hurt as an ATD, but I'm not seeing any signs of notability either. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:32, 2 December 2022 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:54, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mus'ka

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

Verifiability and notability in question. Run several iterations of their records and member names in Google, Gnews, Google News Archives and Google Books but search came up empty.

I can't verify their Aliw awards nomination. Their connection to the movie Mga Batang Bangketa (the creator's linkedin page states that the theme song "Magulang ko Mahal ko" was supposed to be the theme song of said movie). I also can't verify the supposed award/nomination given to Pierro Rodriguez even if Munting Tinig got 7 awards at the 19th Star Awards.

Also, their Twitter page's posts are scam bots and I can't find their Facebook page. Lenticel ^(talk) 02:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Entertainment, and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 02:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of reliable sources. I follow Filipino pop music, and this group is below my radar. Their best-screen video on YouTube has had only 666 views in 15 years. Bearian (talk) 20:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep – withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:33, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

USS Decoy (1822)

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

~~Fails GNG and WP:NVEHICLES there is no notability anywhere of this ship, it was a normal military ship.~~ `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 02:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw. From some opinions given to me in the Requests for New page Reviewer, I see these passing GNG and NVEHICLES. I should probably start puttting more thought and effort in my AFD's.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 03:24, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, United States of America, and New York. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 02:32, 1 December 2022 (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 University of the Fraser Valley#Student life. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:52, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Cascade

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

Fails GNG, it is a ordinary student newspaper that you will find at a normal university. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (media)#Newspapers, magazines and journals, and most likely created by a student that works for the newspaper. This article was PROD 7 months ago aswell.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 02:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 02:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A Merge/redirect to University_of_the_Fraser_Valley#Student_life, broadening the brief mention there, could be an alternative to deletion? AllyD (talk) 08:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to University_of_the_Fraser_Valley#Student_life as an WP:ATD-M per AllyD and nom. Quaemenelimbus (🗨 here) ^_^ 15:16, 1 December 2022 (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 Invaders (comics). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:51, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nia Noble

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

Procedural nomination per this discussion at RfD. I have no opinion on whether the article should be deleted or kept, and am completely neutral on the subject. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Visual arts, Comics and animation, and Webcomics. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Based on the fact this character only appeared in six issues according to Marvel Wikia (as mentioned in the linked RfD discussion), this character is not notable enough to warrant their own article. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Invaders (comics) or List of Marvel Comics characters: N where she is mentioned as a WP:PRESERVE WP:ATD. No analysis/reception, plot summary with poor sourcing, fails WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:24, 4 December 2022 (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. ✗plicit 00:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Aldairy

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

Fail WP:BIO, many references in the article is belong him (his website - his book - his newspaper - his articles .. etc) and that are not independent sources, the other refs (4) and (5) are WP:TRIVIALMENTION and don't talk about him, no refs about him in Arabic.

also, he isn't the only person who stripped of citizenship or accused by the Bahraini government, the article has many information like (Reporters Without Borders's report) used as WP:COATRACK. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 01:07, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Bahrain. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 01:08, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources found. Even in Canadian sources, nothing found. Oaktree b (talk) 02:43, 1 December 2022 (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. ✗plicit 00:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bahrain Mirror

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

fail WP:WEB and WP:GNG, no reliable sources and the article's creator use their website as reference, the article also a WP:COATRACK and has unrelated things to create a fake notability. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 00:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Bahrain. AllyD (talk) 07:58, 1 December 2022 (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. ✗plicit 00:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kickstart Kids International

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

No coverage to meet WP:ORG. Nothing in gnews or Australian search engine Trove. LibStar (talk) 00:08, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Kenya, and Australia. AllyD (talk) 07:57, 1 December 2022 (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.

^ Merat, Arron (2018-11-09). "Terrorists, cultists – or champions of Iranian democracy? The wild wild story of the MEK". the Guardian. Retrieved 2022-11-16.

[1] Hussain, Murtaza (June 9, 2019). "An Iranian Activist Wrote Dozens of Articles for Right-Wing Outlets. But Is He a Real Person?". The Intercept. Retrieved 2022-11-16.

[2] Merat, Arron (2018-11-09). "Terrorists, cultists – or champions of Iranian democracy? The wild wild story of the MEK". the Guardian. Retrieved 2022-11-16.

[1]

[1]