Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 December 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 12	December 14 >

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 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) 14:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Married Bachelor (1982 film)

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

Russian film with no real coverage in reliable sources.--Владимир Бежкрабчжян (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:24, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:24, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2020-02 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 21 December 2021 (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) 14:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greystone Books

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

Thinly sourced to a trade magazine. Not seeing in-depth coverage. Notability is not inherited by virtue of publishing notable books Slywriter (talk) 20:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Slywriter (talk) 20:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Related discussions: 2018-09 ZoomInfo (closed as no consensus) ← 2016-09 David Merlini (closed as ✗ delete)

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 21 December 2021 (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 Tony Bennett Celebrates 90. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Bennett Celebrates 90: The Best Is Yet to Come

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

The article could easily be merged into Tony Bennett Celebrates 90, nothing warrants its existence on its own. Sricsi (talk) 23:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sricsi (talk) 23:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sricsi (talk) 23:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I created Tony Bennett Celebrates 90: The Best Is Yet to Come and I'm fine with a merge and redirect to Tony Bennett Celebrates 90, but not a complete deletion because the redirect serves a purpose and the edit history should be saved. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect would be fine. --Sricsi (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect- as above. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:17, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per nom. Not notable enough for a seperate article. Suonii180 (talk) 13:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:33, 20 December 2021 (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 deleted. Clear and unequivocal consensus to delete. As the last participant (LibStar) had put it: fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. Probable WP:AUTOBIO. El_C 22:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valentin Bura

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

Largely unsourced autobiography; no independent sources attest notability in any of the fields where the subject and author claims to have been active. Biruitorul ^Talk 23:31, 13 December 2021 (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}}.

--G.M.Hiram (talk) 01:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is extremely well-referenced, there exists a huge amount of material provided for almost every statement in the article.

The artistic notability of the creator in question is debatable, as any artistic act is. It is always hard to say which work of art is good and which isn't.

Yet, the important thing is that the referenced works are in fact authentic.

Whereas, the scientific importance of the author in question can be justified with papers and documents of an official character.

--G.M.Hiram (talk) 01:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The deleting procedure is also highly misleading and controversial as such. It is well known in professional scientific circles that when a negative hypothesis is introduced and users are asked to vote, the vast majority of the voters will be the ones harboring negative emotions on the topic. For further details on this topic please consult the page on [[1]]. --G.M.Hiram (talk) 08:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:25, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:25, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:25, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he's authored a few papers, but nothing has been published about the individual in question. Next to nothing about him, only stuff published by him. He hasn't won any awards that I can see. Oaktree b (talk) 05:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely no sign of WP:NPROF for this 2013 PhD. No sign of reviews for WP:NAUTHOR nor WP:NCREATIVE, nor any other notability. Per disclosure of article author, appears to be WP:AUTOBIO. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of self-bio material on Wikipedia, perhaps 80% of all Living people biographies. Also it is not very clear what it is meant by "unsourced." This author is highly influential, it would be extremely hard to find references in the popular culture of the Millennium that aren't linked to his work. --G.M.Hiram (talk) 08:07, 14 December 2021 (UTC)— G.M.Hiram (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic, and is the subject of this page. [reply]
Delete even speedy? Yes the subject exists. Yes the subject has worked in the areas described. But no IRS, and no signs of any level of notability. And autobiographical. And (hence) violates BLP? Aoziwe (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Issues of Semantics "Notability" is a highly subjective consideration. The mathematician in question has a proposed solution to the Riemann Hypothesis, together with a proof that the Polynomial Hierarchy collapses. These results are yet to be peer-reviewed, however they present a high level of notability. What is the exact evidence this is a self-biography? The standpoint of the narrative seems quite neutral to tell you the truth. --G.M.Hiram (talk) 10:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, to help an understanding of wikipedia notability. The two sets of work, Riemann hypothesis, and Polynomial hierarchy collapse might become notable after they are peer reviewed, and those reviews, not just the papers on the works, are published themselves in peer reviewed journals. See also WP:GNG, other "N"s already cited-linked above, etc. Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 10:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, Laszlo Babai's result that Graph Iso is in EXP(POLYLOG), a result of great magnitude in Combinatorics, is entirely correct and being rejected for publication everywhere. Yet it is on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is highly saturated of facts like these. Non-peer-reviewed. You want other examples??! Perhaps Babai is an outlier on this one...--G.M.Hiram (talk) 10:41, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re László Babai#Graph isomorphism in quasipolynomial time. You are correct. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And, please note that László Babai is not notable because of that graph isomorphism work. Just for example, please see László Babai#Honors. Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 11:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Laszlo Babai doesn't spend his time writing on wikipedia about himself, because he is a serious person whose accomplishments speak for themselves. If you would like people to believe you are a serious, accomplished person, you should also not write about yourself on Wikipedia. --JBL (talk) 12:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not determined by what you do. There could have been someone on 7000 BC, who somehow saved humanity or led it to modern civilization. Yet there are no sources for such a person, therefore they don't have a Wikipedia page. Same here. You need external reliable sources (such as an interview in a newspaper, not a YouTube video) not coming from you and talking about you. "These results are yet to be peer-reviewed, however they present a high level of notability." no, if they haven't been reviewed or have received external attention, they aren't notable on Wikipedia. Super Ψ Dro 15:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there's something dodgy going in here mate. I spoken to Valentin Bura on the phone two weeks ago and he was in fact complaining that arXiv and several other journals are rejecting his articles for no sensible reasons. I reckon it's huge bonus to keep his stuff in here. Keep, mate. Keep. --FlorentinoArizaDeNascimentoAltamirano (talk) 11:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC) — FlorentinoArizaDeNascimentoAltamirano (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This accounts appears to be a WP:MEATPUPPET (if not a sockpuppet). Super Ψ Dro 15:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or plausibly just a troll. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Russ Woodroofe and Aoziwe. --JBL (talk) 12:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Russ Woodroofe, Aoziwe, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Abuse_filter&diff=prev&oldid=613811796 , and https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchUser=G.M.Hiram . — Jeff G. ツ 13:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero evidence that Bura meets the relevant standards for academics or artists. Wikipedia is not a platform to boast that you have solved the Riemann hypothesis and demonstrated that modern medicine is unscientific. Let's put this tedious exercise in ego to bed. XOR'easter (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete well-written page, but most sources are either unreliable or don't actually talk about the biography of the subject. Non-notable. Super Ψ Dro 15:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely doesn't meet WP:PROF, no evidence of passing WP:GNG, and serious promotional issues making it likely that, even in the unlikely case that evidence for GNG could be found, we also could delete this under WP:TNT. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:15, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as embarrassing to Wikipedia and promotion of pseudomathematics. There is no case for notability here. To boot, the creation violates WP:COI. See also the discussion at ANI. — Bilorv (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: per above. For the subject to vote Keep on an AfD of himself is the Mother of All COI issues. Ravenswing 19:41, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sadly. It seems like some of his mathematics work may be important, but importance doesn't equal notability on Wikipedia, and the vast majority of the provided detailed sources seem to be Primary. There's significant puffery going on as well. We need more reliable, secondary sources that cover him in detail. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 19:46, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Honestly, there's not even a hint of importance. I get equally grandiose claims in my email inbox every few days, just because I'm a physicist. XOR'easter (talk) 21:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Self confessed autobiography of a non-notable academic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Autobiographical, self-sourced article about a non-notable and probably WP:FRINGE academic. In the unlikely event that the article is kept, it should be reduced to a stub and re-written in a much less credulous tone ApLundell (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. Probable WP:AUTOBIO. LibStar (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2021 (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 23:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Armenians in Sudan

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

Per this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this AFD, these is no need for this page. The page fails WP:NOTEVERYTHING in that it's not encyclopedic with stubs about every possible diaspora group in the world. The diaspora group is tiny and has not played a role in Sudanese politics. The article is effectively unsourced. Geschichte (talk) 23:14, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:24, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:24, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:24, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced and article states the numbers are as low as 50. Fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 09:20, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete tiny migrant community, not of note - fails WP:GNG. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:15, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move - Delete standalone article, does not meet WP:GNG, otherwise perhaps move or recreate the content in another article, followed by a delete Such-change47 (talk) 08:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Suonii180 (talk) 13:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not of note fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:34, 20 December 2021 (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. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Detour

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

WP:NOTDICTIONARY - this article consists nothing more than a dictionary definition for traffic. Its lack of sources indicate that the topic does not have sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article. I'd propose soft redirecting to Wiktionary. Aasim (talk) 22:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When I created the article, it contained material which was later moved to and expanded at Permanently signed detour route. It's not surprising, then, that the Detour article has still been mostly empty since. It would be odd, though, for this "parent" article not to exist. I contend that since most highway manuals have sections on temporary traffic control related to construction projects/roadworks, there's still a chance that the Detour article could still be expanded some. Mapsax (talk) 23:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Yes the article is a stub, but it can be expanded. It's a too common subject to be simply a Wiktionary entry. And, if it's deleted, what will happen to Permanently signed detour route? This is technically the parent article of it. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:11, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:14, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's plenty of sourcing on this. Just because the existing article is a stub doesn't mean it has to be deleted. I quickly found [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] and that's just a small selection of the coverage out there. I might take up improving this article in the near future. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have begun working on this article. I'm not done, but I've already expanded it significantly and added three references. I don't believe this article met the criteria for deletion as it was before this AfD, but I'm finding now there is a great deal of significant coverage on detours, and I am adding it as I find it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your work. Another problem is that this title is too broad as "detour" and "diversion" are also used in terms of pedestrian traffic and rail traffic. In no ways am I thinking this should be deleted; I am thinking the title should be redirected to Wiktionary. Aasim (talk) 04:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, wouldn't the solution be to make Detour a parent article to several more specific articles? This has already partially been done with Permanently signed detour route. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same thought, though I think that having different sections on this article rather than whole different articles would be better since it's likely none would have excessive content. For example, railroad shooflies came to mind – see refs at Glossary of North American railway terms § S – whose section would probably have brief content. Other infrastructure could follow suit. Mapsax (talk) 00:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral:*Delete or Draftify until fit for mainspace by a WP:HEY wereupon my !vote can be regarded as neutral. It insufficient to CITEBOMB this article but it is necessary to demonstrate a suitable article can be created from those sources. Thankyou. 00:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs)

I'm switching !vote to neutral as some effort has been made to bring the article to a better standard, I'll leave it to others to determine if this is enough. I also note earlier verions were larged and then chomped and those version ought to be considered during the nomination, but I'm not going to delve through historic versions and I leave that to others. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - for attribution reasons, the page history must be kept as content was copied to permanently signed detour route, so if the closing admin finds a consensus to delete it should be directly made into a redirect/soft redirect so as to not delete the history. eviolite (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eviolite: It's good of you to point this out but unfortunately I have not been able to identity revision on target where the copy occurred on permanently signed detour route. If you can indentifiy the revision, in actually the date alone will do, when the paste was made into permanently signed detour route please ping me and I'll sort the attribution templating. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:46, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Djm-leighpark: The very first revision of permanently signed detour route was copied from detour, specifically this version, though my main concern was not templates (since Riversense did attribute on the copy) but rather that if the page detour was directly deleted, the page history and attribution would be completely gone. However, that does not look like a likely outcome right now. eviolite (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've added {{copied}} to Talk:Detour, Talk:permanently signed detour route & Talk:Special route which a closer should check for on delete. APologies for not spotting the copy was at the start of permanently signed detour route. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I think it's worth giving it a shot for cleanup, but it needs more to make it encyclopedic (i.e. - history of detours, rules about detours around the world, etc.) and if that's not possible, I'd support a deletion once we've given it some time and no progress is made. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability is demonstrated by significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]

References

^ Baumgarten, P.; Middelkamp, J. (2015). "On interurban road pricing schemes and the impacts of traffic diversion on road safety in Germany: Empirical findings and implications". European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research. 15 (2). doi:10.18757/ejtir.2015.15.2.3066.
^ Pierce, D.; Short, J. (2012). "Road closures and freight diversion: Analysis with empirical data". Transportation research record. 2269 (1): 51–57.
^ Meyer, N.; Breitenbach, M.; Kekana, R. (2008). "An Economic Appraisal Of The Impact Of Traffic Diversion–The N1 Toll Road And Its Alternative" (PDF). South African Journal of Economics. 76 (4): 652–666.
^ Alhajia, Mustapha; Alhassana, Musa; Adejumoa, Taiye; Abdulkadirb, Hamidu (2021). "Road pavement collapse from overloaded trucks due to traffic diversion: A case study of Minna-Kateregi-Bida Road, Nigeria". Engineering Failure Analysis. 131. Elsevier. doi:10.1016/j.engfailanal.2021.105829.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While Aasim (the nominator)'s assertion that WP:NOTDICTIONARY is applicable here might have been correct when this article was first nominated for deletion, the content of this article now definitely goes beyond a simple dictionary definition of the subject(s) it discusses. Also, Trainsandotherthings has provided plenty of sources to demonstrate this topic's notability. --Zander251 (talk) 05:14, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it is a clearly notable subject, and it has now been expanded sufficiently.Jackattack1597 (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2021 (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 Polygon#Naming. Sandstein 07:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Triacontatetragon

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

Renominating as per the close of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Icosidigon. There is not significant coverage about the 34-gon. Most of the mentions of it in reliable sources are commenting on the fact that it is constructible. This follows trivially from the constructibility of the 17-gon, and puts the 34-gon in an infinitude of constructible polygons, such as a 68-gon or an 85-gon. This class is notable, but not the 34-gon itself. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and notability is not inherited. Danstronger (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Danstronger (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing notable about this particular kind of polygon. Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 00:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge The remark by MarkH21 in the last round of discussion leads me to think that there's more that can be said about its constructibility than "34 = 17 × 2". I don't think most of the article content is really warranted as it stands (honestly, some of our pages in this area read like Fandom.com had a Polytopes wiki), but this looks more like a "selective merge" candidate to me. I see that way back in 2017 I suggested a section at heptadecagon as a viable target. XOR'easter (talk) 01:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That is, both the White (1913) and Chepmell (1913) sources construct a regular 34-gon by compass and straightedge without constructing a 17-gon and bisecting its angles. (White actually does it in the opposite order, inscribing a 34-gon in a circle and then joining alternate vertices to make a 17-gon.) It's not what I had expected. XOR'easter (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Polygon#Naming, because there's nothing new to say, and for consistency with the other recently-redirected polygons. It's constructible, but heptadecagon already says so: Based on the construction of the regular 17-gon, one can readily construct n-gons with n being the product of 17 with 3 or 5 (or both) and any power of 2: a regular 51-gon, 85-gon or 255-gon and any regular n-gon with 2^h times as many sides. The details are absolutely trivial (just take the 2 $π$ /17 angle from the heptadecagon and bisect it). The fact that an RS could be found stating the trivially obvious does not make the trivially obvious any more notable, I think. Double sharp (talk) 07:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I forgot to mention it in my nomination, but I agree with redirect to Polygon#Naming, which was the conclusion for the other recently deleted polygons. Danstronger (talk) 11:36, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Although the 1913 paper goes into nontrivial depth about this specific shape, it does not justify any of the content of the article, and so cannot be used for notability of the article as it is. I don't think we would want to have the kind of article that could be sourced by that paper, which would be entirely about the details of a compass and straightedge construction. Also it's a very short paper and it's only one source. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I mentioned in the last AfD that the existence of the standalone Mathematische Annalen article about the regular 34-gon is quite remarkable. That's one of the top journals in mathematics! The article is not just about the 34-gon being constructible (since that was already known at the time) but is rather about a very simple and novel construction that can be used to construct the regular 17-gon in a simple and novel way. The article accepted into Mathematische Annalen suggests that this was quite significant at the time and contributes towards satisfying WP:GNG.
However, the points here about not having an entire article about the explicit construction and its possible suitability elsewhere are also convincing. Based on the Mathematische Annalen paper alone, I am neutral about whether to redirect/merge/keep. However, I would not be surprised if there were other serious articles about properties of the 34-gon. Such coverage might change things (I have not yet attempted this search myself, so this has no weight right now).
@XOR'easter: Sorry for the delay in responding to the other AfD ping!
— MarkH₂₁^talk 11:54, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Polygon#Naming, as most of the sources (bar the Mathematische Annalen article) are not specific to the 34-gon or only describe properties that are "trivial". This is then reflected in the content of article, and the structure could conceivably be used for an article on any arbitrary n-gon. I also conducted several searches and was unable to find other sources that would unambiguously satisfy GNG. Nevertheless, I would also support merging some of the construction-related content to heptadecagon, as it is very relevant there and definitely does not generalize to any n-gon. ComplexRational (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment FYI, one more: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Enneadecagon. Danstronger (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2021 (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 clear consensus in the discussion--Ymblanter (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Black Women Radicals

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}}.

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

I doubt that this organization fits the notability standard for organizations. All of the sources used are either just passing mentions of the organization itself, sources published by the organization itself, or sources that are obviously not applicable to the article itself (like using Wikimedia Commons as a source). The few reliable sources I found also don't seem like the level of coverage needed for a stand-alone article. Sources that I found on Google that weren't in the article either didn't refer to the organization itself (instead using "black women radicals" as a generic term for black women in radical politics) or also didn't consist of significant coverage. The article was also deleted many times prior due to copyright violations and reading like an advertisement.

One more thing of note is that this article was created by Howard University students in the course Black Women and Popular Culture (Fall 2021). There have been many issues with the articles created for this course, and multiple comments to WikiEd have not helped; see the article Ratchet Feminism, which was created for this course, eventually redirected as a content fork, and restored inappropriately (without any consensus or discussion beforehand) by the instructor themselves.

And before anyone comments that this AfD is meant as an erasure of black people or accuses me of erasing minorities, I am not. I am simply stating that the article does not fit notability standards, in my opinion. wizzito | say hello! 21:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 21:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 21:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 21:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This has been a particularly botched Wiki Ed, and I don't have a very positive view of Wiki Ed in the first place. The sourcing just doesn't demonstrate NORG-level notability -- very little of it passes that SNG's standards for independence and reliability. While this version of the article isn't an unsalvageable copyvio, it also still had significant NFCC issues last time I earwigged it that were intertwined enough to be difficult to extract; this ties in with the simple lack of sourcing, in that there simply isn't enough to say on the org for the students to rewrite it in their own words. Vaticidalprophet 21:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing the required sig-cov from reliable sources here. The AAIHS source doesn't mentioned this org [7];Blavity might qualify as an WP:RS, but the coverage isn't very deep in this link [8], and the second Blavity link only mentions BWR in the photo credit [9]; the Dazed article mentions the org in passing [10]; the New School Research Matters link doesn't mention the org at all [11]. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. I can't seem to find any real significant coverage of this organisation that is truly independent of it. firefly ( t · c ) 08:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 00:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough RS to support notability. I agree with Ohnoitsjamie's sourcing assessment; the sources that are out there aren't in depth enough. It's too bad this was an educational assignment; I'm noticing a lot of problems with the list of articles created through that particular class. --Kbabej (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It looks as if the instructor of the course is canvassing on Twitter here. --Kbabej (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If we are going to keep articles on small yet regional high schools like Chaminade High School in Mineola NY we should keep this. This will fundamentally show that wikipedias bias against black women Racial bias on Wikipedia is a huge issue. And I am not just some straw editor I have been here for a hot minuet. WngLdr34 (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WngLdr34: That would be an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. No one is arguing there isn't a bias against black women on WP. This article was nominated because it lacks sig coverage from RS, a requirement for all articles on WP. --Kbabej (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the organization is personally attacking me on Twitter for attempting to erase Black women, even though I had stated upfront multiple times that I was not trying to. wizzito | say hello! 01:23, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Followers of the organization are also being ageist towards me for my comments, and I've had to lock my social media because of them. See here, for example. This says a lot about the organization and that the course's ambition was to likely "right great wrongs". wizzito | say hello! 02:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion about this and the problems with Ratchet feminism here: Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Archive 21#Organized harassment of me over botched course wizzito | say hello! 18:19, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I could not find enough reliable sources to demonstrate that this organisation is notable. Searching for the term "black women radicals" gives a large number of false positives. Meanwhile, all of the secondary sources that are currently in the article are not reliable. Overall, it appears that this article was created to promote the organisation. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 04:32, 17 December 2021 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:34, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William George Dolman

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

I can't find any indication of notability. I have searched Google proper, which comes up with a couple of for-sale sites, and three pages of Wikipedia mirrors and irrelevant results. JSTOR, Google News, Google Scholar and Newspapers.com return zilch. I'm afraid this may be a case of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. It certainly seems to fail WP:V. I know very little about this topic, so I hope I'm wrong and sources are found by topic experts who serve me a fresh heap of trout because if I knew where to look it's easy. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia requires articles to have references, and this article doesn't have any. Catfurball (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Catfurball: please see WP:NEXIST. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There doesn't appear to be any reliable sources at all. Curiocurio (talk) 23:17, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An un-sourced, largely useless article about an individual. Zero sources found as noted .Oaktree b (talk) 05:47, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No one has pointed out any reliable sources. I think it is high time that we started an absolute requirement that sources exist for all articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - to build on the searches conducted by the nominator, I have checked ProQuest and BNA, neither of which provide any relevant results and certainly nothing that would indicate notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Brayan ocaner (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNo RS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources, does not meet WP:N due to a lack of sources. The article has had years to fix its issues, they remain unresolved. and if after all this time the appropriate changes cannot be made to ensure this is notable encyclopaedic content then perhaps that is simply because it is not so - Such-change47 (talk) 08:50, 18 December 2021 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of secret societies in popular culture

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

Ill-defined, indiscriminate list that mixes real and fictional organizations ranging from the Ku Klux Klan to SPECTRE. Zero references apart from 2 about the real-life KKK, and a primary-sourced entry regarding The Da Vinci Code, and few entries that are notable. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As non-notable fancruft. If one wishes to write an actual prose section about secret societies in popular culture, they can do so at Secret society and split it off if it becomes too large._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very few of the entries on this list are actually notable enough to have their own articles, and many of these are debatable if they even qualify as a "secret society" as defined by out article on the topic. As stated by the nom, the only actual sources being used are not on the overall topic, but on a specific organization that already has its own extensive article. Adding a prose topic to the main article, as suggested by Zxcvbnm, would probably be a good idea, but there is nothing salvageable about this unsourced list that would be helpful in doing that. Rorshacma (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:IINFO and MOS:POPCULT. Listings of pop culture elements down to the most trivial are not encyclopedic, and topics like this should be discussed in summary style prose instead. This can be done, as Zxcvbnm has noted, in the parent article, and split if the content becomes too much. Avilich (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another indiscriminate, effectively unreferenced list. Fun fact: one of the cited authors, Blee, was my teacher at the university. She is an academic expert on KKClan, but her work has nothing to do with the article, and just shows that the citations used are pretty random. Sure, KKClan has been written about, in fiction and non-fiction, but that doesn't mean we need such a list (however, KKClan article can use a good 'in popular culture' section). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another "this isn't TV Tropes" one. Agree with everyone above. Even if it was fully sourced and the sources weren't weird stuff like "here is a source to show that the KKK is racist", it still would not be an encyclopedia article. -- asilvering (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of alien races in DC Comics. If content from history can be sourced to reliable sources, it can be merged. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kwai (DC Comics)

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:PLOT. No reliable independent coverage and commentary found. Avilich (talk) 20:09, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 20:09, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 01:47, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very minor fictional race that does not pass the WP:GNG. The article is currently completely unsourced, and I was unable to find anything in reliable sources aside from the briefest of namedrops. I also searched for "Shikari", the only named member of the species listed in the article, and also came up with nothing more than brief mentions. Rorshacma (talk) 07:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect~~Delete~~. No references, nothin to rescue, fails GNG. Yet another obvious PROD candidate that was dePRODed by an editor now topic banned from deletion topics... tnx for finishing the cleanup, Avilich. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC) PS. Change my vote to redirect as I see Rtkat3 found a good target below. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I was able to restructure it so that the link would redirect to it's sub-section on the page that I suggested for the merge in my discussion. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with it's section on the List of alien races in DC Comics page in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 02:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirector Merge List of alien races in DC Comics as above. Unsupported Prod PROD candidate Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:44, 18 December 2021 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cesino (surname)

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

There are no entries on this page since there are no articles of people with this surname on Wikipedia, and the only content is the lead 'Cesino is an Italian surname' and the surname list tag. Waddles 🗩 🖉 20:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 20:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 20:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 20:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Looking on the Italian wikipedia, Cesino is actually a region of Genoa and doesn't even allude to a surname (is named after a cherry tree). On the basis there are no entries in this article, it's either already redundant or not appropriate yet. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Someone young people have a desire to be protagonist, they want to delete every articles, this is a simple technical page. You don't even have time to enter some information that someone wants to delete it

We cancel so we save energy for the planet. It's redundant, so let's delete. It is more the debate than the page itself. You work on useful articles. Best regards.--Peter39c (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter39c: I'm not sure what you mean by "You don't even have time to enter some information that someone wants to delete it". And I'm going to point out that I don't "have a desire to be protagonist", I'm simply doing my job as a volunteer to help control what's submitted to Wikipedia. Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:52, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter39c: This is the purpose of AfD, articles for discussion - it's about discussing the integrity or credibility of an article. You created an article with no information in it and none that I can see from a search which it could be expanded with (and my focus on wikipedia is very much content creation). Even if there were just one entry, I could not have seen the need to have this article. A better option may have been to create an article on the region that I linked to on Italian wikipedia, by the same name. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As I repeat, this is simply a technical page to collect articles by people with that surname such as Micheal Cesino, an academic. the name of the academic is a pure and simple example of the use of the page, but it was not my intention to insert it or to promote the academic. Woe to put scientists on wikipedia, It's better footballers or unknown cricketers.

Enough discussions that costs energy and time. --Peter39c (talk) 20:29, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter39c: There's no such thing as a 'technical page'. A surname list is only for if two or more people with biographical articles on Wikipedia have the same surname. Waddles 🗩 🖉 20:41, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter39c You can always remake a page like this if there end up being enough Cesino articles to justify it. Like, for example, a page about that academic. Right now there are zero. -- asilvering (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reason for this page to exist that I can see. PianoDan (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NNAME generally expects name lists to have at least two entries of people with the name. Otherwise, no evidence this name meets WP:GNG.—Bagumba (talk) 11:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: google search for "cesino wikipedia" (sans quotes) turns up only this article. No point in having it. -- asilvering (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2021 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Binyomin Adler

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

Article about a non-notable rabbi. All of the sources in the article were written by the article subject (Adler). Has been tagged for notability since 2014. I cannot find any independent sources that provide significant coverage of Adler (couldn't even find insignificant coverage). Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, or WP:ANYBIO. Schazjmd (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing notable about the individual, GNews turns up entirely unrelated articles. Oaktree b (talk) 05:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have not been able to find sufficient coverage either. Virtually all that turns up about him is self-published. The subject appears not to meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:52, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Rabbi Adler does not pass the notability bar of Wikipedia. He does write Torah commentary. A rabbi who writes Torah commentary. I think I have seen that somewhere before. gidonb (talk) 02:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nowhere near satisfying WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 18:45, 20 December 2021 (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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alicel, Oregon

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

Moving on to Oregon, the very first place I look at consists of a grain elevator standing by the railroad tracks, and nothing else besides an adjacent farm. Searching turns up low levels of hits, largely clickbait but also a fair number referring to a soil series and a grain variety of the same name, and the usual rural name drops due to the post office which once sat here. Not seeing anything indicating a former town, though. I would also note that the bins shown in the picture are not those of the Minor White photo, which still stand by the tracks. Mangoe (talk) 19:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't tell if this was a town or not. According to the second reference it was platted, which is an indication, and then [12] says lots in town are for sale. Whether or not anything was actually built is indiscernable to me. There was a school there [13]. There were two businesses located there at one time. [14], [15]. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - No legal recognition, no WP:GNG-pass, just some bare mentions. Post offices and schools do not confer legal recognition as schools/post-offices can be opened by anyone anywhere. FOARP (talk) 12:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC) Happy to flip to Keep(ish) based on the new sources. FOARP (talk) 17:02, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I don't think a post office can be opened by anyone. Certainly not during that time period. You had to get government authority. Towns/wannabe towns would name themselves after the U.S. Postmaster in order to be granted a coveted post office. Certainly there were addresses with an Alicel, Oregon address. It has legal recognition, but I don't know if it was a "populated place" or just an "area" that a post office served (and thereby failing GEOLAND). 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue we're highlighting here is that post-offices weren't automatically associated with populated place, but could be at stores, stations, and so-forth. Having a post office is therefore not legal recognition of a populated place per se. FOARP (talk) 14:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are perhaps minor quibbles/clarifications/exceptions, but I think we're mostly on the same page. This concerted effort on GEOLAND has deleted a few things here and there I disagree with, but has largely cleaned up a lot of WP:V violations and other such errors. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with any of that. Naturally any clean-up is going to have some edge-cases and the vagueness of the guides doesn't help. FOARP (talk) 17:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep - Surprisingly, buildings scattered to the East are the remnants of an honest-to-goodness street grid that appeared on the 1906 topo and gradually disappears by the 1960s. Newspaper searches bring back quite a few trivial mentions of school sports teams, "John Smith of Alicel", etc. I'm thinking this was an actual small town, but not one that was legally recognized or written about enough to sustain a standalone article. –dlthewave ☎ 00:05, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep, thank you Valfontis for expanding the article and for your patience with our cleanup efforts. –dlthewave ☎ 16:28, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only slightly snarky comment as article creator: Re: "...grain elevator standing by the railroad tracks..." Oh, I see you are familiar with the American West. This was my 4th article and was created from this list. I think the Oregon list was added to from an Oregon Highway map. No one has added to it since 2006. I haven't been around much lately but is WP: GAZETTEER still relevant? Because I'm curious about the "I saw the name on a map and want to know more about it" factor. It's on roadmaps as of my 2008 Oregon road atlas, which is the most recent one I have at hand. Also, I realize that the term "populated place" per GNIS is being questioned, but this is listed as a populated place on GNIS. As an aside, I'm not sure why it matters that the recent photo and the reference to the Minor White photo not being of the same grain elevators is significant to the notability of this community. Here's a link to the photo. And here's the facility in 2005. Perhaps we need to either delete the photo or add a clunky disclaimer? If @Finetooth: is around, maybe we can ask him why he took a photo of the grain storage bins and not the historic silos. SOFIXIT? Valfontis (talk) 06:28, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Valfontis. As you allude to, GNIS is no longer taken as reliable evidence of a place being populated, or of it having legal recognition. This therefore isn't a WP:GEOLAND#1 pass simply because its mentioned in GNIS. Maps also aren't taken as evidence of notability, so we don't have articles on locations simply because they are on a map. Wikipedia is not a gazetteer per se - we don't host GNIS-style bare gazetteer listings, but instead encyclopaedic articles, because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia.

Standards have been tightened up after tens of thousands of articles about locations in Iran, Azerbaijan, California, and Turkey had to be deleted/redirect en masse due to issues with them caused by simply transcribing data straight from a gazetteer or gazetteer-like database. An admin was also desysopped as part of one of these cases, and one of the most prolific stub-creators also had the autopatrolled bit taken away.

None of this should be taken as a judgement on your creation of this article, simply an indication that (as in many areas) there's stuff that Wikipedia used to have articles for that it now doesn't. FOARP (talk) 09:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. (Spoiler Alert: I try to stay professional on the wiki but I am going to be taking deletion discussions like this one personally so most of this is going to be boo hoo about my hard work and my feelings. See also WP:USEFUL.) See my !Vote below. Feel free to ask me to take this general chat elsewhere, but since Mangoe has indicated they wish to go through the whole state, I might as well get it out of the way here. Thanks for the background on the Arbitration stuff. Most of the Oregon articles on communities were written from scratch (not plagiarized or data dumped), by people dedicated to building an encyclopedia, using sources, including books. Wikiproject Oregon made a great effort to keep garbagey geography content out of the Oregon-related articles. We had a few drive-by editors who created a dozen or two microstub articles on communities each, but I and others managed to "save" (I kind of hate that term) them from deletion with a few hours of research. Anyway, I stand by my judgment on what makes something notable, despite not keeping up with the current state of geographic notability.

I started on Wikipedia after working on a project that involved addresses from the 1950s. I was jotting down odd little town names I hadn't heard of to look up later, and kept getting hits on this page ("city" loosely defined, obviously) and decided to do something about it. In Oregon we also have road signs for historic places that one might want to be able to find some information about. Globe and Austa come to mind. So I feel like Alicel, for example, is not a completely garbage article because there are many current (mostly about the grain shipping there but it's all behind a paywall) articles and historic references to it. (In that rural county, that grain shipping complex is a Big Deal and probably a big part of the county's economy). Speaking personally and as someone who is too tired to go read all the WP:WHATEVER essays, it seems foolish to delete articles like Alicel. I think I'm pretty middle of the road between deletionist and inclusionist. I wasn't heartbroken about this highway junction I created (there was an effort to get the redlinks out of highway articles since it was an effort to convince other editors that they shouldn't be links at all) and I was instigator of the takedown of this funny little place.

Upmerge to the county article if you must, but since not everyone owns a copy of the 3-inch-thick Oregon Geographic Names (Oregon has a lot of place names), it might be nice to have well-sourced histories of various small communities accessible on the Internet, even if they are short. I'm trying to think of a non-petulant, reasonable way to say that depending on how this goes, I could be disappointed enough in the process to finally take my toys and go home, but it's not coming to me at the moment. Valfontis (talk) 11:19, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my recent expansion with cites, WP:GEOLAND, and 78.26. There are multiple citations to reliable sources. It was small, and now is smaller, but this was and is a community, and Notability is not temporary. It exists and people call it their home. I don't believe "legally recognized" (define this--does that mean "incorporated"?) is a criterion for notability of a(n) (unincorporated)community, but feel free to show me where to find the relevant guideline. (If you are interested in multiple passing mentions of people being "from," "born," living at, and moving to Alicel, you may see my most recent clips as of today. [I realize these are trivial mentions.]) I feel as if WP:BEFORE was not applied here. Valfontis (talk) 11:19, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More comment - I am somewhat aghast that something as fundamental as WP:5P was allowed to be changed so significantly with only local consensus with participation by only four editors, and the implications it has for precisely these types of discussions. 3 weeks. 4 editors. One of our core pages, with concepts that had been in place for 13 years. Was this discussion widely publicized? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

78.26 - It was discussed also at WP:NGEO where there was a similar consensus to change. It was also much more discussed than the original undiscussed BOLD edit that put the term "gazetteer" into WP:5P simply because "I think [this] reflects the reality of WP today". Whether or not WP:5P really is all that pivotal is also disputed by the FAQ at the talk page of WP:5P which states that it is not "a policy or guideline, or the source for all policies and guidelines" but "a non-binding description of some of the fundamental principles" (that is, 5P summarises other pages, it does not control them). FOARP (talk) 16:46, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This has many more mentions to people living there as a community than usual. It should be corrected to "was a community" if there are no recent sources, however. Reywas92^Talk 15:19, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's even a sign on the road announcing this as a current community. If that's not GEOLAND I don't know what is. SportingFlyer T·C 13:32, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While this article is short, it has lots of good, well documented information about the subject community. Sources includes hard copy books like Oregon Geographic Names (an extremely important sources for articles on Oregon communities and geographic landmarks) and Main Street: Northeastern Oregon published by respected publishers like Binfords & Mort and Oregon Historical Society; sources also include well-established newspapers like the La Grande Observer as well as historic newspapers like Crook County Journal which was an important sources of local information in its day.--Orygun (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG per sources in article. Had a population of 300 at one point. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:49, 20 December 2021 (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. Going with the keeps for now. Her archives being in a major institution is a good qualifier. However, the sourcing is majority primary and we need more reliable secondary sources covering the subject significantly. So, please take a look at that.

Thanks everyone for participating. Unhappy with this decision? If one wishes to renominate this article with another policy-based rationale, they are able to do so. I will defer to other administrators to review it. I will not re-review my decision. Happy holidays. Missvain (talk) 16:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fern Rahmel

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

Because I think this needs more than PROD. Trent University holds her papers, but a 6m archive doesn't indicate (nor does worldcat or google scholar verify) that she was a prolific writer. I had hopes for this obit, but she doesn't seem to have done enough to add up to meet academic notability and it's not enough fo the GNG. The book, (p109-114) is a little more, but definitely in context of her work with Davies. Thoughts? Star Mississippi 19:19, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 19:19, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 19:19, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 19:19, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 19:19, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 01:29, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 01:29, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the nominator. There is not enough here to meet notability. MartinWilder (talk) 03:45, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete School teacher for 20 years and maybe a local historian, at best. Nothing notable. Oaktree b (talk) 05:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Rahmel received an honorary degree from Trent University in 1970, making her one of the earliest women to receive such an honor. She also worked with the Canadian playwright Robertson Davies who guided her presentation of stage shows. I have added these details (with citations) indicating her impact. DaffodilOcean (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She seems to barely meet GNG, but still meets it. WestCD (talk) 03:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adequately sourced for notability.--Ipigott (talk) 08:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, enough information has been added to establish sufficient notability. Suonii180 (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as there are enough sources to show notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2021 (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 Brobdingnagian Bards#Discography. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Songs of the Muse

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

not notable, no coverage, no reviews Artem.G (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Artem.G (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brobdingnagian Bards, as is common procedure for an album that gained little notice in its own right. Some of this band's later albums got reviews and other notice, but this one did not. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brobdingnagian Bards#Discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. A WP:BEFORE shows nothing beyond AllMusic. SBKSPP (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2021 (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 Brobdingnagian Bards#Discography. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marked by Great Size

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

not notable. no coverage, no reviews Artem.G (talk) 18:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Artem.G (talk) 18:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brobdingnagian Bards, as is common procedure for an album that gained little notice in its own right. Some of this band's later albums got reviews and other notice, but this one did not. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:12, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brobdingnagian Bards#Discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. A WP:BEFORE shows nothing beyond AllMusic and Austin Chronicle. SBKSPP (talk) 01:10, 18 December 2021 (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 Brobdingnagian Bards#Discography. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gullible's Travels (Brobdingnagian Bards album)

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

not notable. I found only one review [16] but it seems to be not enough Artem.G (talk) 18:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Artem.G (talk) 18:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brobdingnagian Bards, as is common procedure for an album that gained little notice in its own right. Some of this band's later albums got reviews and other notice, but this one only got a couple of minor and unreliable reviews. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brobdingnagian Bards#Discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. A WP:BEFORE shows nothing beyond AllMusic. SBKSPP (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2021 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Black Horizonz

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

Seems to be not notable, besides being active for a long time. Google gives very few reviews of their albums and little info about the band. Artem.G (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Artem.G (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Smells like WP:GARAGEBAND to me. Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 01:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of any SIGCOV in reliable independent sources. Brayan ocaner (talk) 08:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found nothing that shows notability. SL93 (talk) 01:38, 18 December 2021 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carpenters Corner, Minnesota

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

Does not meet WP:GEOLAND as a legally recognized populated place. Appears to be a named intersection with a nearby farm. No evidence of a notable community. Sources are lists, GNIS mirrors, etc. MB 16:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MB 16:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. MB 16:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment This was redirected to Viking, Minnesota, which I have reverted. I'm not convinced this is a good resolution, and anyway it needs to be discussed here. Mangoe (talk) 18:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just an unnotable corner wizzito | say hello! 02:14, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet our notability requirements for road junctions. –dlthewave ☎ 00:12, 15 December 2021 (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 05:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mautic

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

no reliable source with sig coverage. Only insignificant awards and self-published sources Behind the moors (talk) 14:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Behind the moors (talk) 14:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Behind the moors (talk) 14:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Behind the moors:, I beg to differ. Your claim about insignificant coverage and self-published sources is unsubstantiated. You can clearly see plenty of third party sources including a published book about the article's subject. --Omer Toledano (talk) 17:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The book about Mautic was issued by StreetLib, an Italian self-publishibg platform. Self-published books do not establish notability. Cullen328 (talk) 23:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1) Added additional sources. 2) Mautic has every right to a Wikipedia article as any other open-source software bundle today. It has already achieved world-wide notability matching those of WordPress, Drupal, Joomla, GIMP, phpMyAdmin and others... Furthermore, it is also included along with them in out-of-the-box app installation catalogues on popular server management platforms such as CPanel and Bitnami. --Omer Toledano (talk) 11:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ^(talk) 15:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are some mentions on Google News but nothing that satisfies WP:NCORP IMO. There's no such thing as a "right to a Wikipedia article". (t · c) buidhe 22:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GIMP is pretty much the gold standard in open-source imaging programs, this is one of hundreds of open-source pieces of software, so to compare the two isn't correct. See the links in the GIMP article. No one has right to anything on wikipedia, you have to prove notability. It seems to have one minor award in 2015 in a magazine, that's about it. Oaktree b (talk) 05:58, 14 December 2021 (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 23:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Modi: Journey of a Common Man

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:NFOE. Lack of detailed reviews in reliable media. The references and the search results are mostly announcements of the upcoming launch and trailers. Venkat TL (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NFILM as Venkat TL said, and also the film (as I understand) hasn't been released or reviewed as yet. Per WP:NFILM, "... films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." Unless someone can show any sign of notability with respect to the production of the film, this seems like it might be WP:TOOSOON. I don't know of the timeline for the release, but it might make sense to move this to draft space, or just to delete and reintroduce once it qualifies as notable. Right now it just looks like promotion. - Naushervan (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM, use of promotional language Juggyevil (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2021 (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 23:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Katre Türkay

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. All of the sources are magazine sources. It has no effect on notability. Kadıköylü (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kadıköylü (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kadıköylü (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Kadıköylü (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 13 December 2021 (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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Banakar

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

this article was removed from fawiki today (based on AFD). the creator of that article also has a conflict of interest with the subject of that article. Shiasun (talk) 15:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shiasun (talk) 15:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On a quick glance: Not my area, but leaning keep as meeting WP:PROF based on chair at Lund University & citation profile in Google Scholar. His 2005 book Theory and method in socio-legal research has 293 citations, and there are more than 50 citations for a further six works (293,88,81,75,75,75,55). Pinging @DGG: for an opinion; he deprodded it in 2013 with the edit summary "probably meets WP:PROF--I added reviews". There are likely to be enough reviews to meet the basics of WP:AUTHOR, too. What was the concern at fawiki? COI alone is not reason to delete an established article unless the veracity of the claims is in dispute. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:41, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. meet WP:PROF-- highly cited work. 8 books from respectable academic publishers), all well cited as books go , one 215 times (heory and method in socio-legal research), which is very high for a book. I can not tell why faWP removed it, but I suppose it was because of the conflict of interest. Though we strongly discourage autobiographies at enWP, that by itself is not enough reason for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Would appear to have held an established chair at Lund University, which meets WP:NPROF #5. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:PROF, notability has been established. Brayan ocaner (talk) 23:05, 16 December 2021 (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 05:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bashir Mehtaab

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

Non-Notable Mario Urbaneja (talk) 13:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Mario Urbaneja (talk) 13:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable poet. Fails WP:GNG. Jupitus Smart 16:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 15:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG Juggyevil (talk) 16:59, 13 December 2021 (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 Douglas County, Washington. Merging to Douglas County is a great WP:ATD. Thanks everyone for participating.

Unhappy with this decision? If one wishes to renominate this article with another policy-based rationale, they are able to do so. I will defer to other administrators to review it. I will not re-review my decision. Happy holidays. Missvain (talk) 16:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beebe, Washington

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

The two placename sources disagree slightly: one says flat out that it was a post office, the other calls it a "community" which got its name when the post office was established. What the topos show is what is now a vineyard but also had orchards around it earlier. The aerials for a while show two rows of about six small square buildings (which the topos show as one large building) which might have been cabins for workers. Searching is pretty much useless as the bridge nearby (in both its incarnations) throws out tons of hits, but I couldn't get anything other than a lot map which was not particularly illuminating one way or the other. At any rate I don't have evidence for a town, and a post office isn't notable. Mangoe (talk) 05:20, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If this was a community, it wasn't a notable one. –dlthewave ☎ 16:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Douglas County, Washington. It had a PO, people said they were [from there]. Worth a sentence or two and a redirect. MB 02:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:47, 13 December 2021 (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. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Timir Nandi

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

Non-notable singer with no SIGCOV and fails WP:NSINGER. Htanaungg (talk) 11:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 11:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 11:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep the English coverage isn't sufficient, but I believe there is enough Bengali-language coverage - [17] and [18] are two examples. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:43, 13 December 2021 (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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guinea–Spain relations

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

Just one of many unnecessary "Spain relations" pages. Philosophy2 (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: "unnecessary" is not a valid deletion rationale. I would also be interested to know how the nominator managed to accomplish WP:BEFORE in only four minutes, which is the time elapsed between his previous nomination and this one. Pilaz (talk) 15:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While the philosopher has been mass nominating in over his/her head, the creation of this series of articles stems from the notion that Spain has notable relations with every single country on earth, which is clearly not well-founded either. An effort is underway to clean it up, and I think Guinea should be judged on its own merits. Geschichte (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The basis of every AfD discussion is a common understanding of why the nominator thinks the article should be deleted. If we can't understand why the nominator wants the article deleted, then keep !votes can't properly argue against deletion if the nomination is a moving, ill-defined target (and delete !votes have to come up with their own deletion rationales). Procedurally, this should be a speedy keep, and so far nobody has argued that "unnecessary" is a valid deletion rationale, so I stand by my !vote. No prejudice against renominating with a proper deletion rationale. Pilaz (talk) 10:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral.Delete. While I agree that the nom could have given a better rationale, the fact remains that the article cites no independent, reliable sources. I could not find any either. Therefore it fails WP:GNG. Yilloslime (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC) No time to look at the new sources, so I can't give an informed opinion. Yilloslime (talk) 05:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: multiple reputable sources exist to satisfy WP:GNG (even if that's not the disputed by the nomination). Spain negotiates and later signs immigration agreement with Guinea [19],[20], [21]; Spain to pay 10M€ to Guinea and Gambia for repatriations of migrants [22]; 2019 High-level visit of the Minister of Interior of Spain to Conakry to reinforce cooperation against human trafficking, organized crime, and on immigration flows [23]; in 2020, Spain triples subventions to Guinea Conakry and other African countries to combat irregular migration, with increased funds going to the Guinean police [24]; 2021 visit of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Spain) to Guinea [25]; Spain condemns the 2021 coup in Guinea, calls on military to stand down [26], [27]. Both countries have embassies with one another and Guinea leaders have also visited Spain in the past, such as the visit of the Guinean PM to Spain in 1982 and 1984 [28], [29]. All these sources speak to the enduring, notable relations between these two countries. Pilaz (talk) 11:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources have been incorporated into the article. Pilaz (talk) 14:55, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep No rationale given by the AfD submitter. RoseCherry64 (talk) 18:18, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources provided and added by Pilaz show this meets GNG, which addresses the deficient nomination statement and the only delete !voter's concerns. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:12, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per sources provided by Pilaz. A start-class sort of article based on third party sources is perfectly attainable.--Asqueladd (talk) 09:46, 16 December 2021 (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 Treasure (band). (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Park Jeong-woo

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

Not independently notable from his band Treasure. Recommend restoring redirect. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Individual fails WP:NMG, article should be redirected until he passes the notability criteria. Abdotorg (talk) 20:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per nom, for failing WP:MUSICBIO. Ifnord (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Treasure (band) as per nom. Not individually notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Treasure (band) - Except for some non-notable TV appearances, all of his accomplishments are with the group and its various subsidiaries, and all is described adequately at the group's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:45, 14 December 2021 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hasan Hamid

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

No indication of notability, fails WP:GNG. References do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Previously declined/deleted. Draft:Hasan Hamid DMySon (talk) 14:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 14:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 14:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 14:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 14:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I can read Bengali and i can say this, there is zero WP:SIGCOV about this person. The article (& Draft:Hasan Hamid) is full of WP:REFBOMB. Every single refs are written by the subject himself, which proves the person is a (professional) columnist but this doesn't mean they are automatically notable for wikipedia. Zero significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Didn't won any significant award or anything. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Whiteguru (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Possible WP:PAID or WP:COI article as well. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An article should speak for itself, and this stub does not contain enough information to establish general notability or author notability. There is also a draft, Draft:Hasan Hamid, which has been declined five times, primarily for tone reasons, and which has been reference-bombed with 140 references. The draft can be left in draft space after this stub is deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:16, 16 December 2021 (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) 19:57, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jerzy Bandura

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

Bandura was a contestant in the Olympic Art Competion. The problem is that this was never seen as a top rated art competition, it in no way attracted the top artists, and so unlike sports in the olympics, merely being in it is not enough for notability. A search for additional sources showed up nothing substantial. There is no indication he passes any of our guidelines on notability for artists. John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:04, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:04, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:04, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One wonders what WP:BEFORE work Lambert actually did here. Clicking on the ref in the article gives a decent sized bio on Olympedia. Then there's the article on the Polish wiki which has some substance. And then the power of actually searching for sources finds this, this, this, this, this and this for starters. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:06, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:ANYBIO criteria #3 as he is included in a national dictionary of biography. Also sources exist, per those linked above and here:[30]. Netherzone (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'Withdraw as several more sources have been found.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:25, 13 December 2021 (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) 14:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Devin Kim Hansen

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

Fails WP:ENT, large amounts of unsourced BLP material, no indication of notability. Reliable sources regard the subject as a secondary matter to the main issue at hand. Dark-World25 (talk) 06:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dark-World25 (talk) 06:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:29, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No third party coverage outside of that one article about his working relationship with Chad Daybell. The Utah Film Award was for the "Budget Under $5,000" category, which is hardly significant.-KH-1 (talk) 02:44, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:DIRECTOR and besides the 2 minute Dateline feature I couldn't find any significant independent coverage. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:23, 21 December 2021 (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) 14:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Born on Instagram

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

Not notable. RPSkokie (talk) 12:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RPSkokie (talk) 12:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete PR buzzword-filled emptiness which is overtly WP:PROMO. Nate • (chatter) 02:17, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delet Also could be redirected to the page for Instagram. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:58, 15 December 2021 (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. This article can't stand alone WP:GNG wise and I don't think merging it all into the article about Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin makes sense - not every mayor is notable and really worth mentioning. If anyone wants this article for any purpose userpage wise, let me know.

Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin

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

List of not notable local politicians. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge Not suitable for a standalone but could be included on the town's page. SportingFlyer T·C 18:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin, reported a population of 18,367 at the 2010 United States census. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:LISTN. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:05, 17 December 2021 (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. Passes WP:GNG for me. Clearly a notable restaurant in Oregon and statewide coverage is good enough for me. There is also national coverage in Thrillist and WP:BASIC qualifies here.

Thanks everyone for participating. Unhappy with this decision? If one wishes to renominate this article with another policy-based rationale, they are able to do so. I will defer to other administrators to review it. I will not re-review my decision. Happy holidays. Missvain (talk) 16:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ate-Oh-Ate

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

Not notable Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG (disclaimer: article creator). There's sufficient secondary coverage and the nomination is not even an assessment of sourcing or lack thereof. Sure, currently the article uses mostly (Wikipedia-appropriate) Eater Portland sources, but there are others to incorporate such as Google Books (example, example) and other publications: The Oregonian, Portland Mercury, Willamette Week, etc. Also, the restaurant is listed in quite a few "best of" lists, readers' polls, etc, which means there's enough coverage to flesh out the buildings blocks of a good restaurant article: Description, History, and Reception. I've promoted ~30 articles about Portland area restaurants to Good article status, so I'd like to think I have a decent understanding of sourcing requirements for restaurants. I think the article should be kept and expanded, not deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:12, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient coverage between Eater Portland, Willamette Week, the Sellwood Bee, all of which are currently used in the article. There's also (original, not reposted) Newsbreak coverage here; Oregon Live coverage here; Portland Food and Drink coverage here; Portland Mercury coverage here; and the books Another Believer listed above. Given Another Believer's track record on creating GAs for restaurants, I wouldn't be surprised to see this as a GA soon after it's been expanded. --Kbabej (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete run-of-the-mill restaurant, coverage is all local restaurant PR/churnalism/travel guide stuff, nothing here that gets above WP:MILL or demonstrates that it passes WP:NORG. SportingFlyer T·C 18:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I see a dozen or so Oregonian articles which cover the restaurant, ranging from opening announcements to list inclusions ("cheap eats", best burgers, etc), and that's not even counting a dive into the online archives via library card. Seems a bit dismissive to throw the local/PR argument at the largest newspaper in Oregon and the second largest in the Pacific Northwest by circulation. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's nothing here satisfying the WP:AUD part of WP:NORG. Opening announcements and list inclusions are clearly routine per WP:NORG. This is going to be kept because of the consensus, but the consensus so far has completely misapplied our guidelines - there's lots of references but I can't find one that passes our requirements for organisations. Many of them are inclusions on lists: NORG specifically says inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists is trivial coverage. Many of them are short press release type blurbs. This is just a local restaurant in a city where local restaurants get local coverage, and there's nothing I've found that suggests otherwise. Are there any feature articles on this? Has any press from outside Portland covered the restaurant significantly? SportingFlyer T·C 12:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has reliable sources, no advertisements/promotions and good coverage SassyGamer483 (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I rechecked the sources properly, and I realized that these sources are not independent and in-depth. [31] [32] It is not in-depth about the restaurant. Another source [33] This is not independent and journalist has not analysed anything in this. and this source is [34] not in-depth again. [35] This is written by a college prof. He is a contributor, not reliable.Juggyevil (talk) 11:46, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You're implying none of the sources are appropriate, when that's not the case, and mentioning sources like portlandfoodanddrink.com is not helpful because the source is not used in the article and I'd never use on Wikipedia. I logged into the Oregonian archives and there are ~20 additional sources to review. I'll see if I can expand the article further soon. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 31 references from 6 different sources. In my opinion, three references from two different sources already suffices as notable, so a deletion is unwarranted. The two delete votes I think are wrong in that a) not all the sources are travel guides and b) I've checked all the sources, and they all seem fine. I'm sure this article could use some expansion, but as a C-class article it's not bad. Gerald WL 03:55, 18 December 2021 (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 11:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aparup Chakraborty

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

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

Only one Telegraph article covers him, but not in depth. Other Telegraph article only carries his quote. Local language coverage is lacking as well with passing mentions and a promo-toned two paragraph article from ABP Webdesk. Bengali WP doesn't have mentions of him as well. Hemanthah (talk) 11:18, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hemanthah (talk) 11:18, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Hemanthah (talk) 11:18, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hemanthah (talk) 11:18, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hemanthah (talk) 11:18, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This read felt strangely WP:PROMOTIONAL, like it's put here to be the guys CV! Govvy (talk) 12:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agreed, it seems like a puff-piece. Wondering if the coaching for their Special Olympics equivalent team is notable...Oaktree b (talk) 14:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be the strongest of the references, but it just says that he was appointed as coach and is former captain of indoor team. Hemanthah (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - puff piece, no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and other comments. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTPROMO and failing WP:GNG. He doesn't meet a sport specific guideline (football or cricket) either. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:57, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From a cricketing perspective there's nothing that makes him notable. StickyWicket (talk) 12:25, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:30, 19 December 2021 (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. Consensus is that this is so overbroad as to be indiscriminate. Sandstein 07:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional institutions

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

"This is a list of notable fictional institutions". Notable how? The majority of the entries here do not have stand-alone articles. ALL entries are unreferenced (the article sports ZERO footnotes). The division/structure is chaotic and ORish. Political/Governmental grouping includes terrorist and criminal organizations but not "inter-political alliances". It sports both "Other" and "Miscallenous" headings This fails NLIST and GNG; I could not locate any reliable work that tackles this topics (attempts to list important fictional institutions, widely defined). As a navigational aid this is also a failure, since most entries don't even have redirects and many are minor, of little importance to the work they originate from, and are not even mentioned there. For example the long and confusing entry for "Church of the Virgin of Guadalupe" (one of only three churches on the list...) doesn't even link to the fictional work it references (my best guess is George Lopez (TV series) but that article doesn't even mention any church, suggesting it's a very minor location in the setting). I am afraid there is nothing to rescue here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lots of entries, but no indication that the vast majority of them are notable. Fails WP:NLIST and WP:LISTPURP, since from a navigational perspective, the few notable entries are better covered by other lists in Category:Lists of fictional things. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:09, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to Keep and convert to list of lists. Daranios provided evidence below that this article can meet WP:NLIST with the coverage in various sources. However, the primary concern of those !voting delete is that "institution" is simply too broad of a category to be useful. I propose moving any notable entries to an appropriate list with more narrowly defined scope (e.g. move the entries in List of fictional institutions#Espionage/spy agencies to List of fictional secret police and intelligence organizations) and have List of fictional institutions be an appropriately sorted list of notable lists in Category:Lists of fictional organizations. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me. Thanks for the suggestion, Qwaiiplayer. Daranios (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, overly broad types of "institutions", few of which are notable or and which do not have a navigational relationship to each other even within their categories. This is the kind of list that's so hopelessly incomplete to be useful as well, with the hospital from one of the few shows I watch, The Good Doctor (TV series), missing. I mean, List of medical drama television programs can be lot better than junk like this even when the mostly-fictional hospitals are in fact significant parts of the stories. Reywas92^Talk 14:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - No indication that this concept passes WP:LISTN, and very few of these are actually notable enough to have independent articles - even the amount of blue links is misleading, as most of those do not actually link to articles on the stated institution at all. As Reywas92 stated, the concept of "institution" is hopelessly broad for such a list to be either feasible or useful. Rorshacma (talk) 19:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As currently laid out, it includes insane asylums, hospitals, research institutes, retirement homes, several types of government agencies, prisons, law enforcement agencies, paramilitary organizations, terrorist organizations, activist groups, international organizations and their sci-fi equivalents, political parties, secret societies, clubs, youth organizations, charity organizations, places of worship, libraries, "paranormal organizations", labor unions, professional associations, and sports leagues. Fails WP:SALAT as an incredibly vague list, unlike the more specific lists that cover some of the aforementioned "types". –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it is not correct that the subject of this list fails WP:LISTN (as in "a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources"). While there are many sources discussing fictional institutions of specific types (especially educational ones), a search in Google books also reveals secondary sources discussing the topic as a whole: "Fictional Institutions: On Radical Imagination", a multi-page essay on the topic; more specialized, The Renaissance Utopia p. 132 has a paragraph on fictional institutions in utopias; and Abject Spaces in American Cinema is a whole book on the portrayal and function of fictional institutions!, focussing on film; Fiktionalität has a chapter about fictional institutions starting on p. 485. @Piotrus, Qwaiiplayer, and Rorshacma: What do you think? Daranios (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that even those sources are still much more narrowly focused than the topic of this list, and don't really help the fact that this list, as it is presented, is too broad to be useful. For example, the book you link above very specifically is only defining its use of institutions as things such as prisons, hospitals, and asylums, and the Turn Turtle book appears to be specifically about art institutions. This list, on the other hand, is just a massive conglomeration of every possible definition or use that the word "institution" can refer to, and even the sources you bring up don't cover that broad of approach. As mentioned by a couple other already, there is merit in more concrete sub-topics having articles (and I would not be surprised if some of them already exist), but just the overall concept of an "institution" in general is just too broad of an approach to work. Rorshacma (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rorshacma: I have to disagree here in detail: The Turn Turtle book picks a Zoological Institute and the Enfield Tennis Academy as examples, so not specifically art institutions. In Abject Spaces in American Cinema, your three examples come from the introduction. Part I then adds very broadly "institutions that contribute to the development of a coherent adult identity", choosing high school and military boot camp as examples. Fiktionalität picks fictional corporations as examples. All three sources, however, make general statements about fictional institutions. How many different areas do you want covered? I'll grant one thing: The sources do not cover all imaginable types of institutions by name. So see my overall opinion below. Daranios (talk) 15:07, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rorshacma above. Each of these sources, while addressing fictional institutions, has a more specific definition of "institution" from what is being portrayed in this list. I'll stand by my !vote that this content should be covered in more narrowly defined lists of fictional organizations. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwaiiplayer: If you are in favor of "more narrowly defined" lists, would you consider supporting my suggestion to split rather than wholesale deletion? Daranios (talk) 15:07, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Daranios: This may be salvageable as a list of lists to compliment Category:Lists of fictional organizations, effectively splitting the content of this article into existing lists and new lists as needed. I'll change my !vote to detail my proposal. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:27, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this list does not pass WP:LISTN or WP:GNG. Many of the entries are WP:OR, and perhaps even the whole grouping is WP:OR. I do see some merit in the approach that Daranios is suggesting, but even the topic institutions in fiction is so abstract that I can't imagine it as anything other than a disambiguation page to more discrete topics (e.g.: hospitals in fiction and sports leagues in fiction, which are very different topics). Shooterwalker (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Institution" is far too vague a term. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A much too overbroad list that is so vague as to be difficult to maintain properly._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:35, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Split into definable types of institutions, in the spirit of the previous discussion, all the "too broad" arguments, and WP:AtD. As discussed above, there clearly are secondary sources which do discuss "fictional institutions" as a group, as suggested by WP:LISTN, which I therefore consider fullfilled (and thus WP:GNG). And purpose-wise such a list would make sense to help in navigation, one proper reason for the existence of lists. However I do agree that "instituion" is to vaguely defined to be ultimately helpful here. What is both managable and talked about in secondary sources are "medical institution". So at the least that part should be preserved by splitting it out. I also agree that the list we have now in general and the "medical institution" section contain examples where it is unclear why they are included. This is easily fixed (and AfD is not cleanup!) by limiting to blue links and those where secondary sources can be found. And merging the prisons, another type of fictional institution clearly present in secondary sources, to the existing List of fictional prisons. And if it should be decided that the medical institutions section should be the only one to be preserved, the best way probably would be to trim the rest and rename this list in order to preserve the history (and the other content in case someone wanted to use that in a proper way in the future). Daranios (talk) 15:07, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and convert to list of lists I agree with @Qwaiiplayer:. I suggest moving the notorious entries to more specific lists and turning that general list into a category. As you can see when accessing the articles contained in the list in question, several of them meet the WP:GNG Luidje (talk) 06:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still fails WP:SALAT with the extremely broad scope, and Rorshacma has shown what seem to me reasonable objections to approaching the problem from the angle of sourcing and notability. The fictional gangs' list may just be adequate, but this one is harder to defend. A list of lists will serve as an added burden and redundancy rather than a complement to the category; and there's no need to have two pages listing bluelinks if only one of them is self-maintaining. Avilich (talk) 15:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this is split into pieces, the pieces are going to come right back to AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 21:00, 20 December 2021 (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. Geschichte (talk) 06:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hyped España

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

Current references are just passing mentions. A lookup for "Hyped Espana" and "hyped.es" didn't yield any meaningful coverage. Fails WP:NCORP. MarioGom (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches turned up not enough to pass either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:42, 12 December 2021 (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/2021 December 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:06, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - previous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyped es. Please also note that User:Trembolomano has tried a few times to disrupt this AfD so please be on the lookout. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:06, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - falls way short on WP:CORPDEPTH, also doesn't seem to pass WP:NWEB Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:44, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments in the previous discussion. (t · c) buidhe 18:10, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Significant coverage in several independent reliable sources is required to demonstrate notability. I couldn't find anything. Brayan ocaner (talk) 22:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not have significant coverage to meet notability. Chelokabob (talk) 04:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no significant coverage. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 15:00, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to find any indications that the topic meets any of our notability criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:46, 19 December 2021 (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. While I note that the improvements to the article swayed a couple of individuals who argued to delete, it did not for many others, and most arguments to delete came after they took place. Given this, the consensus is that this is not a viable subject for an article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional gangs

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

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}}.

This is an indiscriminate, mostly unreferenced list that fails WP:GNG. The structure is an ad-hoc, messy ORish division into crime syndicates, crime families and clans, street gangs, motorcycle gangs, prison gangs, and even paramilitary organizations thrown in for good measure (in other words, the structure of the article is not grounded in any academic typology of gangs and is just amateurish and chaotic fancruft). There are no inclusion criteria, and the list includes numerous gangs that are just mentioned in passing in some works. For example, I am a fan of Shadowrun RPG and I even wrote the wikia entry on Shadowrun gangs - but to my surprise, most major SR gans are not on our list but we have the random entry for https://shadowrun.fandom.com/wiki/Kingston_Machine_Posse , a topic mentioned in passing in a minor game supplement. The argument that this is some sort of navigational aid cannot be taken seriously as the vast majority of gangs mentioned here are not notable, nor do they even redirect to a notable work. The amount of possible hoaxes contained here is hard to assess. While arguably the topic of gangs in fiction may be notable, this list is IMHO not salvageable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, overly broad definition of "gang" filled with non-notable groups. Many entries from TV are from a single episode and have no basis to group together. Reywas92^Talk 14:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have removed entries that don't have their own Wikipedia article. The number of those left with their own article is certainly enough to justify a navigational list. Dream Focus 18:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even with the cleanup that Dream Focus already did, the vast majority of these entries actually do not have their own articles - most of the blue links simply lead to broader articles on shows/characters/episodes/etc rather than an article on the "gangs" themselves. I can certainly see the potential for an actual prose article on fictional gangs, but this actual list fails WP:LISTN, and, again, as the number of blue links still remaining is extremely misleading in showing how few of these are actually notable enough for independent articles, it is not useful as a navigational list. Rorshacma (talk) 19:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR. Many of these entries are not even gangs, which is what happens when you create articles without any reliable third party sources. I wouldn't object to someone creating a coherent, discriminate article about one of these topics: for example, paramilitary organizations in fiction. But it would need to be written from scratch, as there is no reliable third party coverage to WP:PRESERVE from this list. In fact, there is no prose to preserve from this list at all. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 02:01, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Dream Focus is putting in some sweat work (my dad would call it "elbow grease") to get the list into good shape. A fine topic for such a list, as fictional gangs make up quite a large genre and cultural nitch portrayed as recently as the new West Side Story remake. Worth saving. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- “Sweat of the brow” is not a keep rationale. It is, however, a reason to found an underwater city according to some people. Dronebogus (talk) 09:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dronebogus: But it can be a keep rationale if the work involved leads to a case of WP:HEY. While I by no means want to say that the list as it is now is perfect, the changes did address and solve a major concern of the deletion nomination. Daranios (talk) 11:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NLIST. I see one list like it, by gamesradar.com. Not even Ranker has bothered to compile one. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:36, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NLIST and the fact that this is clearly unmaintainable OR fan craft. Plus, "fictional gang" is way to general of a topic to be useful or manageable. Maybe something like List of gangs in comic books might work, but even then probably not. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete indiscriminate fancruft. There is no strong definition of just “gang” besides “semi-organized group of criminals”. Does that make Lagoon Company a gang, or just a delivery company whose members are criminals? Is Gorillaz a gang because Murdoc Niccals is a criminal who basically used his bandmates as henchmen at certain points? What about all the times SpongeBob and friends got together to perform crimes? Maybe a list of notable fictitious organized crime gangs would be useful as part of an article on organized crime in fiction, but not this. Dronebogus (talk) 10:22, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks references supporting that WP:NLIST is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MrsSnoozyTurtle: But the current lack of references is not decisive for a deletion decision. It is the question if WP:LISTN can be met, because such secondary sources exist. Please see my listing of such sources below. Daranios (talk) 11:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One of those lists that is just better off as a category._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:29, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination says "that this is some sort of navigational aid cannot be taken seriously as the vast majority of gangs mentioned here are not notable, nor do they even redirect to a notable work". This is no longer the case after the major clean-up, so I think it qualifies as a navigational aid for those interested in the topic. As they are treated elsewhere on Wikipedia, that they are not referenced here is not a major concern, and the primary sources are given anyway. The fact that the formating may not be great is no valid grounds for deletion, because it is something that can be improved. As for the notability, at the very least we have this full PhD thesis dealing with the topic of fictional gangs. Daranios (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Make an actual article on the topic then, don’t waste time with this wp:listcruft and vague claims about its “navigational” purpose (which as I’ve said before is basically a synonym for WP:ITSUSEFUL at this point). Lists are nowhere near as useful or informative as an in-depth article; they’re just easy to make and inflate to an impressive size. They should be the exception, not the norm. Dronebogus (talk) 15:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dronebogus: Nope, navigation is neither a vague claim nor "basically a synonym for WP:ITSUSEFUL", because the relevant Wikipedia guideline tells us navigation is one of the three main purposes lists serve here. As for a prose article, I think it would be good to have one. But how does deletion of this list bring us one iota closer towards that? So it seems to me your argument in this regard is a case of WP:OTHERSTUFF. Daranios (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Manual of Style does not take precedence over the relevant notability guideline. Also, Wikipedia has categories for this purpose. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MrsSnoozyTurtle: True, and I did not say otherwise. But if push comes to shove, the Manual of Style as a guideline does take precedence over WP:Listcruft as an essay (though I don't think that that essay would require this list's deletion either). And I wanted to show that the purpose of navigation is not my personal opinion but grounded in the guideline. About the serious question of notability: I have already pointed out the PhD thesis, Clarityfiend has pointed out the online article. Searching a bit more, the book Gangs and Gang Crime has an 8-page chapter about "Gangs in Fiction and Film". With these I consider WP:GNG for the topic of "fictional gangs" fullfilled, and with this also WP:LISTN for our list here. Just to cement this further, there are two books on Google where the subject appears, though I cannot see the extension of the treatment: [36], [37], as well as a number more which talk about specific instances of fictional gangs. As for "Wikipedia has categories for this purpose", another of Wikipedia's guidelines says: "Overlapping categories, lists and navigation templates are not considered duplicative". Daranios (talk) 11:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yeah, there is also the book Youth Gangs in Literature as put forward by Andrew D. in the last deletion discussion. Daranios (talk) 11:53, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios You are confusing the possibly notable article topic gangs in fiction with the non-notable indiscriminate fancruft listicle of list of gangs in fiction. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: I don't think I do: WP:N says "list topics must be notable". What's the topic of our list here? Fictional gangs! WP:LISTN says "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources,... notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." Secondary sources discuss the topic or group of "fictional gangs"/"gangs in fiction" (plural), as discussed above. If then the topic gangs in fiction is notable, then a list of such gangs appearing on Wikipedia is covered with regard to notability based on both relevant sections of WP:N. Of course in addition we have to take care that such a list does not become indiscriminate. But the efforts of Dream Focus have led to only having blue links, i.e. limiting our list to fictional gangs covered on Wikipedia either in their own article or as part of the article of "a notable work", as you have put it. Daranios (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That a topic is notable doesn't mean a list of related items is. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: I think that is exactly what WP:N/WP:LISTN means. I have quoted the passages which say so. Daranios (talk) 12:22, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your reading. Common sense dictates that for each topic there are zillions lists we should not have. Which is why quite a few lists get deleted. Lists are not sacrosanct and need to demonstrate that they are in scope of the project. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my reading would mean that from a notability point of view we could create one list for each topic where notability is also established for a non-list-article. But that's not yet zillions. And most topics preclude themselves. A list of Abraham Lincolns does not make any sense. A List of presidents of the United States does. And we have other criteria which prevent us from having too many lists and which lead to lists sometimes being deleted. Daranios (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But a list of all works of fiction that mention Lincoln does not, not unless you can show me that such a topic is of interest to scholars or other reliable sources (with reliable authors attempting to compile such lists). I guess that's where we differ - in absence of reliable sources with such lists, the list of works mentioning Lincoln IMHO has no place on Wikipedia. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:22, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: As I still feel slightly misunderstood, I'll take you up on your example: First, let's not talk about any mere mention. That would be indiscriminate and is therefore excluded by other policies. My reading of the guideline does not mean that as Abraham Lincoln is notable, so we can create a list of his appearances in fiction. But if there are secondary sources dealing with "depictions of Abraham Lincoln in fiction", then we can create such a list in accordance with WP:LISTN. And, lo and behold, such a list exists. It's simply not called "List of..." but Cultural depictions of Abraham Lincoln. Daranios (talk) 09:34, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And it badly needs rewriting from the mostly unreferenced list format into prose. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:14, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation, I appreciate the effort. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, and every time an AfD includes such good faith language it should be corrected, and hopefully all closers have the guideline tattooed on their bicep: "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative. Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." Randy Kryn (talk) 21:45, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Except articles still need to meet GNG. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:59, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability#Why_we_have_these_requirements Because these requirements are based on major content policies, they apply to all articles, not solely articles justified under the general notability criteria. They do not, however, apply to pages whose primary purpose is navigation (e.g. all disambiguation pages and some lists).

Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone_lists There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.

So two places in the Notability guideline page it says you don't need to meet the GNG if you are a navigational list, which is clearly what this is. Dream Focus 11:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But this is a list of X, not list of X of Y. And lists of X have to meet GNG. Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Basically TNT for this unsourced FANCRUFT magnet. In what world does "Jabba the Hutt’s criminal empire" (no actual article for said "empire") belong with the Baker Street Irregulars in a directory? The practice of wikilinking real organized crime outfits here also muddies the waters further. Most of the bluelinks are in fact redirects to more unsourced content. I could definitely see an article on "Organized crime in fiction" that discusses the cultural portrayals of such with academic sourcing, but for the keepers, do tell, what is really worth saving here? Also rather dubious and reductive to sort street gangs by race without sourcing which discusses the significance of that. Race and its importance for gangs is usually a contextual matter i.e. who gives a shit if the Baker Street Irregulars are "European", they're based in 1800s London. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FANCRUFT is an essay and has no standing whatsoever as a policy or guideline. It basically can be replaced every time with "I don't like it". Many editors like fancruft, others don't, but neither have the weight of formal Wikipedia language. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is useful shorthand to describe what this article is. If I said the article was "garbage" I don't think I'd get a lecture about it. Try WP:OR. How about WP:LISTN for the lack of notability for a bunch of these gangs? That and the fact that this is so broad were the main thrusts of my comment. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.cnet.com/news/the-book-of-boba-fett-will-apparently-address-his-return-of-the-jedi-survival/ and other sources appear when I search for "Jabba the Hutt" and "criminal empire". That is what it is even if no Wikipedia articles use that specific terminology. Dream Focus 23:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Indy beetle: I have added one secondary source that supports the distinction of organized crime/street gangs by ethnicity as a start. Daranios (talk) 13:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Gangs in fiction and rewrite accordingly. There is an academic basis for this topic (sources have been provided), but this list is nothing but a crapshoot of what various drive-by editors saw on TV the other night, and in its current form I'd bet money it will stay that way. -Indy beetle (talk) 14:09, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would like to express my congratulations to @Dream Focus: for the excellent work done. In my view, the case here is simple: it serves WP:GNG because "it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Luidje (talk) 04:57, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, where? A small portion of the article is referenced to sources that do confirm that such and such a work had a criminal organization. The Star Wars one doesn't even seem to mention the word gang ([38]). This is just as bad as it was when it was AfDed, quality wise (it has bene pruned, but the only acceptable pruning here is total, I am afraid). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:02, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. -Indy beetle (talk) 11:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus:: 1- If you think that a part of the article is not covered by enough sources, just remove it. According to WP:RUBBISH: "In the Wiki model, an article which may currently be poorly written, poorly formatted, lack sufficient sources, or not be a comprehensive overview of the subject, can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws. That such an article is lacking in certain areas is a relatively minor problem, and such articles can still be of benefit to Wikipedia. In other words, the remedy for such an article is cleanup, not deletion."

2- And, if you didn't find the exact word in the sources, remember that human communication is formulated through concepts and semantics is much more important than searching for one or another term. Thus, according to WP:RUBBISH: "Some articles have well-written text and references. But the one thing poor about them is the title. There is a simple solution to this: rename it! If you are not able to move the article yourself for one reason or another, request someone else do it rather than nominate the whole article for deletion."

3- I repeat, the case here is simple: it serves WP:GNG because "it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Luidje (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but only because no evidence of notability (WP:NLIST) has been provided. If someone shows this grouping meets WP:GNG, please ping me and I'll flip my !vote (alternatively the closer can regard my vote as "Keep" if evidence of GNG has been provided).VR _talk 18:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC) I see now that Daranios has provided multiple sources that show that WP:NLIST is met.VR _talk 23:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You link to WP:NLIST but did you read the second paragraph? Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Dream Focus 19:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vice regent: That discussion notwithstanding, did you have a look at the secondary sources already provided which in my view show that WP:LISTN is already fullfilled. Daranios (talk) 20:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: Re "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." Which one of those do you think is being satisfied with this list? --Adamant1 (talk) 05:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Navigational since it helps people find articles if they are searching for this. If its a valid category, Category:Fictional gangs, then its valid information to have on a list. Lists offer more information than a category does, so are more useful.

I have removed plenty of bad entries. Proper editing to fix problems, instead of outright deletion, is always the best choice. Dream Focus 05:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saying it's always the best choice to not delete a list article is a bit of a stretch. Obviously there are cases where deletion is the prefered outcome. No know does any guideline say "keep every list article no matter what." That aside though, it's laughable at best to say this helps as a navigational aid. I clicked on several links a while ago and they went to articles that had nothing to do with the gangs that the link was suppose to be for. How exactly is being sent to a bunch of articles that have nothing to do with the topic of the list navigationally helpful to any one?

Obviously Category:Fictional gangs exists, but WP:CLNT says "each method of organizing information has its own advantages and disadvantages, and is applied for the most part independently of the other methods following the guidelines and standards that have evolved on Wikipedia for each of these systems." The sentence makes it clear that we aren't suppose to recreate categories as lists just for their own sake, without considering the specific guidelines and standards for lists. So just being like "keep because category" isn't really valid on it's own or really at all IMO. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If there are any bad links left then they can be removed, as I have already done with all the bad entries I saw [39]. Many of these fictional gangs have their own articles, and others are mentioned significantly in the main article for the series, so are valid to be on the list. Dream Focus 08:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"It's a valid category so it's a valid list" is a bad argument. Who wants to try turning Category:20th-century men into a list? -Indy beetle (talk) 07:09, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dream Focus:, you don’t have to WP:BLUDGEON the argument. Everyone knows your case for keeping, talking it to death won’t help it. Dronebogus (talk) 07:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly focus on the discussion not individuals. You made your ridiculous Bludgeon claim back when I had only posted my keep reason and responded to others in two places. [40] Others have posted more than me, but you only target me for some reason. Dream Focus 08:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That was partially on me for asking Dream Focus the question. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:22, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Who is actually going to read this? I saw the gang from GoldenEye. Who cares about that. I mean really, who cares. It is so byzantine as to be almost obscure, in way that is absolutly useless to the general readership. I can't think of a single scenario where this information will be useful. It is essentially taking a plot point to give setting and then including it in the article. Certainly some of them have a genuine existance and have been spun into news plots and have articles here describing the,. But it is so information poor and shallow, who is going to use it? It is poorest type of cruft that is possible to imagine, useless to 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the population. Delete per WP:NLIST. scope_creep^Talk 12:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: Aside from that fact that this type of argument is discouraged in deletion discussions, the numbers don't seem to support your opinion: The page gets an average of 117 hits per day according to this page. So it's interesting to some. From what I've read, that's ca. 0.00004 % of Wikipedia's hits, meaning that 99.99996 % look for something else, not your much higher number. If we have 300 Mio. hits per day and about 6 Mio pages, that would mean an average ofabout 50 hits per day per page. So this page is of interest to more persons than the average Wikipedia page. Daranios (talk) 14:24, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Daranios: That may be so, and I'm suprised, but you have not presented any evidence to say why 117 are coming down every day and viewing the page, merely the fact that is happening, and that still confirms my statement, that for vast majority of people, it is useless. I would suggest it is similar to viewing some bizarre sight, off the main path. The article could sit on any fancruft site on the internet, quite happily, without impacting part of Wikipedia. It doesn't change my statement. It still fails WP:NLIST. scope_creep^Talk 16:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: In what way is the existence of our list here impacting Wikipedia negatively? I cannot say why those people are coming here, but strongly suspect because they want to know what Wikipedia has to offer in terms of fictional gangs, i.e. navigation. Do you have any evidence otherwise? Lastly, you say our list here fails WP:NLIST. That guideline requires that the topic "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". As listed above, there are such sources, that's why I think WP:NLIST is fullfilled. Daranios (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Which reliable source out there presents a list of gangs? In the form of a, well, a list? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the source must be in the exact language "List of fictional gangs" or it should be tossed out. Seriously, Wikipedia is not a battleground or talk show or a courtroom where adversaries spin evidence to favor a narrative, so when totally clarifying common sense reliable sources come to light, with 'delete' arguments proven incorrect (i.e. 117 people view the page daily offsets "nobody reads this") that maybe should be enough sometimes for everyone to say "cool, another page saved" and move on. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: I also find this reading weird. And am wondering if this is the best place or if this should rather be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Notability. But I can't help myself so: WP:LISTN says ". One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". The "list topic" here is "fictional gangs", not "a list of fictional gangs", otherwise it would need to be called "Lists of fictional gangs". This is made extra clear in the guideline which says "whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs"". So we could just as well call our list here Fictional gangs in accordance with the guideline. Would not change the topic. Your reading would mean that prose sources about fictional gangs would have to be discounted, while listicles, frequently derided in deletion discussions (though not by me), would be the perfect secondary sources to establish notability of lists. That can hardly have been the intention. Also, a major purpose of lists on Wikipedia is navigation. Such a purpose is usually absent for lists existing in secondary sources. Why then should we require discussions in listform from secondary sources before we are allowed to write a list here? And nowhere in the guideline is there any mention of a listform. Daranios (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article has noting on the notable topic of gangs in fiction. Fancrufty listicles of trivia in place of proper analysis are a childhood diseases of Wikipedia that we need to outgrow the sooner the better. Part of the cure is removing the infected disease like such unsourced ORish lists of trivia, to be replaced with proper prose grounded in reliable sources. Look at any regular encyclopedia - they sport no such lists. Which is why they are seen as serious works. As for the numbers of people visiting the page, it's irrelevant - we don't know how many, if any, find it useful. (Shame the community didn't approve proposals to allow readers to rate our pages, sigh). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:20, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you hate certain topics with so much passion (other editors do like them you know) maybe you shouldn't be editing within a mile of any of them. Please consider that, thanks. Anyway, WP:FANCRUFT is an essay, the opinion of some but not all editors, and has nothing to do with reasoning for Wikipedia to delete even one article. It's a false criteria, and knowing this should be in the closer instruction manual tattoo. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: The guideline as it is now does not seem to share your take on this, presumably reflecting majority consensus. Most other encyclopedias are not online and interlinked the way Wikipedia is (or have as many articles), so other encyclopedias have no or less need for lists that help in navigation. Daranios (talk) 09:34, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which guideline? I believe GNG and LISTN do not support this list. Unless you are arguing for it as a purely navigational aid? If i tis rewritten and links solely to entries from Category:Fictional gangs then we could consider such an argument. Right now it is still 95% "non-notable gangs mentioned in passing in various works, plus some fictional non-gangs criminal or terrorist organizations added for no good reason". WP:TNT applies, although if User:Dream Focus were to finishish the rewrite, we could consider saving this. Otherwise they or you can copy the list to their sandbox and finish the work there (we could even draftify this). Again, if no cleanup is performed, TNT applies (no, this is not a case of AFDNOTCLEANUP, since there's next to nothing useful in the current fancrufty and unreferenced list of trivia, IMHO at least). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: As explained, I believe both WP:GNG and WP:LISTN, due to existing secondary sources on the topic of the list, allow for a List of fictional gangs. So there is not reason on grounds of notability to delete our list here. What remains is the question: Is the current version a reasonable start towards a decent version of such a list, which can be improved through further editing, or is it rather a case of WP:TNT, because it does not contain elements which we would find in a good version of such a list? I've done one part of the legwork and have counted 13 fictional gangs here wich have their own article (or one less if you discount SPECTRE). Not an enormous number, but my personal take would be that a list makes sense with 10+ entries for navigation purposes, and usefullness can be discussed between 5 and 10. We are beyond that arbitrary point. It seems the smaller part of those 13 is in Category:Fictional gangs, meaning the current version already allows for help in navigation the category currently does not provide. Ideally, both should be used to complete the other in future editing, expanding its use in navigation (the category has 15 full articles). Many more entries are discussed within other articles in Wikipedia (for seven of them, the name of the gang and the work it appears in have the same name). I think someone interested in the topic of fictional gangs will want to see those links (which the category cannot generally provide). Entries which do not appear elsewhere on Wikipedia and are not sourced should be removed. So in conclusion, yes, I think this list should be kept for navigation purposes. It does have content which would be included in a "good" list of fictional gangs. It is imperfect, but its flaws can be remove through editing. So it is not a case of WP:TNT. Daranios (talk) 11:44, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not cleanup. Its to determine if an article is valid based on what its about, not its current state. You use the talk page of the article to discuss what should be in it. Dream Focus 16:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To answer the question, "who is going to read this?" I don't know, and you don't either. What I do know is that our readers find it and use it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons articulated by Luidje.

As to the persistent discussion here, WP:COAL might stifle some of this. Repetition extends the discussion needlessly, and makes it tend toward acrimony. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subjective fancruft, WP:NLIST. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 15:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NOT. ––FormalDude ^talk 08:38, 23 December 2021 (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 Gairsain. In the future, redirects and merges should be discussed on the appropriate talk pages - not here at articles for deletion.

Please merge any relevant information to the Gairsain article and redirect accordingly.

Thanks so much everyone. Happy holidays. Missvain (talk) 16:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bhararisen

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

There appear to be quite a few sources that indicate that this might be the same location as Gairsain. These include The Indian Express, Times Now News, Asian News International, and The Quint. As a result, I believe that this article should be redirected to Gairsain, since the two articles appear to be referring to the same thing using an alternate name. — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:58, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is a place as you can see in OpenStreetMap wich is named Bhararisain instead of Bhararisen because it it translated from Hindi language to English.- https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=Bhararisain#map=12/30.0955/79.2648 Or you can see here with same problem in name https://wap.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/areas-between-gairsain-bhararisain-to-be-developed-as-smart-114110401051_1.html 2409:4063:431F:BEC0:E3EA:DBFE:401:F5E0 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:35, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Per this article on the capital announcement, it is a place near the Gairsain town and assembly building is located there. This page from a state govt agency has a map too showing the two separately. Neither establish notability though. I've updated the page to make this somewhat clear. --Hemanthah (talk) 05:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Gairsain. Can be a subsection there. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:23, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per User:Pilaz.

Thanks everyone for participating. Unhappy with this decision? If one wishes to renominate this article with another policy-based rationale, they are able to do so. I will defer to other administrators to review it. I will not re-review my decision. Happy holidays. Missvain (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rwanda–Spain relations

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

The page doesn't talk about anything special, only things that you would expect from two unrelated countries. Philosophy2 (talk) 07:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The relations do not seem notable, however some of this is a possible merge to International response to the Rwandan genocide per WP:PRESERVE. Geschichte (talk) 13:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Like Geschichte has said, much of the relation that has made coverage relates to the Rwandan genocide. Spain sent 20 blue helmets in the aftermath ([41]), but most of the spat between Kigali and Madrid has happened in 2008, when a Spanish judge decided to prosecute 40 Rwandans for genocide ([42]), and the Rwandan media picked up the affair during the visit of a Spanish high-ranking diplomat ([43]). In 2010, Spain's PM Zapatero boycotted a meeting chaired by the Rwandan president ([44]) and sought extradition of a Rwandan from South Africa ([45]), which Rwanda opposed. After Spain reformed its laws on universal jurisdiction under a new conservative government, the case was dismissed in 2015. ([46]). Relations have warmed since then, with Spain identifying Rwanda as a key country of economic interest for Spain's Africa strategy ([47]), and the signing of a memorandum of understanding to increase bilateral cooperation between the two countries in 2020 ([48]). With the sources I have provided, I think this article meets the GNG - and that's without delving into the relations between the two countries around the time of the genocide. Pilaz (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pilaz, interesting findings! Geschichte (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:33, 13 December 2021 (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. To be honest, the sourcing isn't convincing as it is, but, I also feel there is more out there and that an interesting article about architecture, history and policing could be built here.

However, if people want to propose merging, please do so on the appropriate talk pages.

Nothing convinced me that this article needs to be deleted, but, I'm not convinced this article doesn't need to be merged or kept as is right now. We need more significant coverage, but, WP:BASIC could help and I haven't seen that case presented yet.

I encourage others to expand this article and if all else fails, present a merge or re-present this to AfD and I will recuse myself in reviewing.

Thank you for respecting this good faith decision. This is my final decision. Happy holidays. Missvain (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbour Square police station

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

I do not see that an individual police station is likely to be notable; I see no evidence that this one is. DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Arbour Square. Some individual police stations are likely individually notable, the question is whether this one is. There are some sources available which mention it, but the only ones I've found that go into any depth are [49] and [50] which focus on it being used by squatters (which should probably be mentioned if this is kept). Either [51] or (less likely) [52] may have some more information but Google isn't showing me enough of the book to say for sure. Overall notability seems borderline, so with an obvious merge target it isn't going to overwhelm that seems the best option. Thryduulf (talk) 20:51, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Metropolitan Police divisional headquarters are generally pretty notable. As can be seen from Streetview, this is a pretty substantial building. Easily enough sourcing available to meet GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:38, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Is "pretty substantial building" acritrion or notability ? DGG ( talk ) 19:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Arbour Square. Fits nicely there and has little substantial sourcing on its own. Sandstein 09:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added some more sources and merging to Arbour Square isn't as nice as I thought at first because the building is to the north of the square, not on it. Mujinga (talk) 03:05, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 07:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It took me all of ten minutes on Google to determine that this subject is notable. This should not have been nominated three times. 80.247.89.52 (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:SIGCOV. A spot check of the references showed that two were area surveys and two were passing mention of the station in regarding to squatting. Blue Riband► 12:31, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as there is enough coverage to show notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I took my time to read the coverage presented by Astig and it all helps the article qualify for GNG and WP:NALBUM. It's all coverage related to their new album, and I'm sure there is more out there if folks do their due diligence in Spanish-language resources.

Thanks everyone for participating. Unhappy with this decision? If one wishes to renominate this article with another policy-based rationale, they are able to do so. I will defer to other administrators to review it. I will not re-review my decision. Happy holidays. Missvain (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hacia Adentro

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

No indication of notability to meet WP:NALBUM. Htanaungg (talk) 08:57, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 08:57, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 08:57, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Ten years ago this band were huge multi-platinum selling stars in Mexico, and I'm amazed at how quickly they seem to have fallen into obscurity. I can't even find any evidence that this album sold well in Mexico, let alone in other countries, and the two good sources in the article are promotional interviews by the duo. I wouldn't write this off completely, given their history, but unless I can find some better sources, a redirect to the band's article would be the best option. Richard3120 (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This album didn't get enough airplay on the Mexican AC Radio Stations, additionally zero plays for the Spanish AC and CHR stations in the USA. The Reggaeton/Latin Trap takeover are one of the main causes that brought Latin pop hits down the charts in the last few years. And to this day it continues to decline in mainstream popularity. A few artists and bands in Mexico are trying to adapt to the new generation. Take Reik and Julieta Venegas for example. But although the album was successful in Spain and got a fair amount of airplay on Cadena Dial such as "Hacia Adentro" and "Sobreviviendo." Salv007 (talk) 20:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Salv007 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
- But we need some proof that the album was "successful", as you say. Yes, Latin pop has disappeared in the same way that pop in the USA and Europe has been overtaken by R&B and hip hop... in Colombia where I live, stars such as Shakira and Carlos Vives now collaborate with reggaeton stars in order to remain relevant. Richard3120 (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources in the article (except the one from Sony Music, which is primary) seem reliable. I found some more reliable sources which talk about the album: [53], [54], [55], [56], [57] and [58]. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- One of them is a concert review, the others are all promotional interviews by the band to publicize the album's release. None of them are actually about the album. Richard3120 (talk) 15:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Camila discography. I still don't see anything that talks about this album in any detail, and it doesn't appear to have charted anywhere. Richard3120 (talk) 15:55, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NALBUM with sources presented by Astig. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 00:08, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- But they aren't independent, and don't tell you a single thing about the album apart from what the band themselves think of it. Richard3120 (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Who cares what you think? They're definitely reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:07, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Errrr... the whole point of an AfD is for other editors to give their opinions? And I'm not questioning that the sources are reliable ones... I'm saying they're not independent, because these are WP:PRIMARY interviews with the band, promoting their own album. Richard3120 (talk) 18:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 07:49, 13 December 2021 (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 Zendaya discography. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Swag It Out

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Self-released single with little to no non-trivial published works independent of the artist. Single did not chart. Cjhard (talk) 06:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cjhard (talk) 06:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zendaya discography. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:08, 18 December 2021 (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. Nothing presented here has convinced me that the subject passes WP:GNG. The sourcing in the article is either a passing mention in a promotional piece in local media or all primary sources. Perhaps it is WP:TOOSOON.

Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Biman Liyanage

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

Non-notable person - lacks SIGCOV from third party sources. Refs are mostly speaker profiles. KH-1 (talk) 06:04, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think it qualifies WP:GNG, and also has a couple of sources. ― Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 07:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think it may end up being WP:TOOSOON, but there isn't sufficient third-party coverage to to merit a Wikipedia article. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:29, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have some WP:MILL activities and a few early-career awards that do not contribute much to notability. The Sunday Observer piece is a small start, but falls far short of WP:SIGCOV. As it is cross-listed to Academic deletion sorting, I will comment that there is no sign of WP:NPROF. The article right now indeed borders on WP:A7. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sadman Sameer

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

Non-notable actor. Has been in films (two have been released, two have been unreleased for 6+ years), music videos, and TV commercials, but none of them are notable, and his roles have attracted no more notice than: "Sadman Samir is playing the central character in the film", "Actor Sadman Samir, ... acted as models in this song", "The central characters in the ad are Sadman Samir and ..." (Google translations from Bengali). Searches of the usual types, in English and Bengali, found nothing in reliable sources deeper than similar press release-driven passing mentions.[59][60][61][62]

Without significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, does not meet GNG. Without significant roles in notable productions (or unique, prolific, or innovative contributions), does not meet WP:NACTOR. May become notable some day, but for now is WP:TOOSOON. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 05:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 05:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Zero significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 01:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteClearly doesn't meet any notability guideline. Brayan ocaner (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2021 (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 all. There is consensus that these articles should be procedurally kept to prevent a trainwreck, with some people suggesting that some of the articles included in the nomination could be renominated individually. (non-admin closure) — Coolperson177 (t|c) 15:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of religious converts

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

These lists are purely WP:LISTCRUFT and collection of WP:INDISCRIMINATE or trivial lists. Per WP:NOT I don't see any encyclopedic value in these lists and can't find any proper WP:RS preserving such lists.

Contrary to WP:LISTCRUFT which say "In general, a "List of X" stand-alone list article should only be created if X itself is a legitimate encyclopedic topic that already has its own article", we have List of converts to Hinduism from Islam, but no Conversion to Hinduism from Islam. We have List of converts to Islam from Christianity but no Conversion to Islam from Christianity. We also have List of converts to Islam but no Conversion to Islam (a redirect), and we have List of converts to Sikhism but no Conversion to Sikhism.

While it is clear that most of the listed names on these articles had no effect of religion on their career and many of the sources used on these lists are now prohibited by WP:RSPS, another major issue with the maintenance of these lists is that we will never have a proper criterion as the subject of 'conversion' is not unambiguous. Here are the problems that editors including me have faced while maintaining these lists:

If the person is alive (WP:BLP) then the entry should comply with WP:BLPCAT but other editors argue that if no sources dispute the information of a said conversion then it should be included.
If a person is not alive, then the entry should ensure WP:V is met, but it happens often that one account is contradicted by another account and the said source is not qualified enough to make an assertion about the conversion. Most of the time the source is not explicit about the conversion let alone identifying how the conversion happened.
If a person is either alive or dead and the source assessed conversion by judging the traits or works concerning the individual but the information would itself fail WP:UNDUE if presented on the person's main article.

These are some of the few reasons that result in endless edit wars on these pages and no agreement is ever reached and the pages are left in poor shape.

It is also unclear that what really counts as a 'conversion'. Does it mean that a person is supposed to take birth in a religious family or they should adhere to a particular religion before they convert to another religion? Even if either requirement is not fulfilled, there are sources that would speculate something only by judging the surnames or background of the said person. What if people like Cheryl Spector, Noah Wyle, Salman Khan, and others were raised or followed more than 1 faith but a source happens to focus only on 1 of their faiths?

If information about a 'conversion' is necessary then it is best maintained on the individual's own article instead of using these lists that are prone to disruption. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 04:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paganism-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and discuss more individual lists before AfD Personally I am not fond of any lists, but those help in help of research subject better
a) Prima facie AfD seems to have come from fatigue of Wikipedia norms not being properly followed and edit wars. I doubt whether fatigue can be reason for deletion. Wikipedia is not perfect and always under development project with lot many imperfections and edit wars. Edit wars on wikipedia re just not going to end with delisting the lists rather people will end up doing more edit wars on main article page spending all their time at one place and that will be much more headache.
Article Religious conversion which has religion wise sections. There is more than enough academic literature on why do people convert from one religion to another. Some associate articles likely to exist in other names which nom may not have investigated in detail. For example List of converts to Buddhism from Hinduism is associated with Dalit Buddhist movement
C) For List of Muslim apostates associated encyclopedic articles are available and there edit wars are too minor.
d) Discussions on talk pages out of edit wars can lead to better research on the topics and improvement in Wikipedia in long run.
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 05:27, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason for leaving out List of former Buddhists and List of former Hindus from this AfD by the nom? --Bringtar (talk) 07:29, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Must be an oversight. El_C 14:11, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I missed them but both of them nominated now. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 17:12, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added to WP:CENT. El_C 14:11, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: Any particular reason for that? This AfD doesn't seem to be of more projectwide interest than any other. Sandstein 16:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandstein: a decision involving tens of pages (it's in the parenthesis). El_C 16:05, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nomination. The few names that exist in most of the list owes to the improper sourcing. Now if we were to apply the requirement of self-admission backed by WP:RS for living people than gossip news sites and high quality WP:RS for those who are not alive then we will see barely see any names on these lists. Azuredivay (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep these aren't listcruft because Religious conversion is definitely an encyclopedic topic, including numerous subtopics e.g. Conversion to Christianity, Conversion to Judaism, Apostasy in Islam, Conversion to Islam in prisons, etc. (WP:LISTCRUFT is in any case an essay with no formal standing.) Sure, we don't have an article on conversion to Sikhism, but that doesn't make it an unencyclopedic topic. Religion forms a large part of many people's lives and converting from one religion to another can be a life-transforming event. There is an obvious standard to use for inclusion: the existence of a reliable source which says that the subject converted between those religions. If people really are ignoring the verifiability and BLP policies in discussions about those articles then that's not a good reason to delete them. Hut 8.5 18:42, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with nominator. Not much encyclopedic value added. I would also add List of former Baháʼís to the list. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:59, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just as an example there are many, many sources about John Henry Newman's conversion from Anglicanism to Roman Catholicism and it is unarguably one of the more pivotal moments in the modern history of Christianity in the United Kingdom. While List of converts to Catholicism is not directly subject to this AfD, it is a good example of a case where having these lists are useful. Newman is notable for many things, but one of the things he is most notable for is being the single most prominent convert from the Church of England to the Church of Rome since Henry VIII. A list article provides readers with this knowledge, and allows them to read more about him.
To apply the same principle to the other pages - it isn't reasonable to expect people to review every list in this bundled AfD. They will be of varying quality and sourcing. That does not mean that the concept behind them does not fall within our criteria for inclusion, and that they don't provide a value to the reader. There are people, such as Newman, in every religion, who are notable because of the fact of their conversion. Having lists of people like this is a benefit to the reader, and undoubtably falls within our inclusion criteria, which is The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Any cursory source of Google will show that the concept of converts to a religious group has had many academic books written on it. It's a pivotal part of the human experience for many people. Of course they are notable as lists. Some of the above probably could be merged, but that doesn't take AfD to do. Keep, clean-up to meet policy, and merge as needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge While the OP has a point with regard to the lists of converts from x to y, I fail to see the basis for over-extendeding it to the first 6 (lists of converts to each religion) and last 5 (lists of former religious individuals from each religion). While there are no articles about converting from each religion to the other, there are plenty of articles about conversion to, and apostasy from, each religion (as well as articles like: Off the derech, Covenant-breaker, Backsliding, Ex-Muslims, Epikoros, Kafir, Tirthika, etc.).
However, there is no reason or basis for having each permutation/combination. Therefore, those lists should be merged into the others, which can be arranged to have the individuals sorted by which religion (or non-religion) they converted to/from. Aside from being the right option, it makes for a nice compromise between keep and delete. As far as the OPs other issues regarding sources and ambiguity, those are not reasons to delete, they are general issues that should be delt with as they are on any other page. Yaakovaryeh (talk) 04:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge per Yaakovaryeh. "Conversion to Religion X", especially when it's a religion with a formal conversion process (such as Judaism and some Christian denominations) seems entirely encyclopedic, and we have plenty of those articles (Conversion to Judaism, Conversion to Catholicism, Conversion to Buddhism). I don't object to Y to X style articles but they could be merged into "to X", optionally with sections for each source religion, if others do. Rusalkii (talk) 05:17, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Categorify - Maybe these aren't enough for standalone lists, but would likely be just fine as, or moved into, categories (ex. pages linked in List of converts to Christianity being added to the category https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Converts_to_Christianity if they weren't already) wizzito | say hello! 09:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per WP:TRAINWRECK. There might be a case for one or two being individually non-notable, which can be discussed on their own. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia has no lists like List of former straight people, List of gays who became straight, List of non-vegetarians who became vegetarian, List of former non-vegetarians. There should be no exception for these indiscriminate lists. 122.170.51.88 (talk) 14:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This IP's 15th edit ever. Also you can't turn gay or straight, there no way to transform yourself. And a vegetarian is not the same as a religious experience. Dream Focus 16:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't comparable because the conversion process isn't an encyclopedic topic in its own right. Except for Coming out I suppose, but since basically every LGBT person comes out at some point a list of people who have come out as LGBT would just be a list of LGBT people. By contrast we have plenty of articles about religious conversion. Hut 8.5 18:30, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is a horribly flawed argument. There is no such thing as becoming straight. NW1223(^{Howl at me}/_{My hunts}) 01:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Reliable sources do cover this notable aspect about a person's life. Dream Focus 16:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per WP:TRAINWRECK. Most of those meet WP:NLIST, and for those that don't they need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Some of these articles might need re-organization by geography instead of by former religion. For example, I couldn't find much RS for the topic of "Conversion to Islam from nontheism", but I did find RS for topics of "Conversion to Islam in the US"[63], "Conversion to Islam in the UK"[64][65] etc.VR _talk 16:54, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all mainly per WP:TRAINWRECK. The list of nominated articles looks like a cherry-pick as it misses significant articles like List of converts to Catholicism – which has 435 references and doesn't fit the narrative of LISTCRUFT made in the nomination statement. Perhaps the lists of converts to X from Y could be merged or deleted, but that should be a separate AfD. – SD0001 (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep per WP:TRAINWRECK as above. There's far too many articles being considered here. I think that some individual articles might warrant deletion if brought to an individual AfD, but there's no way to reasonable review all of these articles to see if they are notability or not with so many bundled nominations, especially when the articles vary in quality. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 20:39, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The articles have different quality with one another, and mass deletion of them will be wrong. That said, people converting are clearly notable issues, WP:RS in some countries would cover it well. SunDawn talk 22:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Far too many !votes above fall squarely into either WP:ILIKEIT or WP:ITSUSEFUL. While conversion is a notable issue (as the general topic articles Hut 8.5 links to demonstrate) individual conversions are not unless the convert is notable solely or significantly because of their conversion. Any such cases (which are a tiny minority) Should be merged into the parent article. These articles are characterized by large amounts of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH as well as WP:UNDUE emphasis on individual faith decisions that are not defining features of a person's life. The sourcing has also been abysmal, with many non-WP:RS and frequent lack of verifiable sourcing. Even if these Core Content Policy issues (not to mention the WP:BLP ones) could all be addressed, there is a fundamental lack of compliance with WP:LISTN that none of the sources in these articles nor any of the Keep arguments above address. These lists are filled with individual entries of individual decisions with individual sourcing, not sources that show lists of converts have ...been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. For all these reasons, extremely selective merging of the few actually notable converts can easily be done and the lists themselves removed. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is not how WP:NLIST works. NLIST requires the existence of sources that discuss the list items as a group or set. It does not require that the list be cited exclusively with such sources (The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been). Also regarding your comment about individual conversions not being notable – yes, and it is not required as well – Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable – SD0001 (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SD0001:, yes it is how it works because simply asserting that sources must exist is not evidence that sources do exist. No sources in the article or in this discussion demonstrate NLIST applies. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This wasn't your original objection at all. Entire books have been written about converts [66] [67] [68] – and these 3 are just about converts to judaism. There is no shortage of sources that demonstrate NLIST applies. – SD0001 (talk) 18:08, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SD0001:, I sincerely doubt Wikipedia reading audience ever read lists. Users usually come to nominate some title in the list. If they just nominate without link they realize others have blue link, then they would attempt to create blue link and join in to add an article if already not present. Wikipedia being crowd sourced project, this utility value benefits Wikipedia more by encouraging writing new entries, rather than who attempts to add a title in the list, since such lists do not have reading audience. So when I refer to 'usefulness of lists for encyclopedic research' I am not referring to usefulness for public consumption but for legitimate encyclopedic progress of a crowed sourced project.
Existent policies are technicalities and technicalities need not over ride merit. I would not mind Lists being a separate namespace but should be searchable. Wikipedia talk:Five pillars has an ongoing discussion about all the extended purposes Wikipedia serves and it does not.
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 04:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing how any of this is a response to anything I wrote? Lists being a separate namespace is something I'm sure has been proposed in the past but firmly rejected. – SD0001 (talk) 07:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be arguing that we can't have a list on a topic unless the entries in the list are not only notable but notable for the reason they're included in the list. This has no basis in any policy or guideline and would lead to the deletion of huge numbers of lists if adopted. For example I assume you would support the deletion of List of polio survivors (very few entries are notable through being polio survivors) and List of Eagle Scouts (very few entries are notable through being Eagle Scouts). Those are both featured lists. I don't see where your claims of synthesis are coming from. Synthesis requires that the article draw some conclusion from sources which don't draw that conclusion. An entry in a list of converts, referenced to a source which says that person is a convert, is not synthesis. And as has been noted NLIST does not require that all entries be sourced to a reference which discusses the entries as a group, merely that there exists a reference which discusses the entries as a group. Hut 8.5 17:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with reference to TonyBallioni's and Hut's arguments. The trainwreck considerations are also very valid, but I think most of these articles would be kept even independently considering the substantial encyclopedic relevance of religious conversion. (Several are likely better merged into larger lists, but that's a merge discussion.) "Cruft" is not an argument -- it's a complaint. Plenty of articles I complain about, too. Most of them would survive AfD. I recognize the maintenance issue as serious, and I'm probably a lot more sympathetic to it than many of the keep !voters here; article maintenance is genuinely a serious issue in an era where the article count so massively outstrips the editor count. There are articles I'd support the deletion of on that basis (a lot of our barely-notable modern politics coverage, for one). I do not, however, think a meaningful case has been made the issues are so serious as to indicate the deletion of a wide variety of articles on encyclopedic topics. Vaticidalprophet 23:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While this specific AfD is almost certainly a TRAINWRECK, it may be appropriate to relist these lists individually -- lomrjyo 🐱^{(✉ • 📝)} 23:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- We have numerous categories covering converts. The question of how appropriate it is to have lists is a wider question. They were useful in the early days of WP for identifying subjects on which an article was needed, these appearing as redlinks in the list. How useful they are today is questionable, but that is a much wider question than the one raised by this nom. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
Actually I got inspired in writing an encyclopedic article when I realized existing article and existing list are not covering the topic enough.
Some how Wikipedians are shy of acknowledging encyclopedic information and knowledge gaps. Just putting up hat note notices on lists pages for which article deserves but does not exist can be beneficial. If still users do not come ahead to write about such list be referred to Wikipedia academic student collaboration. IMHO
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 04:01, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep: Mainly because of WP:TRAINWRECK and because this seems like a case for an RfC rather than AfD. I agree with most of the nominator's points, but I feel they should be brought to the discussion table to form a consensus about how to treat conversion as a subject on Wikipedia, which doesn't seem evident here. dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 07:59, 20 December 2021 (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. This subject fails WP:GNG. I do support a redirect to the college if anyone is interested.

Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 16:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thelitcham Monthly

AfDs for this article:

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

The Thelitcham Monthly seems to be a student magazine of the Darul Huda Islamic Academy. Only have one citation. No other sources. In the previous two discussions talked about things related to this magazine. See also: 1 and 2. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 01:59, 6 December 2021 (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/2021 December 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not enough sources even with alternate spelling (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). Also notable that Suhail hidaya who created it, seems to be related. --Hemanthah (talk) 07:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemanthah: Yes. Suhail hidaya and his sock puppets are also the major contributors of the Darul Huda Islamic Academy. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 23:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Thelitcham Monthly is an official academic journal publishing by the Darul Huda Islamic University (@dhiu.in). Suhail Chemmad (talk) 10:08, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notability isn't inherited. Hemanthah (talk) 09:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 02:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 02:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:29, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks significance of Notability Onmyway22 talk 13:29, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2021 (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. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL.

Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Raffles International School – South Campus

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

No sources, no suggestion of notability. Dicklyon (talk) 03:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced for over a decade. Searches did not turn up enough to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've found references from Gulf News and many mentions in other magazines or news medias. I've added two references and it's official website to it.Mommmyy (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources mention "South Campus", so if we do keep it, let's at least move it to Raffles International School. Show us some of those other sources if you think it's enough for notability. Dicklyon (talk) 03:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see this book (lower right quadrant of the page) has a few words about this school and its network in Dubai. Not much, but a few more words than other books that merely list it. Dicklyon (talk) 03:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm think I'm still on Delete. Dicklyon (talk) 06:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It looks like a few references have been added since the original nomination, but there aren't enough for notability since they are from the same news outlet and I couldn't find anything else myself. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:28, 13 December 2021 (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 03:43, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wood, Louisiana

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

WP:BEFORE for Wood, Louisiana:

General search

Just directory listings:

https://geotargit.com/index.php?qcountry_code=US&qregion_code=LA&qcity=Wood - Site contains a box that pre-enters Wood, Louisiana into the box. Uses Google Maps embed to plot point on a map. Below the embed are "Webcams near Wood". Below that are two tables which would only be useful for the purposes of being a sort of travel guide - one shows the distances of Wood, Louisiana from nearby cities such as New Orleans and Baton Rouge - the other shows the distances of Wood from the 10 most populated cities in America to use. Rest of the page is unrelated. Not useable as a source to establish notability.

https://www.travelmath.com/cities-near/Wood,+LA - Merely gives information on cities, hotels, airports, etc, etc. near Wood, LA. Purely a travel guide that could not be used to establish notability, per WP:NOTGUIDE, item 2.

False-positives and other nonsense

This WP:BEFORE was complicated by Google also listing Wood in Louisiana, alongside similary named places in the state (like Big Wood, LA). Google also brought up stuff like[69] that doesn't talk about the location, but rather expenses for a "Louisiana Avenue" in the District of Columbia.

There's also this junk removal service page[70] (which would never be used as a source anyway), which isn't ACTUALLY a removal service in the area like it says, just a way to find their services near you area - the map embed doesn't even point to Wood, LA.

If you choose to show the ommitted results, the results detoriate into mostly listings for Wood in Louisiana.

Google News search

The two pages of Google News results were all unrelated to Wood, LA. Most results instead were about Ruston, Louisiana... for some reason.

Google Books search

Various false-positives. This[71] book that shows up only makes mention of - you guessed it - Wood in Louisiana. Nothing to see here.

1[72] 2[73] 3[74] 4[75] 5[76] 6[77].

More false leads, not useable as sources as they only talk about either Wood in Louisiana or something else unrelated that contains the word "Wood".

In fact, the rest of the Google Books results from there are entirely irrelevant to "Wood, Louisiana".

Google Scholar

Nothing related to the town. Similar to the previous results, results were about either Wood in Louisiana or something related. Nothing useable[78].

Conclusion

Search yieleded no usable sources. Delete as failing WP:GNG and probably every other notability guideline. WikiJoeB (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WikiJoeB (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WikiJoeB (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. WikiJoeB (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Irresponsible GNIS junk. It cites the state DOT, meaning it's not even on topo maps because it was never a community in the first place. Reywas92^Talk 03:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of legal recognition or notability to satisfy WP:GEOLAND. I'm curious about this one since the [dotd.la.gov/Inside_LaDOTD/Divisions/Multimodal/Data_Collection/Mapping/Parish%20Maps/Natchitoches_North.pdf State highway map] has Wood located directly on the railroad as one would expect of a station. Historical topos and aerials show nothing but a few sparse homes in 1955, then a paper mill (at Kraft) and a sawmill without rail access (at Wood) in 1981. My best guess would be that these were landmarks used by either the railroad or the state DOT that eventually found their way into GNIS. –dlthewave ☎ 04:11, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article appears to have been created by a now globally blocked account. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/123lilbrad WikiJoeB (talk) 12:11, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also searched Newspapers.com, but could only find things about a Wood Springs or about Hagewood, Louisiana. wizzito | say hello! 01:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence beyond GNIS that place was ever a settlement, and GNIS is insufficient to satisfy WP:GEOLAND by itself. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 20 December 2021 (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. Fails WP:GNG.

Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dominica–Spain relations

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

Fails WP:GNG. Another article largely sourced from the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Almost all interaction is multilateral not bilateral through Spain-Caribbean Community Fund (CARICOM). No embassies, and the article says practically no trade. LibStar (talk) 01:23, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Esta nación, Dominica, tiene lazos históricos y directos con España. La nominación para la eliminación de este artículo ya cruza una linea intolerable. Estás yendo sistemáticamente contra los artículos de España. Te molesta que sea la única tabla completa en la wikipedia en inglés? Porque no veo que hagas lo mismo con los artículos de Estados Unidos.--Fobos92 (talk) 05:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Translation: Keep. This nation, Dominica, has historical and direct ties with Spain. The nomination for the deletion of this article already crosses an intolerable line. You are systematically going against articles from Spain. Does it bother you that it is the only complete table on English wikipedia? Because I don't see you doing the same with US articles .-- Phobos92 (talk) 05:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

You went on a spree of creating Spanish bilateral articles purely based on the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs rather than providing significant third party coverage. United States articles pass WP:GNG, in any case it's a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument from you. LibStar (talk) 05:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Nom. Non-notable. Yilloslime (talk) 15:33, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article is grasping at straws to construe relations between these countries. Spain were very present in the general area, but it is not supported that they were on Dominica. The article was created from a completionist standpoint, to cover Spain's relation to absolutely every country in the world. Geschichte (talk) 06:45, 20 December 2021 (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) 14:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Lenny

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES; found nothing in a WP:BEFORE search and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 20:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment found this at TV Guide [79] DonaldD23 talk to me 03:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:10, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I could not find any references either, so I would say this fails GNG, NFILM, etc. However, with the actors in that movie, I find it hard to believe that there wasn't something somewhere talking about this at some point. I'll change my viewpoint if an expert can add that information, but I have a gut feeling that it may not be available even through a cinema expert. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 04:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also found this. Geschichte (talk) 12:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 00:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The film is legit, but hard to find sources on. The studio was MTI Home Video, per Amazon.com Serge Rodnunsky was the writer, director and producer. The Film Catalog, LetterboxD, apparenty available through Netflix. — Maile (talk) 02:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - This is obviously a real film, and usually I am inclined to keep anything a user could conceivably search for. However, if there are no sources then per WP:NFSOURCES it likely does not belong here Such-change47 (talk) 08:54, 18 December 2021 (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 03:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

India–Vanuatu relations

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD was no consensus. Fails WP:GNG. There isn't really much to these relations except diplomatic recognition. Most of the relations occur with a group of Pacific Islands rather than specifically Vanuatu. LibStar (talk) 00:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - absolutely no reason why this would be included in an encyclopaedia, which to me is the ultimate question of whether an article should stay or go. If there are no sources, it does not belong here Such-change47 (talk) 08:53, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Nothing much here. Yilloslime (talk) 04:26, 19 December 2021 (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 03:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grenada–South Korea relations

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD was no consensus. fails WP:GNG. There is very limited relations between the countries. one very minor visa waiver agreement no embassies and no state visits. LibStar (talk) 00:12, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:17, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:17, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Grenada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:17, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Not seeing anything that actually discusses this topic in any sort of depth. Yilloslime (talk) 21:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - absolutely no reason why this would be included in an encyclopaedia, which to me is the ultimate question of whether an article should stay or go. If there are no sources, it does not belong here Such-change47 (talk) 08:52, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Baumgarten, P.; Middelkamp, J. (2015). "On interurban road pricing schemes and the impacts of traffic diversion on road safety in Germany: Empirical findings and implications". European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research. 15 (2). doi:10.18757/ejtir.2015.15.2.3066.

[2] Pierce, D.; Short, J. (2012). "Road closures and freight diversion: Analysis with empirical data". Transportation research record. 2269 (1): 51–57.

[3] Meyer, N.; Breitenbach, M.; Kekana, R. (2008). "An Economic Appraisal Of The Impact Of Traffic Diversion–The N1 Toll Road And Its Alternative" (PDF). South African Journal of Economics. 76 (4): 652–666.

[4] Alhajia, Mustapha; Alhassana, Musa; Adejumoa, Taiye; Abdulkadirb, Hamidu (2021). "Road pavement collapse from overloaded trucks due to traffic diversion: A case study of Minna-Kateregi-Bida Road, Nigeria". Engineering Failure Analysis. 131. Elsevier. doi:10.1016/j.engfailanal.2021.105829.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]