Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 15 November 17 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 05:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Viet Blind Children Foundation

AfDs for this article:
Viet Blind Children Foundation (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Last AfD was 12 years ago, I still cannot find any significant coverage which is surprising for an organization based in USA. It gets directory listings in gbooks. LibStar ( talk) 22:21, 9 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply

JavE

AfDs for this article:
JavE (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has already come up here a few times a while back (deleted once, but later resurrected), but hopefully this time will be conclusive. The extremely few and limited mentions of it to be found online do not appear to establish notability. An anonymous username, not my real name ( talk) 21:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was merge to Convoy Range. I'm closing as a Merge as it is an ATD that seems to have the approval of the AFD nominator. This AFD is only concerned with this oarticular article, if an editor wants to have a larger discussion of a mass merge to Convoy Range or, on the other hand, a bundled AFD nomination, that will have to be done elsewhere. Liz Read! Talk! 22:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Taff y Bryn

Taff y Bryn (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable place with 0 citations or references to prove its existence or establish notability. Zekerocks11 ( talk) 21:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Antarctica. Skynxnex ( talk) 22:04, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Doesn't meet WP:GNG. I couldn't find any significant coverage. ProofRobust 22:24, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I don't know if it would be worth the effort, but what about merging to Convoy Range? It would probably require merging all of the other pages that are linked there, but that might be a better format than giving each individual feature its own page, and collectively the range itself is definitely notable. Chagropango ( talk) 08:20, 17 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural keep - The guidelines in this case are WP:GEOLAND which states Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river.. The problem here is that a merge just of this mountain is not enough. There are 65 articles on features in the Convoy Range. I have looked at half of them and every one of them is a similar stub. They should all be treated together. A single page on the Convoy Range could become a very interesting article. A similar case are the Lakes of Grand Teton National Park where stubs on the individual lakes provide no benefit to the reader, but a single collated article allows them to be treated in one place, curating information for the interested reader. I am strongly in favour of developing the Convoy Range page in such a way, but it needs to be done for all 65 pages at once, and that will take more time than I have for this project. I would suggest that rather than going through the AfD lottery, a better approach would be to (1) develop the article; and (2) propose a merge of all 65 pages. It may be that some of the 65 would be sufficiently notable for a sub article, but this would establish a much better structure of parent and child articles for the interested reader. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 08:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    If someone wants to propose this to somebody, I don't really know who the right person would be, but it sounds to me like this would be a good idea. Zekerocks11 ( talk) 21:04, 19 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge information into Conroy Range. Should be enough room to merge all articles into it at a later date when somebody feels up to it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • delete GNS is already problematic as a sole source, but in any case WP:GEOLAND isn't a "get out of WP:GNG free" card, and the fact an expedition assigned a name to every spot they felt need one doesn't mean that anyone else cared. The use of GNS as the sole source tends to imply that nobody else did care. There is plenty of precedent for deleting natural features due to lack of real notability. Mangoe ( talk) 13:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Zoe Ramushu. Merging to the article on the test's creator as an ATD. It would be fairly straight-forwand to add some content to that article where the test is already mentioned. Liz Read! Talk! 03:13, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Chiriseri test

Chiriseri test (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Topic appears non-notable. Article as it is only cites primary sources, and I found nothing more in WP:BEFORE. ■ ∃  Madeline ⇔ ∃  Part of me ; 19:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmirŞah 21:30, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Bojan Ilievski

Bojan Ilievski (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any coverage beyond routine press about signing to teams, having searched online with both Latin and Cyrillic spellings, doesn't meet WP:GNG. Previously nominated for PROD, deprod-ed by Ortizesp without explanation. signed, Rosguill talk 18:11, 9 November 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Football, and North Macedonia. signed, Rosguill talk 18:11, 9 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:37, 9 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Draft? Noted in, [1], not even noted on Arab News, terrible match review! However I don't know Macedonian or Greek in order to do a real comprehensive search. I see Rosguill, you say you have, but have you? Isn't there a why and a how the guy made the national team? Macedonian football league is small fry and the club he plays for has only a capacity of 3K, that is suggestive it may not be the most important thing out there, but is it? I am I not sure I agree with your assessment here. Govvy ( talk) 22:33, 9 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    Not sure why Greek would be part of this, Ilievski appears to have exclusively played in North Macedonia based on the information available, not Greece. I searched for his name in and a few generic keywords in English and Macedonian like "фудбал" on both Google and Yandex and came up with nothing significant. signed, Rosguill talk 22:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    Why not Greek? A neighbouring country who has an interest in football who also cover Macedonian news. I am frankly surprised by this nomination, deleting an international player yet again. I saw a load of Danish international players deleted because no one wants to do the research, that information is lost now? But it seems the Macedonian wikipedia, no one has updated the national team page there since when? Not sure if it said last updated in 2018. Shame isn't it. Govvy ( talk)
    This seems to say more about the presumption of notability for international players than it does about this specific player's notability. signed, Rosguill talk 23:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    Danish sportspeople have been particularly targeted because access to Danish newspapers less than 100 years old is severely restricted, so unless an editor is physically in Denmark it's almost impossible to find appropriate sources. This is no ground to conclude as above that there is a problem with the presumption of notability - but people tend to see what they want to see. Ingratis ( talk) 12:58, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    Coming from Macedonia myself, Id say you can quite much never find deeper coverage about any Macedonian Football League player aside from routine press. The sports press in Macedonia is very small and certainly no international sites would ever write anything about Macedonian players, so expecting to find articles online about Ilievski or any other player from PMFL is being very optimistic lol In any case, the bottom line is that he did get called up for our national team and he indeed entered the match against Saudi Arabia, so as a National team player i assumed he qualified for an article. At the end of the day, its not like you can ever really find deeper coverage about players from San Marino or Andorra or so, but if they have been capped for their respective national teams then they still qualify for a page on wikipedia. Msb73505 ( talk) 19:16, 19 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    As has been alluded to earlier in the discussion, the subject-specific notability guideline that specified that national team members are automatically notable was deprecated following WP:NSPORTS2022 and is no longer in force. signed, Rosguill talk 19:35, 19 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmirŞah 21:27, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply

List of Minnesota State High School League State Championships

List of Minnesota State High School League State Championships (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced, unnecessary list. JJLiu112 ( talk) 20:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all unencyclopaedic in prose or scope (WP:NOTREPOSITORY): reply

List of Minnesota State High School League State Championships (Spring) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Minnesota State High School League State Championships (Winter) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Minnesota State High School League State Championships (Fall) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

-- JJLiu112 ( talk) 20:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 19:54, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Philip Anderson (activist)

Philip Anderson (activist) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not to be confused with Philip W. Anderson.

Subject appears to fail WP:BASIC. Coverage in the article is trivial in nature, and I'm not seeing anything better. There is [2] which includes excerpts of an interview with him, but the article is about tech censorship in general and doesn't cover Anderson in any detail. Other coverage is related to him being on the capitol grounds on January 6 (as in eyewitness interviewee) and being punched at a rally in SF, but again there isn't any depth of coverage here. VQuakr ( talk) 18:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 19:53, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply

List of early Christian texts of disputed authorship

List of early Christian texts of disputed authorship (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:UNSOURCED for 15 years, contains WP:OR, has an unclear scope and seems to violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and is probably WP:REDUNDANT. Essentially, the authorship of pretty much the large majority of early Christian writings is disputed. Apart from seven of the 13/14 epistles attributed to Paul and John of Patmos (not "John the Evanglist") as the author of the Book of Revelation, the authorship of all books of the New Testament is disputed. Then there are New Testament apocrypha/ Christian apocrypha/ pseudepigrapha#New Testament studies and some later works listed here as "Later Christian writings", where we've got pretty much the same situation. A whole category that is not even mentioned here yet is misattributed patristic works, with "pseudo-so-and-so" (see e.g. List of Church Fathers who quote the New Testament#Misattributed writings). I think far too wide a net is being cast here, and the only common elements that these text are somehow 'early Christian' plus having 'disputed authorship' is just way too little in common to be a meaningful list (or category). I do not rule out the idea of splitting this list up in smaller groupings, but lists or overviews of various groups of early Christian writings are already present and well-established elsewhere on English Wikipedia, including in the articles I linked to above, or in various categories those articles are in. Ultimately, this page may therefore also be redundant. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 17:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete aren’t most early Christian works of disputed authorship? Dronebogus ( talk) 20:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Yeah that's what I'm saying. Funnily enough, it would actually make more sense to create a list of early Christian texts of undisputed authorship. At least that kind of list would be somewhat limited and manageable. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 21:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Actually kind of an interesting concept. Dronebogus ( talk) 21:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Sure, but also pretty much covered already by all articles in Category:Biblical authorship debates, New Testament apocrypha and so on. I see no need for duplication. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 22:27, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 19:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Specialized Aviation Service Operation

Specialized Aviation Service Operation (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable-- and really just a repetition of a technical definition used by the FAA. PepperBeast (talk) 16:40, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 19:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Murder (Turkish law)

Murder (Turkish law) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After 11 years, this should be either sourced and if necessary updated, or deleted. As it stands, most editors will not have the possibility to even try to verify this, we don't know if what we have here is correct, or was correct in 2011, or was wrong all the time. Considering that the original author was blocked for socking in 2012, and the sock blocked for making unsourced problematic edits, just AGF'ing this article any longer is not wise. Fram ( talk) 16:29, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. I'm finding David Eppstein's, and others', rebuttal of notability claims to be persuasive. Liz Read! Talk! 19:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Michael Sugrue

Michael Sugrue (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An impressive list of achievements, but doesn't meet WP:NPROF or WP:BIO. There was a discussion about notability a month ago at the talk page, but nothing seems to have come of that. A WP:BEFORE search shows that the one solid source is the American Conservative profile currently cited. I can find only one paper by him on Scopus, and low citation count on Google Scholar (note that there's an Australian surgeon with the same name, so you'll need to exclude a few keywords in your search).

The article creator wrote in an edit summary that he passes on points 6 and 7 of WP:NPROF. On point 6, I can only find that he was the chair of Ave Maria University's Core Curriculum Committee. On point 7, he has contributed lectures to The Great Courses series, but I can't find reviews of those lectures online in reliable sources, or other evidence of "substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity". Storchy ( talk) 16:20, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Sugrue has two positions which may qualify him for points five and six of WP:NACADEMICS. Firstly, he held the distinguished position as the Behrman fellow at Princeton University during the roughly twelve years he served there as a professor; seeing as this is a named, distinguished position, it may pass (5). Secondly, since his position at Ave Maria University as chairman of the Core Curriculum Committee is an appointed administrative post at a major academic institution, it may pass (6).
What's important to note is that even though Sugrue may have been an accomplished professor while he was still a teacher at Princeton or Ave Maria, he became well-known to a wide audience through his Great Courses lectures and his YouTube channel, where he now posts daily. I don't think there is any doubt that these lectures have had a wide influence on, at the very least, some people.
In my opinion, I think there is ground that the article should be kept for these reasons. GuardianH ( talk) 19:35, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn. Yep, still hate AFD and these mysterious reference-finding bombs editors throw at me. Whatever to the max. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 ( talk) 23:18, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

The Local Fuzz

The Local Fuzz (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail WP:NALBUM. One song 42+ minutes in length, album didn't chart, etc. Steel1943 ( talk) 15:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep: Found a significant list of sources ( [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] plus this potentially useful interview as a primary source) in addition to what's already in the article. QuietHere ( talk) 21:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Sports-related curses#European World Cup champions' curse. Liz Read! Talk! 19:45, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply

European World Cup champions' curse

European World Cup champions' curse (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable "curse", only refered to as the "European World Cup champions' curse" in a Reddit post [9], so isn't needed as a redirect either. Already included in Sports-related curses#European World Cup champions' curse anyway, so nothing is lost by deleting this. Fram ( talk) 15:48, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedy delete by Fastily per author request. ✗ plicit 12:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Mustafa Kemal Ataküfr

Mustafa Kemal Ataküfr (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced, with no indication of notability per Wikipedia:Neologism. In a WP:BEFORE search, I can find "Ataküfr" only mentioned in passing in a single, non-notable blog, and in a non-notable student essay on academia.edu. Storchy ( talk) 15:35, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I did consider speedy, including A11, since it's only mentioned on a single blog online. If I'm being too cautious, then I've got no objection if someone wants to BOLDly nominate this for speedy delete. Storchy ( talk) 16:38, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • It doesn’t violate wikipedia rules, you can find an exact similar wiki page of “North Atlantic Terrorist Organization”
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Terrorist_Organization Amr.elmowaled
  • atakufr nickname is used on social media among folks and i can bring up many posts and comments using it if asked, isn’t that enough to have an article about ?, is it a must to have the nickname mentioned in journals for example ? Amr.elmowaled
  • No, it must have significant use in WP:Reliable sources. If a newspaper wrote about people using it on social media, that would be a reliable source. But social media posts alone won't help us here. Storchy ( talk)
  • the WP:Reliable sources you sent explains what qualify as information source about topics, not what qualify to having a wiki page about, as both of us already agreed that the nickname atakufr is widely used on social media among folks and many websites, the case here isn’t about reliable sources talking about atakufr in the first place, it’s about the existence of the term which both of us agree that it does and is already in use Amr.elmowaled — Preceding undated comment added 17:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply

V.D.U.C Ramjas Primary School, Ballimaran

V.D.U.C Ramjas Primary School, Ballimaran (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence found of any notability for this school. Fram ( talk) 14:15, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply

List of furry role-playing games

List of furry role-playing games (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nom per IP request, whose rationale is Unsourced, and there seem to be no reliable sources about this as a topic, let alone that discuss this as a set, failing WP:NLIST. What constitutes inclusion here seems to be complete WP:OR as well. I find myself agreeing; I went looking and there's some minor sourcing talking specifically about furry video games, but I could not find anything talking about them as a group, and the inclusion of games here is wholly unreferenced and smacks of synthesis (just having anthropomorphic animal characters might make a game appealing to furries, but it does not make them furry video games.) Fails NLIST. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:57, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Sunil Kalai

Sunil Kalai (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Gets mentions in articles, but currently, there is not a single in-depth piece of coverage about him from an independent source in the article. Searches did not turn up any either, so he fails WP:GNG, and doesn't come close to meeting WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 TT me 13:48, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:13, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Owor Paul

Owor Paul (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL. Contested as an independent candidate but failed to be elected. No clear evidence of notability. Onel5969 TT me 13:35, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

*Delete Being a candidates of election does not pass Wikipedia:NPOL. AndrewYuke ( talk) 12:55, 18 November 2022 (UTC) - strike sock - Beccaynr ( talk) 00:37, 19 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 14:13, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Made by Hand

Made by Hand (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No WP:SIGCOV, just rewriting of an old 1940s television programme which appears to be neither notable, nor significant, nor remembered. Unsourced except for the BBC. JJLiu112 ( talk) 12:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:57, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Benjamin Johns

Benjamin Johns (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable independent film producer. Probable COI, but no independent, non-trivial coverage provided or apparent from search. Jdcooper ( talk) 12:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 10:07, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:21, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Kaizad Hansotia

Kaizad Hansotia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An entrepreneur page. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBUSINESSPERSON.

Sources: [10] Industry related - most probably promoted, no editorial team

[11] Critical review, probably eligible source.

[12] Copied from this source: [13] The source is dubious and the article has covert advertisiment

[14] Very short and promotional, published in a local tabloid. Starts with dubious: "Mumbai-born and US-based, globally renowned cigar magnate, Kaizad Hansotia, has recently been in town to launch a duty-free outlet of his premium cigar brand – Gurkha Cigars." The brand is unknown as well. No journalist name - clear PR.

[15] Mirror article from this source: [16] Which doesn't have any information and is, anyways, an industry-related source, which is also extremely promotional.

[17] Clearly promotional article from the promotional website.

Note: I've left a COI notice on the author's Talk page. And it is beyond my imagination, how such an experienced editor as User:Curb Safe Charmer could approve the page and allowed it to the main space on Wikipedia. Suitskvarts ( talk) 11:51, 9 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Initially I was expecting to decline the draft, but a Google search revealed a chapter in Hansotia's career that the author had interestingly left out of the biography. Those new sources tipped the balance in favour of their being reliable, independent, in depth coverage of him. It became less important that the original sources remaining in the article were interviews or likely promo pieces. If - and you may well be right but there's no evidence - the author has a COI then it may have backfired that the article now includes the reason that they are no longer CEO of the company.
Thanks for providing your analysis of the sources, which helps other AfD participants understand your reasoning. In the first source - tobaccobusiness.com, the coverage is negative about Hansotia, so while it is possible that it is a PR piece from Gurkha Cigars to distance themselves from him, it won't have been paid for by Hansotia. The coverage is balanced and well informed, so I don't have a problem using this as a source for this article. Coverage in a national newspaper would for example be better coverage than an industry-specific magazine, but I think it is good enough in this case.
In the Halfwheel piece, the writer Charlie Minato uses the same phrase "this comes after a tumulteous week" but other than that I am happy that it is intellectually independent of the first source.
Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 11:01, 14 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 10:06, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 08:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Vicky Barnecutt

Vicky Barnecutt (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not yet notable by Wikipedia:Notability (academics), WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Works for and with some notable institutions, but I can't find her on Scopus, and citations are low on Google Scholar. No coverage of her work online in reliable mainstream press sources either. Storchy ( talk) 09:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Draft Not yet notable – Wikipedia:Too soon. Article should be drafted, not deleted. Annoyed-Briefs-in-Jenkins ( talk) 11:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 08:39, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Henry L. Hooks

Henry L. Hooks (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not clear that WP:GNG is met - local coverage only. Also WP:COI issues - a WP:BEFORE search shows a family relationship between this person and Greshun De Bouse, see the discussion there and at WP:COIN for more information. Melcous ( talk) 09:48, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect to Broadcom Corporation#Philanthropy. Stifle ( talk) 12:30, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Broadcom Foundation

Broadcom Foundation (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Refs fail WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND. Refs are interviews, profiles and routine coverage along with passing mentions. Non-notable. Been on the cat:nn list for three years and never been updated. scope_creep Talk 09:37, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete and redirect to Broadcom_Corporation#Philanthropy (I would say merge, but there doesn't seem to be anything worth merging). The foundation is clearly not independently notable of the corporation. SmartSE ( talk) 10:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    I've added a couple of things, links from the EETimes and the like. The documentation of Foundation's 1099s show that is independent of the Corporation. Personally, I think it is notable because of the push to promote STEM in the US, Africa, Malaysia. The more that I understand what is going on in politics, the more I understand that these big foundations are notable and drive everything from new policy (like the California EITC) to how our education system is run. This isn't the largest foundation, but it has $128 million in assets (according to their annual report), so it has a bit of pull. JoeKleim ( talk) 05:05, 17 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Broadcom Corporation#Philanthropy. This article fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG, and there's nothing worth merging that isn't already at the target article, but it's a reasonable search term for what's covered on that article. - Aoidh ( talk) 17:06, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    Again, I'm trying to understand the WP:GNG. I find clear coverage that is independent (EETimes, NY Times, etc). What is needed to drive the notable past that level? Also, I tried to add the EE coverage last night as a reference: https://www.eetimes.com/turning-to-africas-youth-to-help-fill-the-skills-gap/
    But I don't see the edits left tonight? Why did User:Scope creep undo my update? The EE Times article is clearly relevant. I'm new at this, engineer by trade, so I thought I would start out editing on something non controversial, but ??? JoeKleim ( talk) 05:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC) reply
The eetimes reference mentions Paula Golden, president of the Broadcom Foundation once in passing when explaining who they were interviewing. Content from an interviewee is not an independent source of a subject they represent. Outside of the quotes from her, there are a few mentions of the parent Broadcom company, but absolutely nothing about the Foundation, aside from the aforementioned explanation of who Paula Golden is. That's trivial coverage and does not contribute to the notability of the subject. The NYTimes piece is similarly trivial, a quote from Golden and a brief explanation that she works for the Broadcom Foundation, but that's it. - Aoidh ( talk) 06:08, 17 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Ok. I see that. I personally thought it was an interesting article because of the push to get STEM integrated into countries outside the US. According to a 2015 bureau of labor report there is no shortage of STEM since, many stem degree holders actually work outside of stem (myself included). If you look at the pew research about stem, it shows that Women continue to be underrepresented in physical sciences, computing, and engineering. So, it still seems that promoting STEM, especially among women in the US is critical. I'll look at some other news coverage, but I think that some organization that spends millions of dollars every year promoting STEM for young women is notable, I'll just see what I can find that meets the standard. JoeKleim ( talk) 15:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • @ JoeKleim: It is the WP:NCORP policy that applies to businesses. WP:GNG used to apply, but in 2008-2012 it was comprehensively abused by 1000's of paid editors in a true avalanche of crap business article, many of 10,000's of which are now deleted. Editor Tony Ballioni and several other editors came together to write WP:NCORP. Study it. The quality of source is important. The fact that it in the New York Times, or the Guardian, or the AP News, or the Telepgraph, or the Japan Times or Le Monde is not particularly important in this context, as all these papers take the advertising dollar, more so in the 2008-2012 when they were getting horsed by social media, less so as many of them have paywalls, but it still matters as valuable digital real-estate, they still take the advertising dollar. scope_creep Talk 08:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC) reply
The EETimes reference you put above, fails WP:ORGIND as its a partial interview with the company. Its the quality of the reference that counts, not where its placed. I don't think I undid your edits. Are you sure your on the right Afd? scope_creep Talk 08:18, 17 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I don't think it was intentional but you did with this edit. - Aoidh ( talk) 14:37, 17 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Must have missed that. Half or fully asleep, still working away. Sorry. scope_creep Talk 15:14, 17 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the explanation. As I explained to Aoidh, I think the Foundation is notable because of level of influence that I see (did you watch the UN SDG media day?) and the impact of the programs that they drive at the national level. I watched the video of Prisha Shroff, a high-school winner of one of the Broadcom awards, speaking at the UN. She was very intelligent and had a great story, specifically about how climate change (wild-fires) impacted her and how she uses coding, sat imagery, moisture analysis, and work with local fire-fighters to determine potential wild-fire risk zones! If you give me a little time, I think that I can find more information that is interesting and notable to share. JoeKleim ( talk) 15:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Pay particular attention to the requirement for "Independent Content" as defined in WP:ORGIND so that the information in the article originates from a source *unaffiliated* with the topic company. So, it could be argued that Prisha, being a beneficiary and winner is not unaffiliated but also that her "great story" has nothing to do with providing *independent* *in-depth* information *about* the company itself. We're not looking for "information that is interesting and notable" here at AfD, we're specifically focussed on evaluating a company's notability and for that we need references that meet NCORP criteria. HighKing ++ 16:03, 18 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    HighKing, I get what you are sawing. I think the issue that I am struggling with is the same issue that occurs in more general politics. Just because something is notable, does not mean that it gets written up in the Guardian. For example, the $52B Chip's act did not appear out of nowhere. Reading the Wikipedia article makes it look like Tim Ryan came up with it and it got passed with hard work. Yet that story is weak. Over the past 5 election cycles, Intel has contributed ~$1M (open secrets.org) from its PAC pretty equally to both Republicans and Democrats. Qualcomm spent $7 million in 2022 alone. I don't see one article about who came up with the chips act and how they pitched it. This doesn't have anything to do with Broadcom per se, but I see a foundation that was given $50Mill in 2009 and $100M soon after has more pull than just sponsoring science fairs. Clearly, investing a $1 million/year in US science fairs isn't much, but doing the same in India and Africa (which they sponsor as well) is another story. I could write a story just based on what is in the 1099s. I just need to keep looking if someone wrote the article that I need to post. JoeKleim ( talk) 01:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    Sorry, I mean to say the 990s (sorry, I mistyped). JoeKleim ( talk) 01:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Casale Monferrato. Liz Read! Talk! 05:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Lo Spettatore del Monferrato

Lo Spettatore del Monferrato (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't pass WP:GNG; minor paper published for a period of only 3 years more than 150 years ago. Nythar ( 💬- 🎃) 09:14, 26 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:53, 2 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:09, 9 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to consider Merge suggestion from the nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Merge the merge seems like an acceptable option. Oaktree b ( talk) 16:00, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge as ATD. I looked for sourcing but couldn’t see enough to support a stand-alone article. An early newspaper is certainly worth a mention though. May also be worth a redirect as a plausible search term. Mccapra ( talk) 04:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment and Merge I looked at the article for Casale Monferrato and there isn't an obvious section that this belongs in. There isn't a section for, for example, culture. So I'm not sure how this fits into the article without creating a new section and hoping that there will be additional information to fill it in. I ran through as many archives of Italian newspapers as I could find and this one didn't appear, nor did I find it listed in the local or national libraries. My guess is that all that remains is this mention in a bibliography and some mentions in older books. Lamona ( talk) 17:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Not strong Keep arguments but the deletion rationale is also iffy. I'm going to default this to Keep although there is agreement that the sources could use some improvement. Liz Read! Talk! 05:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Geneshift

AfDs for this article:
Geneshift (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

May fail WP:GNG (tagged as such since 2017). The article is an orphan, and there seems to be a COI concerning the creator of the page. Sources may be sufficient judging by the handful of external links on the page. LilianaUwU ( talk / contribs) 05:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. LilianaUwU ( talk / contribs) 05:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Seems notable enough, and COI concerns are not grounds for deletion if an article is provably notable. The offending material simply has to be removed, and the article not give the impression of being an advertisement. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 05:54, 17 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    Hey, I am the creator of the game. I certainly understand why COI might be a concern, and don't want to write or include anything other than factual objective information. As for notability the game has over 2000 reviews on Steam, which is well above average.
    I would say on another point however, that the name of the game was changed last week. However I personally do not have permission to rename/move to the new url. Am I right in thinking that in the interests of keeping wikipedia as accurate and up to date as possible, the url and page title should be changed?
    Here is a source for this (official Steam announcement): https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/308600/view/6231320936800329471
    I'm just a gamedev and not particularly familar with editing wikipedia, so please let me know what I can do to help. And thanks in general for keeping this site as up to date as it is. Bencelot ( talk) 07:27, 17 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The two references at Kotaku and PC Gamer, while depending on quotes somewhat, are probably WP:SIGCOV despite not being full reviews (these are also established reliable sources that are secondary and independent). Vice piece is also WP:SIGCOV but only marginally reliable per WP:RSP. In contrast, the rest does appear to be routine announcements, e.g., this article depends upon a press release, whereas this seems also interview-like.
Nevertheless, from reading the article I think it's decently neutral, and doesn't obviously fall under other WP:DELREASON. It has some WP:RS, and doesn't seem to be unambiguously promotional, and does not seem to violate WP:NOT, nor does it need significant cleanup (i.e., almost a full rewrite or WP:TNT instead of minor cleanup falling under NEXIST) to address obvious WP:V or WP:PROMO cases. I also don't see being an orphan would be a convincing case towards deletion, the subject might be obscure but even articles that were unsourced/poorly sourced for ten years are not deleted based on that reason alone per WP:NEXIST, e.g., the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#I propose that an article being tagged for over a decade as completely uncited should be a reason for deletion. Therefore, IMO the main potential reason to delete is notability, which this article borderline meets, with two sources that count towards it and another one with no consensus whether it is reliable. VickKiang (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2022 (UTC) reply
@ LilianaUwU: While it is tagged, a 2017 AfD discussion resulted in keep, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geneshift. Many thanks. VickKiang (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 12:31, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Oindrila Sen

Oindrila Sen (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Indian actress fails WP:NACTOR with no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 04:54, 9 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:54, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 03:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Dominika Lasota

Dominika Lasota (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor Polish activist, there is no WP:SIGCOV. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. Ongoing discussion at pl wiki ( pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/biografie/2022:11:01:Dominika Lasota) right now consists of the creator defending it but more experienced editors pointing out the SIGCOV problem (she didn't win any awards, etc., all we have are passing mentions in media). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Satisfies WP:GNG. Notable in multiple international sources that are not yet in the current version of the article: Financial Times, Nov 2021 Dominika Lasota, 19, an activist with Fridays for Future in Poland; Politico, Nov 2022 notable as a Polish activist worth quoting and notable enough to have faced charges ... over her participation in a protest in 2020; New York Times, Jun 2022 The woman shouting into a megaphone is Dominika Lasota, who has emerged as a protest leader. ... Ms. Lasota and Ms. Jedroszkowiak have emerged as leaders in a dynamic new wing of the antiwar movement, and the video of them lecturing Mr. Macron went viral, making them celebrities for a moment in France and in Poland, where they are from. Notable to some degree since 2020 in Kujawsko-Pomorskie: Express Bydgoski, Sep 2020 – main activist from Młodzieżowy Strajk Klimatyczny (Climate Youth Strike) interviewed; Portal Kujawski, Jun 2020 - long quotes published. Polityka, Nov 2020, named as a member of the Consultative Council (Poland). Lasota's notability increased from local and national in 2020 to international in 2021 and 2022. Boud ( talk) 04:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Boud ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. reply
    Lasota is still attracting major media attention in Poland for her climate emergency related activities, as of October 2022: 18 Oct 2022, Gazeta Wyborcza - summary: We hope that the government stops playing around and starts treating the emergency seriously. ... – said Dominika Lasota. The climate activists protested in front of the Office of the Prime Minister. BiznesAlert.pl is less well-known, but widely used as a source in pl.Wikipedia - this 20 Oct 2022 article, Lasota: We're dealing with a crisis and our politicians are avoiding it (interview), gives an in-depth interview with Lasota. Notability in TV media ( user:Bruno_Latour's comment below) is harder to judge without online text sources, but that is not needed anyway. Boud ( talk) 18:53, 2 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    This all fails WP:SIGCOV, those are mentions in passing. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    Your interpretation of SIGCOV in this context has already been asserted. An uninvolved editor will look at the evidence sooner or later. Boud ( talk) 22:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    How relevant is ongoing discussion at pl wiki? At the moment none of the articles climate crisis, 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) or 2022 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP27, which starts tomorrow 6 November) exist in pl.Wikipedia, and pl:Konferencja Narodów Zjednoczonych w sprawie Zmian Klimatu, Warszawa 2013 = 2013 United Nations Climate Change Conference is only one paragraph and three one-sentence paragraphs long, despite having been held in Poland. The collective editing activity of people editing on pl.Wikipedia on topics related to the climate emergency doesn't seem like much of a help in deciding on the notability of a Polish climate activist in terms of knowledge about the world on en.Wikipedia. Boud ( talk) 13:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    This non-free photo in the Krytyka Polityczna 28 October 2022 article makes Dominika Lasota look like she must be a president or prime minister. Boud ( talk) 19:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - International media such as the New York Times, CNN, Financial Times, The Japan Times, Politico, Guardian, Sky News have written about the activist's actions. The number of different media outlets that have written about her attest to her fame (57 different sources in the footnotes in polish wikipedia). There are no awards or habilitation among climate activists to establish encyclopedic lines. Activists, as the name implies, act, and it is the measure of their actions, activities and initiatives that should be judged, and these, in the case of Dominika Lasota, are of impressive quantity and quality. These include the most important activist activities on a global scale (e.g., the COP26 summit in Glasgow, the petition with Greta Thunberg, which was signed by nearly 2 million people). Additional Lasota is so original in her theses that Gazeta Wyborcza wrote that she has created a "new current of activism." Lasota is behind some of the most important activist actions in Poland in recent years, such as the Youth Climate Strike, the All-Poland Women's Strike, and most recently the Crisis Strike. She is internationally known (and here the fact that there have been articles about her in other language versions of Wikipedia can be used as evidence), as well as a wide spectrum of foreign media that write about her. The media follows her discussions with figures such as Ursula von der Leyen and Emmanuel Macron. In the media, she appears on programs with figures such as Szymon Malinowski, Bogdan Chojnicki and Michal Kolodziejczak. It is worthwhile to supplement the English-language article with the threads contained in https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominika_Lasota Bruno Latour ( talk) 09:51, 2 November 2022 (UTC) — Bruno Latour ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep - as other editors have mentioned the amount of international news focusing on her work seems more than enough to warrant an article. BogLogs ( talk) 05:44, 19 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Meeting or talking to someone even if that person is head of the state does not judge, that the second interlocutor is such influential person to deserve for having wikipedia article. Many of sources to this article are interviews taken with Lasota, they aren't independent article suggesting she has outstanding achievments. She's casual polish activist who has been invited to media's a few times The Wolak ( talk) 13:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC) reply

One of Lasota's outstanding achievements in 2022 is, according to The New York Times, Jun 2022 that she has emerged as a protest leader ... in a dynamic new wing of the antiwar movement. See The New York Times for more information about NYT. Boud ( talk) 02:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to see more participation by experienced editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:07, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Westin Palace Milan

Westin Palace Milan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, only the first gnews hit could be considered indepth. Otherwise the coverage is mainly hotel directory listings. LibStar ( talk) 03:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle ( talk) 12:31, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep Away (song)

Keep Away (song) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSONG, utterly lacking in-depth discussion in the media. A thorough search for sources returns only automated listings. Redirect to Godsmack (album). Binksternet ( talk) 22:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Redirect unless more coverage is found. I'm as surprised as the other two respondents that you couldn't find anything for a band this huge. Unfortunately I couldn't find much either. There's a choice interview quote here which might be good to add, but otherwise I'm only getting charts and passing mentions among other songs. I wanna believe there's more out there that just hasn't been archived online, but without that we can't keep this page. QuietHere ( talk) 06:42, 2 November 2022 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Frye, Mark (June 2005). School Shooter: In His Own Words. iUniverse. p. 122. ISBN  9780595347513.
  2. ^ Dorfman, Jay (January 14, 2022). Theory and Practice of Technology-Based Music Instruction. Oxford University Press. p. 121. ISBN  9780197558980.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Potential sources added late in the discussion, relisting so editors can assess.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:06, 9 November 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Leaning keep per SBKSPP. BD2412 T 03:59, 9 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ BD2412 to be frank, I don't really understand what SBKSPP saw in the sources presented. If they're talking about the ones CJ-Moki posted, there's a reason I was so quick to say "No" to those. And if they're talking about the award Dylnuge, they said themself that they didn't think it was significant enough. And the only other source shared before that comment was in an off-topic comment about a ZZ Top song which has nothing to do with this AfD. And though they were posted after, I don't see notability in what GSWiki shared either (nor do they apparently). QuietHere ( talk) 12:28, 9 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as this discussion has a mixed consensus between Keep and Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:50, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep I also found this source, which mentions the song's popularity, style and some of the back story behind it. I suspect there would be more coverage, especially if one were to go through the print sources, given the release date. It is frequently described as the single which launched the band to prominence, so that would also increase the notability of the song itself. Chagropango ( talk) 13:24, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Closing a little early as the nomination was withdrawn. Now, I'm hungry for dinner! Liz Read! Talk! 02:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Strawberry pie

Strawberry pie (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's nothing in this article which doesn't just belong in pie. --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 03:27, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment - It's such a short stubby article for an article made so many years ago. If some more content can be added maybe it can be kept. Otherwise I'd say just delete it. Nice pictures though. BogLogs ( talk) 07:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Moot. @ Deor: deleted this as A10 after @ Metropolitan90:'s tag. Yes it's my nom, but just procedurally closing the discussion. If someone feels this is an issue, feel free to re-close. Star Mississippi 16:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Translanguaging and the Use of Multiple Languages

Translanguaging and the Use of Multiple Languages (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A class essay critiquing Translanguaging, but creator reversed @ Rosguill:.s drafitification so we're here. We really need a better process for school projects. @ Ian (Wiki Ed): you have worked with this editor, or at least posted to their Talk. Can you help on this? Thanks! Star Mississippi 03:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as redundant to Translanguaging. The same content is there – seemingly added by the same editor, User:TeachingBox. Note that I have hidden the 'peer review' comments with a comment tag, since those are obviously not appropriate to article space. It might have been better to remove them entirely, but I suspect the page will be deleted at the close of this discussion. Cnilep ( talk) 02:27, 18 November 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that this topic might be the subject of a proper article, but this is a WP:TNT situation. Mojo Hand ( talk) 16:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply

LGBT rights opposition in companies

LGBT rights opposition in companies (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is probably an article to be written about this topic, but this is woefully unsuited to mainspace. It is undersourced, full of editorializing (This article presents the recent history of companies that promoted anti-LGBT views in either a direct or indirect way in the United States of America.) and more a persuasive essay than an article. While AfD isn't clean up, the creator is move warring and won't wait for AfC, so we're here. Star Mississippi 02:59, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Marine El Himer

Marine El Himer (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable model/social media influencer. Mooonswimmer 02:57, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:00, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply

William Thomas Mason

William Thomas Mason (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I think we fall short of WP:GNG here: of the three cited sources #1 is a short obituary in a local paper as part of a "local and general" news round up; #2 A 1906 encyclopedia entry that provides the most substantial coverage of the subject, but notably does so only in the context of its entry about the local Marlborough Police Department (for which we have no article), which he was head of at the time. #3 is a trivial mention in a ship-arrival announcement. Additional coverage was not readily available on Google Scholar or Google Books. signed, Rosguill talk 01:39, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus. And further, no consensus that this is a hoax. If further discussion on merger continues editorially, would highly advise toning down the rhetoric. Star Mississippi 13:23, 25 November 2022 (UTC) Updated to Keep per discussion at User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BBC_Kids. Thanks @Scope_creep for flagging what I missed. Star Mississippi 15:06, 2 December 2022 (UTC) reply

BBC Kids

BBC Kids (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This "article" may without exaggeration be the worst example of WP:SYNTH to ever hit Wikipedia. Forget reliable, not a single source period (update: one questionable source found below) so much as mentions any two – let alone more – of these completely independent channels together! The idea of an "international BBC Kids brand" for TV channels literally only exists as this Wikipedia page, until of course some hapless media intern comes along and writes an article "inspired" by this one before it could be deleted... Modernponderer ( talk) 01:14, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

I agree there is merit in covering the "BBC Kids" channels with two separate entries, one for the 2001-2018 channel in the Americas, and one for the 2021-current offerings. A page exists for the former, but currently this is the only page that aims to cover all aspects of the latter. I would not object if the page currently focused on the Australian BBC Kids feed had it's focus broadened globally, or if the page proposed for deletion remained but was refocused on the 2021-current period. But I don't approve of deleting this page without finding a home for it's content not covered elsewhere. Transient-understanding ( talk) 06:03, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
User:Transient-understanding, even the newer channels are (with one questionable exception found below) simply not discussed together in any sources. There is already a "home" for this content: individual channel articles, which do not violate WP:SYNTH.
(By the way, there was no "2001-2018 channel in the Americas" – it was 100%, entirely, purely a Canadian channel which was simply rebroadcasted in some other countries. That's another type of misinformation that "articles" like this help propagate if they are not deleted quickly.) Modernponderer ( talk) 19:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The noms claim that "BBC Kids" is not an international brand is hard to fathom. "BBC Kids launches in South Africa and Taiwan" from Broadband TV News opens with "BBC Studios is partnering with...as it extends the BBC Kids brand." I don't think Julian Clover is a "hapless media intern" but feel free to prove me wrong. The transition from in-house to BBC Studios (the commercial arm) which created the current incarnation of the BBC Kids brand has been well covered [23] [24] [25]. I don't have an argument with Transient-understanding over the benefits of a possible split, but there really is not enough content in the page yet to make that worth doing. Spinning Spark 13:07, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    • User:Spinningspark, congratulations (seriously!) – you found a single article that actually does talk about more than one of these channels. I've updated my nomination to point that out. Unfortunately, given that it was written well after this page was created there is a significant chance that exactly what I feared has already happened – intern or no intern. Regardless, we can't base an article on a single source...
    • About the other links you provided: I'd suggest you read past the titles of sources you cite, because they are about BBC kids content in general. They have nothing whatsoever to do with "BBC Kids" as a brand name. Just look at the variety of names the articles use:
      • kids division
      • children's division
      • the BBC’s in-house children’s TV department
      • Kids and Family Productions at BBC Studios
      • BBC Children’s In-House Productions
      • BBC Studios’ Kids & Family
      • BBC Children’s & Education
      • BBC Children
    • Furthermore, they are talking about content and not TV channels, which (despite the WP:COATRACK first sentence of this article, which even tarnished my nomination with its "brand" wording) are what this article is actually about. Modernponderer ( talk) 19:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The launch in South Africa got a significant amount of press. There's also coverage about the Australia launch. Maybe it could be structured better. Chagropango ( talk) 13:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    User:Chagropango, I don't ask this often as it's rarely appropriate but: please strike out your !vote. What you wrote has literally nothing whatsoever to do with WP:SYNTH, or this article frankly. Nobody (including me) is disputing that individual channels can be notable, which is why they have their own articles. Modernponderer ( talk) 19:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    Admittedly, I don't have a lot of familiarity with WP:SYNTH, but it's very hard for me to see how it could necessitate deletion of an article on a qualifying subject rather than improvement, unless the problems were so deep rooted that WP:TNT would be less work than fixing the issues. However, if you can explain it to me I would be grateful and I would also gladly strike out my !vote. Chagropango ( talk) 08:00, 17 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    User:Chagropango, WP:SYNTH means this is NOT a "qualifying subject". You've correctly pointed out that there are reliable sources for channels in individual countries, but what we need for THIS article are reliable sources covering multiple channels together. Otherwise, we are synthesizing the sources about individual channels to create the Wikipedia-exclusive idea of an "international BBC Kids channel brand". As I pointed out below, this is an issue coming from the sources, not Wikipedia, so it is impossible to fix here and the article must therefore be deleted. Modernponderer ( talk) 22:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    So is your argument that such a brand in itself is not notable, although the individual instances are? Chagropango ( talk) 06:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    User:Chagropango, no! My factual statement (not argument) is that no brand named "BBC Kids" even exists, because the sources are ONLY about individual channels! Modernponderer ( talk) 19:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Convert to disambiguation page There are only two entities here, each with their own article (nobody should count the U.S. Pluto TV version, that's not a cable channel, nor the South African app), and it's strongly likely the Bahamas and Jamaica got the Canadian version (Canadian network carriage is common in both those nations). The latter can be put in the CA article, and this should plainly be a disambiguation. There was no 'revival' of the original Canadian service as claimed here, so I've changed that heading but do not endorse this article in any manner. Appropriate mention of progammes being made available as VOD/AVOD services in SA/US/TW can be made in a short manner on the CBBC/ CBeebies articles (US is already mentioned), but not here. Nate • ( chatter) 22:39, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • MergePer above, one possibility is to merge any content worth keeping to other pages, then convert to disambiguation page per Nate. Seems like a great solution, given that both entities already have their own articles already, and it's not 100% clear that they actually belong grouped together as part of a single article. Cielquiparle ( talk) 12:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    • As previously stated, I have no problem with the Canadian channel details being removed from here, but there is no other page that covers the various 2021-current services using the "BBC Kids" brand. They are clearly growing in number, and taking different forms in different territories. Giving them individual pages would mean WP:OVERLAP, so why not mention them all here? Transient-understanding ( talk) 05:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC) reply
      • Comment They're merely streaming services which air programming drawn from the BBC and thus do not earn articles like their permanent network counterparts, as the services can be pulled without any public notice. Thus, mention in the articles mentioned above is appropriate and proper. Nate • ( chatter) 22:35, 18 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Is it worth considering converting this page into a Set index page instead of a Disambiguation page per WP:SETINDEX...? Maybe that addresses concerns on all sides and you could keep any content that has citations? It strikes me that Set index pages are an underused option. Cielquiparle ( talk) 10:28, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, notable subdivision of the BBC. Stifle ( talk) 12:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The fact that its division opened in locations that are so disparate are a clear sign it is notable. scope_creep Talk 18:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    • OK that's it, I'm obviously being trolled so goodbye WP:AGF – what a relief! Now let me make some things crystal clear:
      • THERE IS NO SUCH "DIVISION" AS "BBC KIDS". THIS IS A FABRICATION OF WIKIPEDIA.
      • NOT A SINGLE SOURCE (including the one that was found here) MAKES THIS CLAIM.
      • @ User:Stifle and @ User:scope_creep: unless both of you want to get reported for spreading WP:Hoaxes – as I am this close to doing now that AGF has been shattered – I strongly suggest that you strike out your votes immediately (not !votes as you clearly didn't treat them as such).
      • Note to the closer: If factually false votes such as these are not disregarded, it implies your support for hoaxes on Wikipedia (and all the consequences that supporting a type of vandalism implies). Modernponderer ( talk) 20:01, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment @ Modernponderer: I'm a page reviewer and it comes with various extra search functions as part of that. One of them is Google CSE. You can set this up yourself. When you do a search on Google CSE it comes with reams of coverage. The same with Google news. When you look at one of these references, for example, one their news site, BBC Studios Kids & Family announces new senior appointments to help accelerate growth it states clearly "BBC Kids branded services and on leading content platforms around the world." which likely verifies the term. Its not the most salubrious ref but it shows the division exists, perhaps its some type of management structure for the bbc childrens brand. I'm not in the business of providing hoaxes on Wikipedia. Your comment approaches WP:BLUDGEON territory. scope_creep Talk 20:18, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    • If a page is so grossly, obscenely out of line with Wikipedia policy that it must be deleted without delay, no tool in one's toolbox is off-limits. Call it "bludgeoning" if you want, but it is a point of pride, not a fault, to actually stand up for Wikipedia policy instead of going like most of the participants here – "It's from the BBC, and WP:IKNOWIT (the BBC, not the non-existent "brand"), so obviously the article should be kept!" – without actually reading the reason for deletion, as explained in great detail in this discussion (as if the nomination weren't clear enough).
    • And it does seem that latter point applies to you, as your source comes with the following problems:
      • It is from the BBC itself, and therefore prohibited to use for the purpose of deciding whether to have a standalone article on a subject (per WP:N's requirement of independent sources). Seriously, what is it doing here? You're an experienced editor, so how do you not know that? And as if to add insult to injury, that's after I've already explained this exact point earlier in this discussion... do you see why this really looks like trolling?
      • Even this unusable source does not call "BBC Kids" a "division"! That is the part I'm calling a hoax, made up in this very deletion discussion in fact. Modernponderer ( talk) 21:11, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
        • No one said BBC Kids is a division of the BBC. The company is BBC Studios (not BBC the corporation), the department is BBC Kids & Family (it has a department head so, duh, it is a department), and one of their brands is BBC Kids. Spinning Spark 22:47, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Vanessa Lawrens

Vanessa Lawrens (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable model. PepperBeast (talk) 00:58, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

* Delete fails Wikipedia:NMODEL. AndrewYuke ( talk) 12:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC) - strike sock - Beccaynr ( talk) 00:35, 19 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect to 2022 United States Senate election in Colorado. ✗ plicit 00:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Joe O'Dea

Joe O'Dea (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only notable for being a failed candidate in the 2022 United States Senate election in Colorado; there is no significant coverage of him outside of the context of that election. Elli ( talk | contribs) 00:27, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

We should also do the same for this page: /info/en/?search=Stephanie_Trussell Putitonamap98 ( talk) 15:49, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply

*Delete candidates of election or a nominee for the 2022 United States Senate election in Colorado, does not pass Wikipedia:NPOL. AndrewYuke ( talk) 12:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC) - strike sock - Beccaynr ( talk) 00:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect (or merge if anyone thinks anything needs to be merged over) per above. This is less a question of notability than a WP:NOPAGE issue: everything that needs to be said about O'Dea can be said on the election page, so we can exercise our "editorial judgment" to have one stand-alone page instead of two. If O'Dea does something else that attracts RS coverage in the future, then it would of course be fine to split the article out again at that point. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 18:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_November_16&oldid=1123468113"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 15 November 17 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 05:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Viet Blind Children Foundation

AfDs for this article:
Viet Blind Children Foundation (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Last AfD was 12 years ago, I still cannot find any significant coverage which is surprising for an organization based in USA. It gets directory listings in gbooks. LibStar ( talk) 22:21, 9 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply

JavE

AfDs for this article:
JavE (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has already come up here a few times a while back (deleted once, but later resurrected), but hopefully this time will be conclusive. The extremely few and limited mentions of it to be found online do not appear to establish notability. An anonymous username, not my real name ( talk) 21:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was merge to Convoy Range. I'm closing as a Merge as it is an ATD that seems to have the approval of the AFD nominator. This AFD is only concerned with this oarticular article, if an editor wants to have a larger discussion of a mass merge to Convoy Range or, on the other hand, a bundled AFD nomination, that will have to be done elsewhere. Liz Read! Talk! 22:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Taff y Bryn

Taff y Bryn (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable place with 0 citations or references to prove its existence or establish notability. Zekerocks11 ( talk) 21:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Antarctica. Skynxnex ( talk) 22:04, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Doesn't meet WP:GNG. I couldn't find any significant coverage. ProofRobust 22:24, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I don't know if it would be worth the effort, but what about merging to Convoy Range? It would probably require merging all of the other pages that are linked there, but that might be a better format than giving each individual feature its own page, and collectively the range itself is definitely notable. Chagropango ( talk) 08:20, 17 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural keep - The guidelines in this case are WP:GEOLAND which states Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river.. The problem here is that a merge just of this mountain is not enough. There are 65 articles on features in the Convoy Range. I have looked at half of them and every one of them is a similar stub. They should all be treated together. A single page on the Convoy Range could become a very interesting article. A similar case are the Lakes of Grand Teton National Park where stubs on the individual lakes provide no benefit to the reader, but a single collated article allows them to be treated in one place, curating information for the interested reader. I am strongly in favour of developing the Convoy Range page in such a way, but it needs to be done for all 65 pages at once, and that will take more time than I have for this project. I would suggest that rather than going through the AfD lottery, a better approach would be to (1) develop the article; and (2) propose a merge of all 65 pages. It may be that some of the 65 would be sufficiently notable for a sub article, but this would establish a much better structure of parent and child articles for the interested reader. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 08:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    If someone wants to propose this to somebody, I don't really know who the right person would be, but it sounds to me like this would be a good idea. Zekerocks11 ( talk) 21:04, 19 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge information into Conroy Range. Should be enough room to merge all articles into it at a later date when somebody feels up to it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • delete GNS is already problematic as a sole source, but in any case WP:GEOLAND isn't a "get out of WP:GNG free" card, and the fact an expedition assigned a name to every spot they felt need one doesn't mean that anyone else cared. The use of GNS as the sole source tends to imply that nobody else did care. There is plenty of precedent for deleting natural features due to lack of real notability. Mangoe ( talk) 13:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Zoe Ramushu. Merging to the article on the test's creator as an ATD. It would be fairly straight-forwand to add some content to that article where the test is already mentioned. Liz Read! Talk! 03:13, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Chiriseri test

Chiriseri test (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Topic appears non-notable. Article as it is only cites primary sources, and I found nothing more in WP:BEFORE. ■ ∃  Madeline ⇔ ∃  Part of me ; 19:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmirŞah 21:30, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Bojan Ilievski

Bojan Ilievski (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any coverage beyond routine press about signing to teams, having searched online with both Latin and Cyrillic spellings, doesn't meet WP:GNG. Previously nominated for PROD, deprod-ed by Ortizesp without explanation. signed, Rosguill talk 18:11, 9 November 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Football, and North Macedonia. signed, Rosguill talk 18:11, 9 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:37, 9 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Draft? Noted in, [1], not even noted on Arab News, terrible match review! However I don't know Macedonian or Greek in order to do a real comprehensive search. I see Rosguill, you say you have, but have you? Isn't there a why and a how the guy made the national team? Macedonian football league is small fry and the club he plays for has only a capacity of 3K, that is suggestive it may not be the most important thing out there, but is it? I am I not sure I agree with your assessment here. Govvy ( talk) 22:33, 9 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    Not sure why Greek would be part of this, Ilievski appears to have exclusively played in North Macedonia based on the information available, not Greece. I searched for his name in and a few generic keywords in English and Macedonian like "фудбал" on both Google and Yandex and came up with nothing significant. signed, Rosguill talk 22:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    Why not Greek? A neighbouring country who has an interest in football who also cover Macedonian news. I am frankly surprised by this nomination, deleting an international player yet again. I saw a load of Danish international players deleted because no one wants to do the research, that information is lost now? But it seems the Macedonian wikipedia, no one has updated the national team page there since when? Not sure if it said last updated in 2018. Shame isn't it. Govvy ( talk)
    This seems to say more about the presumption of notability for international players than it does about this specific player's notability. signed, Rosguill talk 23:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    Danish sportspeople have been particularly targeted because access to Danish newspapers less than 100 years old is severely restricted, so unless an editor is physically in Denmark it's almost impossible to find appropriate sources. This is no ground to conclude as above that there is a problem with the presumption of notability - but people tend to see what they want to see. Ingratis ( talk) 12:58, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    Coming from Macedonia myself, Id say you can quite much never find deeper coverage about any Macedonian Football League player aside from routine press. The sports press in Macedonia is very small and certainly no international sites would ever write anything about Macedonian players, so expecting to find articles online about Ilievski or any other player from PMFL is being very optimistic lol In any case, the bottom line is that he did get called up for our national team and he indeed entered the match against Saudi Arabia, so as a National team player i assumed he qualified for an article. At the end of the day, its not like you can ever really find deeper coverage about players from San Marino or Andorra or so, but if they have been capped for their respective national teams then they still qualify for a page on wikipedia. Msb73505 ( talk) 19:16, 19 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    As has been alluded to earlier in the discussion, the subject-specific notability guideline that specified that national team members are automatically notable was deprecated following WP:NSPORTS2022 and is no longer in force. signed, Rosguill talk 19:35, 19 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmirŞah 21:27, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply

List of Minnesota State High School League State Championships

List of Minnesota State High School League State Championships (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced, unnecessary list. JJLiu112 ( talk) 20:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all unencyclopaedic in prose or scope (WP:NOTREPOSITORY): reply

List of Minnesota State High School League State Championships (Spring) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Minnesota State High School League State Championships (Winter) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Minnesota State High School League State Championships (Fall) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

-- JJLiu112 ( talk) 20:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 19:54, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Philip Anderson (activist)

Philip Anderson (activist) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not to be confused with Philip W. Anderson.

Subject appears to fail WP:BASIC. Coverage in the article is trivial in nature, and I'm not seeing anything better. There is [2] which includes excerpts of an interview with him, but the article is about tech censorship in general and doesn't cover Anderson in any detail. Other coverage is related to him being on the capitol grounds on January 6 (as in eyewitness interviewee) and being punched at a rally in SF, but again there isn't any depth of coverage here. VQuakr ( talk) 18:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 19:53, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply

List of early Christian texts of disputed authorship

List of early Christian texts of disputed authorship (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:UNSOURCED for 15 years, contains WP:OR, has an unclear scope and seems to violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and is probably WP:REDUNDANT. Essentially, the authorship of pretty much the large majority of early Christian writings is disputed. Apart from seven of the 13/14 epistles attributed to Paul and John of Patmos (not "John the Evanglist") as the author of the Book of Revelation, the authorship of all books of the New Testament is disputed. Then there are New Testament apocrypha/ Christian apocrypha/ pseudepigrapha#New Testament studies and some later works listed here as "Later Christian writings", where we've got pretty much the same situation. A whole category that is not even mentioned here yet is misattributed patristic works, with "pseudo-so-and-so" (see e.g. List of Church Fathers who quote the New Testament#Misattributed writings). I think far too wide a net is being cast here, and the only common elements that these text are somehow 'early Christian' plus having 'disputed authorship' is just way too little in common to be a meaningful list (or category). I do not rule out the idea of splitting this list up in smaller groupings, but lists or overviews of various groups of early Christian writings are already present and well-established elsewhere on English Wikipedia, including in the articles I linked to above, or in various categories those articles are in. Ultimately, this page may therefore also be redundant. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 17:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete aren’t most early Christian works of disputed authorship? Dronebogus ( talk) 20:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Yeah that's what I'm saying. Funnily enough, it would actually make more sense to create a list of early Christian texts of undisputed authorship. At least that kind of list would be somewhat limited and manageable. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 21:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Actually kind of an interesting concept. Dronebogus ( talk) 21:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Sure, but also pretty much covered already by all articles in Category:Biblical authorship debates, New Testament apocrypha and so on. I see no need for duplication. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 22:27, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 19:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Specialized Aviation Service Operation

Specialized Aviation Service Operation (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable-- and really just a repetition of a technical definition used by the FAA. PepperBeast (talk) 16:40, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 19:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Murder (Turkish law)

Murder (Turkish law) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After 11 years, this should be either sourced and if necessary updated, or deleted. As it stands, most editors will not have the possibility to even try to verify this, we don't know if what we have here is correct, or was correct in 2011, or was wrong all the time. Considering that the original author was blocked for socking in 2012, and the sock blocked for making unsourced problematic edits, just AGF'ing this article any longer is not wise. Fram ( talk) 16:29, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. I'm finding David Eppstein's, and others', rebuttal of notability claims to be persuasive. Liz Read! Talk! 19:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Michael Sugrue

Michael Sugrue (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An impressive list of achievements, but doesn't meet WP:NPROF or WP:BIO. There was a discussion about notability a month ago at the talk page, but nothing seems to have come of that. A WP:BEFORE search shows that the one solid source is the American Conservative profile currently cited. I can find only one paper by him on Scopus, and low citation count on Google Scholar (note that there's an Australian surgeon with the same name, so you'll need to exclude a few keywords in your search).

The article creator wrote in an edit summary that he passes on points 6 and 7 of WP:NPROF. On point 6, I can only find that he was the chair of Ave Maria University's Core Curriculum Committee. On point 7, he has contributed lectures to The Great Courses series, but I can't find reviews of those lectures online in reliable sources, or other evidence of "substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity". Storchy ( talk) 16:20, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Sugrue has two positions which may qualify him for points five and six of WP:NACADEMICS. Firstly, he held the distinguished position as the Behrman fellow at Princeton University during the roughly twelve years he served there as a professor; seeing as this is a named, distinguished position, it may pass (5). Secondly, since his position at Ave Maria University as chairman of the Core Curriculum Committee is an appointed administrative post at a major academic institution, it may pass (6).
What's important to note is that even though Sugrue may have been an accomplished professor while he was still a teacher at Princeton or Ave Maria, he became well-known to a wide audience through his Great Courses lectures and his YouTube channel, where he now posts daily. I don't think there is any doubt that these lectures have had a wide influence on, at the very least, some people.
In my opinion, I think there is ground that the article should be kept for these reasons. GuardianH ( talk) 19:35, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn. Yep, still hate AFD and these mysterious reference-finding bombs editors throw at me. Whatever to the max. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 ( talk) 23:18, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

The Local Fuzz

The Local Fuzz (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail WP:NALBUM. One song 42+ minutes in length, album didn't chart, etc. Steel1943 ( talk) 15:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep: Found a significant list of sources ( [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] plus this potentially useful interview as a primary source) in addition to what's already in the article. QuietHere ( talk) 21:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Sports-related curses#European World Cup champions' curse. Liz Read! Talk! 19:45, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply

European World Cup champions' curse

European World Cup champions' curse (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable "curse", only refered to as the "European World Cup champions' curse" in a Reddit post [9], so isn't needed as a redirect either. Already included in Sports-related curses#European World Cup champions' curse anyway, so nothing is lost by deleting this. Fram ( talk) 15:48, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedy delete by Fastily per author request. ✗ plicit 12:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Mustafa Kemal Ataküfr

Mustafa Kemal Ataküfr (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced, with no indication of notability per Wikipedia:Neologism. In a WP:BEFORE search, I can find "Ataküfr" only mentioned in passing in a single, non-notable blog, and in a non-notable student essay on academia.edu. Storchy ( talk) 15:35, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I did consider speedy, including A11, since it's only mentioned on a single blog online. If I'm being too cautious, then I've got no objection if someone wants to BOLDly nominate this for speedy delete. Storchy ( talk) 16:38, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • It doesn’t violate wikipedia rules, you can find an exact similar wiki page of “North Atlantic Terrorist Organization”
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Terrorist_Organization Amr.elmowaled
  • atakufr nickname is used on social media among folks and i can bring up many posts and comments using it if asked, isn’t that enough to have an article about ?, is it a must to have the nickname mentioned in journals for example ? Amr.elmowaled
  • No, it must have significant use in WP:Reliable sources. If a newspaper wrote about people using it on social media, that would be a reliable source. But social media posts alone won't help us here. Storchy ( talk)
  • the WP:Reliable sources you sent explains what qualify as information source about topics, not what qualify to having a wiki page about, as both of us already agreed that the nickname atakufr is widely used on social media among folks and many websites, the case here isn’t about reliable sources talking about atakufr in the first place, it’s about the existence of the term which both of us agree that it does and is already in use Amr.elmowaled — Preceding undated comment added 17:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply

V.D.U.C Ramjas Primary School, Ballimaran

V.D.U.C Ramjas Primary School, Ballimaran (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence found of any notability for this school. Fram ( talk) 14:15, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply

List of furry role-playing games

List of furry role-playing games (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nom per IP request, whose rationale is Unsourced, and there seem to be no reliable sources about this as a topic, let alone that discuss this as a set, failing WP:NLIST. What constitutes inclusion here seems to be complete WP:OR as well. I find myself agreeing; I went looking and there's some minor sourcing talking specifically about furry video games, but I could not find anything talking about them as a group, and the inclusion of games here is wholly unreferenced and smacks of synthesis (just having anthropomorphic animal characters might make a game appealing to furries, but it does not make them furry video games.) Fails NLIST. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:57, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Sunil Kalai

Sunil Kalai (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Gets mentions in articles, but currently, there is not a single in-depth piece of coverage about him from an independent source in the article. Searches did not turn up any either, so he fails WP:GNG, and doesn't come close to meeting WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 TT me 13:48, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 14:13, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Owor Paul

Owor Paul (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL. Contested as an independent candidate but failed to be elected. No clear evidence of notability. Onel5969 TT me 13:35, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

*Delete Being a candidates of election does not pass Wikipedia:NPOL. AndrewYuke ( talk) 12:55, 18 November 2022 (UTC) - strike sock - Beccaynr ( talk) 00:37, 19 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 14:13, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Made by Hand

Made by Hand (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No WP:SIGCOV, just rewriting of an old 1940s television programme which appears to be neither notable, nor significant, nor remembered. Unsourced except for the BBC. JJLiu112 ( talk) 12:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ✗ plicit 23:57, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Benjamin Johns

Benjamin Johns (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable independent film producer. Probable COI, but no independent, non-trivial coverage provided or apparent from search. Jdcooper ( talk) 12:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 10:07, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:21, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Kaizad Hansotia

Kaizad Hansotia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An entrepreneur page. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBUSINESSPERSON.

Sources: [10] Industry related - most probably promoted, no editorial team

[11] Critical review, probably eligible source.

[12] Copied from this source: [13] The source is dubious and the article has covert advertisiment

[14] Very short and promotional, published in a local tabloid. Starts with dubious: "Mumbai-born and US-based, globally renowned cigar magnate, Kaizad Hansotia, has recently been in town to launch a duty-free outlet of his premium cigar brand – Gurkha Cigars." The brand is unknown as well. No journalist name - clear PR.

[15] Mirror article from this source: [16] Which doesn't have any information and is, anyways, an industry-related source, which is also extremely promotional.

[17] Clearly promotional article from the promotional website.

Note: I've left a COI notice on the author's Talk page. And it is beyond my imagination, how such an experienced editor as User:Curb Safe Charmer could approve the page and allowed it to the main space on Wikipedia. Suitskvarts ( talk) 11:51, 9 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Initially I was expecting to decline the draft, but a Google search revealed a chapter in Hansotia's career that the author had interestingly left out of the biography. Those new sources tipped the balance in favour of their being reliable, independent, in depth coverage of him. It became less important that the original sources remaining in the article were interviews or likely promo pieces. If - and you may well be right but there's no evidence - the author has a COI then it may have backfired that the article now includes the reason that they are no longer CEO of the company.
Thanks for providing your analysis of the sources, which helps other AfD participants understand your reasoning. In the first source - tobaccobusiness.com, the coverage is negative about Hansotia, so while it is possible that it is a PR piece from Gurkha Cigars to distance themselves from him, it won't have been paid for by Hansotia. The coverage is balanced and well informed, so I don't have a problem using this as a source for this article. Coverage in a national newspaper would for example be better coverage than an industry-specific magazine, but I think it is good enough in this case.
In the Halfwheel piece, the writer Charlie Minato uses the same phrase "this comes after a tumulteous week" but other than that I am happy that it is intellectually independent of the first source.
Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 11:01, 14 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 10:06, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 08:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Vicky Barnecutt

Vicky Barnecutt (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not yet notable by Wikipedia:Notability (academics), WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Works for and with some notable institutions, but I can't find her on Scopus, and citations are low on Google Scholar. No coverage of her work online in reliable mainstream press sources either. Storchy ( talk) 09:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Draft Not yet notable – Wikipedia:Too soon. Article should be drafted, not deleted. Annoyed-Briefs-in-Jenkins ( talk) 11:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 08:39, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Henry L. Hooks

Henry L. Hooks (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not clear that WP:GNG is met - local coverage only. Also WP:COI issues - a WP:BEFORE search shows a family relationship between this person and Greshun De Bouse, see the discussion there and at WP:COIN for more information. Melcous ( talk) 09:48, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect to Broadcom Corporation#Philanthropy. Stifle ( talk) 12:30, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Broadcom Foundation

Broadcom Foundation (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Refs fail WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND. Refs are interviews, profiles and routine coverage along with passing mentions. Non-notable. Been on the cat:nn list for three years and never been updated. scope_creep Talk 09:37, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete and redirect to Broadcom_Corporation#Philanthropy (I would say merge, but there doesn't seem to be anything worth merging). The foundation is clearly not independently notable of the corporation. SmartSE ( talk) 10:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    I've added a couple of things, links from the EETimes and the like. The documentation of Foundation's 1099s show that is independent of the Corporation. Personally, I think it is notable because of the push to promote STEM in the US, Africa, Malaysia. The more that I understand what is going on in politics, the more I understand that these big foundations are notable and drive everything from new policy (like the California EITC) to how our education system is run. This isn't the largest foundation, but it has $128 million in assets (according to their annual report), so it has a bit of pull. JoeKleim ( talk) 05:05, 17 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Broadcom Corporation#Philanthropy. This article fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG, and there's nothing worth merging that isn't already at the target article, but it's a reasonable search term for what's covered on that article. - Aoidh ( talk) 17:06, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    Again, I'm trying to understand the WP:GNG. I find clear coverage that is independent (EETimes, NY Times, etc). What is needed to drive the notable past that level? Also, I tried to add the EE coverage last night as a reference: https://www.eetimes.com/turning-to-africas-youth-to-help-fill-the-skills-gap/
    But I don't see the edits left tonight? Why did User:Scope creep undo my update? The EE Times article is clearly relevant. I'm new at this, engineer by trade, so I thought I would start out editing on something non controversial, but ??? JoeKleim ( talk) 05:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC) reply
The eetimes reference mentions Paula Golden, president of the Broadcom Foundation once in passing when explaining who they were interviewing. Content from an interviewee is not an independent source of a subject they represent. Outside of the quotes from her, there are a few mentions of the parent Broadcom company, but absolutely nothing about the Foundation, aside from the aforementioned explanation of who Paula Golden is. That's trivial coverage and does not contribute to the notability of the subject. The NYTimes piece is similarly trivial, a quote from Golden and a brief explanation that she works for the Broadcom Foundation, but that's it. - Aoidh ( talk) 06:08, 17 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Ok. I see that. I personally thought it was an interesting article because of the push to get STEM integrated into countries outside the US. According to a 2015 bureau of labor report there is no shortage of STEM since, many stem degree holders actually work outside of stem (myself included). If you look at the pew research about stem, it shows that Women continue to be underrepresented in physical sciences, computing, and engineering. So, it still seems that promoting STEM, especially among women in the US is critical. I'll look at some other news coverage, but I think that some organization that spends millions of dollars every year promoting STEM for young women is notable, I'll just see what I can find that meets the standard. JoeKleim ( talk) 15:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • @ JoeKleim: It is the WP:NCORP policy that applies to businesses. WP:GNG used to apply, but in 2008-2012 it was comprehensively abused by 1000's of paid editors in a true avalanche of crap business article, many of 10,000's of which are now deleted. Editor Tony Ballioni and several other editors came together to write WP:NCORP. Study it. The quality of source is important. The fact that it in the New York Times, or the Guardian, or the AP News, or the Telepgraph, or the Japan Times or Le Monde is not particularly important in this context, as all these papers take the advertising dollar, more so in the 2008-2012 when they were getting horsed by social media, less so as many of them have paywalls, but it still matters as valuable digital real-estate, they still take the advertising dollar. scope_creep Talk 08:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC) reply
The EETimes reference you put above, fails WP:ORGIND as its a partial interview with the company. Its the quality of the reference that counts, not where its placed. I don't think I undid your edits. Are you sure your on the right Afd? scope_creep Talk 08:18, 17 November 2022 (UTC) reply
I don't think it was intentional but you did with this edit. - Aoidh ( talk) 14:37, 17 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Must have missed that. Half or fully asleep, still working away. Sorry. scope_creep Talk 15:14, 17 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the explanation. As I explained to Aoidh, I think the Foundation is notable because of level of influence that I see (did you watch the UN SDG media day?) and the impact of the programs that they drive at the national level. I watched the video of Prisha Shroff, a high-school winner of one of the Broadcom awards, speaking at the UN. She was very intelligent and had a great story, specifically about how climate change (wild-fires) impacted her and how she uses coding, sat imagery, moisture analysis, and work with local fire-fighters to determine potential wild-fire risk zones! If you give me a little time, I think that I can find more information that is interesting and notable to share. JoeKleim ( talk) 15:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Pay particular attention to the requirement for "Independent Content" as defined in WP:ORGIND so that the information in the article originates from a source *unaffiliated* with the topic company. So, it could be argued that Prisha, being a beneficiary and winner is not unaffiliated but also that her "great story" has nothing to do with providing *independent* *in-depth* information *about* the company itself. We're not looking for "information that is interesting and notable" here at AfD, we're specifically focussed on evaluating a company's notability and for that we need references that meet NCORP criteria. HighKing ++ 16:03, 18 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    HighKing, I get what you are sawing. I think the issue that I am struggling with is the same issue that occurs in more general politics. Just because something is notable, does not mean that it gets written up in the Guardian. For example, the $52B Chip's act did not appear out of nowhere. Reading the Wikipedia article makes it look like Tim Ryan came up with it and it got passed with hard work. Yet that story is weak. Over the past 5 election cycles, Intel has contributed ~$1M (open secrets.org) from its PAC pretty equally to both Republicans and Democrats. Qualcomm spent $7 million in 2022 alone. I don't see one article about who came up with the chips act and how they pitched it. This doesn't have anything to do with Broadcom per se, but I see a foundation that was given $50Mill in 2009 and $100M soon after has more pull than just sponsoring science fairs. Clearly, investing a $1 million/year in US science fairs isn't much, but doing the same in India and Africa (which they sponsor as well) is another story. I could write a story just based on what is in the 1099s. I just need to keep looking if someone wrote the article that I need to post. JoeKleim ( talk) 01:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    Sorry, I mean to say the 990s (sorry, I mistyped). JoeKleim ( talk) 01:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Casale Monferrato. Liz Read! Talk! 05:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Lo Spettatore del Monferrato

Lo Spettatore del Monferrato (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't pass WP:GNG; minor paper published for a period of only 3 years more than 150 years ago. Nythar ( 💬- 🎃) 09:14, 26 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:53, 2 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:09, 9 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to consider Merge suggestion from the nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Merge the merge seems like an acceptable option. Oaktree b ( talk) 16:00, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge as ATD. I looked for sourcing but couldn’t see enough to support a stand-alone article. An early newspaper is certainly worth a mention though. May also be worth a redirect as a plausible search term. Mccapra ( talk) 04:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment and Merge I looked at the article for Casale Monferrato and there isn't an obvious section that this belongs in. There isn't a section for, for example, culture. So I'm not sure how this fits into the article without creating a new section and hoping that there will be additional information to fill it in. I ran through as many archives of Italian newspapers as I could find and this one didn't appear, nor did I find it listed in the local or national libraries. My guess is that all that remains is this mention in a bibliography and some mentions in older books. Lamona ( talk) 17:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Not strong Keep arguments but the deletion rationale is also iffy. I'm going to default this to Keep although there is agreement that the sources could use some improvement. Liz Read! Talk! 05:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Geneshift

AfDs for this article:
Geneshift (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

May fail WP:GNG (tagged as such since 2017). The article is an orphan, and there seems to be a COI concerning the creator of the page. Sources may be sufficient judging by the handful of external links on the page. LilianaUwU ( talk / contribs) 05:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. LilianaUwU ( talk / contribs) 05:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Seems notable enough, and COI concerns are not grounds for deletion if an article is provably notable. The offending material simply has to be removed, and the article not give the impression of being an advertisement. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 05:54, 17 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    Hey, I am the creator of the game. I certainly understand why COI might be a concern, and don't want to write or include anything other than factual objective information. As for notability the game has over 2000 reviews on Steam, which is well above average.
    I would say on another point however, that the name of the game was changed last week. However I personally do not have permission to rename/move to the new url. Am I right in thinking that in the interests of keeping wikipedia as accurate and up to date as possible, the url and page title should be changed?
    Here is a source for this (official Steam announcement): https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/308600/view/6231320936800329471
    I'm just a gamedev and not particularly familar with editing wikipedia, so please let me know what I can do to help. And thanks in general for keeping this site as up to date as it is. Bencelot ( talk) 07:27, 17 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The two references at Kotaku and PC Gamer, while depending on quotes somewhat, are probably WP:SIGCOV despite not being full reviews (these are also established reliable sources that are secondary and independent). Vice piece is also WP:SIGCOV but only marginally reliable per WP:RSP. In contrast, the rest does appear to be routine announcements, e.g., this article depends upon a press release, whereas this seems also interview-like.
Nevertheless, from reading the article I think it's decently neutral, and doesn't obviously fall under other WP:DELREASON. It has some WP:RS, and doesn't seem to be unambiguously promotional, and does not seem to violate WP:NOT, nor does it need significant cleanup (i.e., almost a full rewrite or WP:TNT instead of minor cleanup falling under NEXIST) to address obvious WP:V or WP:PROMO cases. I also don't see being an orphan would be a convincing case towards deletion, the subject might be obscure but even articles that were unsourced/poorly sourced for ten years are not deleted based on that reason alone per WP:NEXIST, e.g., the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#I propose that an article being tagged for over a decade as completely uncited should be a reason for deletion. Therefore, IMO the main potential reason to delete is notability, which this article borderline meets, with two sources that count towards it and another one with no consensus whether it is reliable. VickKiang (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2022 (UTC) reply
@ LilianaUwU: While it is tagged, a 2017 AfD discussion resulted in keep, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geneshift. Many thanks. VickKiang (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 12:31, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Oindrila Sen

Oindrila Sen (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Indian actress fails WP:NACTOR with no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 04:54, 9 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:54, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 03:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Dominika Lasota

Dominika Lasota (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor Polish activist, there is no WP:SIGCOV. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. Ongoing discussion at pl wiki ( pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/biografie/2022:11:01:Dominika Lasota) right now consists of the creator defending it but more experienced editors pointing out the SIGCOV problem (she didn't win any awards, etc., all we have are passing mentions in media). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Satisfies WP:GNG. Notable in multiple international sources that are not yet in the current version of the article: Financial Times, Nov 2021 Dominika Lasota, 19, an activist with Fridays for Future in Poland; Politico, Nov 2022 notable as a Polish activist worth quoting and notable enough to have faced charges ... over her participation in a protest in 2020; New York Times, Jun 2022 The woman shouting into a megaphone is Dominika Lasota, who has emerged as a protest leader. ... Ms. Lasota and Ms. Jedroszkowiak have emerged as leaders in a dynamic new wing of the antiwar movement, and the video of them lecturing Mr. Macron went viral, making them celebrities for a moment in France and in Poland, where they are from. Notable to some degree since 2020 in Kujawsko-Pomorskie: Express Bydgoski, Sep 2020 – main activist from Młodzieżowy Strajk Klimatyczny (Climate Youth Strike) interviewed; Portal Kujawski, Jun 2020 - long quotes published. Polityka, Nov 2020, named as a member of the Consultative Council (Poland). Lasota's notability increased from local and national in 2020 to international in 2021 and 2022. Boud ( talk) 04:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Boud ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. reply
    Lasota is still attracting major media attention in Poland for her climate emergency related activities, as of October 2022: 18 Oct 2022, Gazeta Wyborcza - summary: We hope that the government stops playing around and starts treating the emergency seriously. ... – said Dominika Lasota. The climate activists protested in front of the Office of the Prime Minister. BiznesAlert.pl is less well-known, but widely used as a source in pl.Wikipedia - this 20 Oct 2022 article, Lasota: We're dealing with a crisis and our politicians are avoiding it (interview), gives an in-depth interview with Lasota. Notability in TV media ( user:Bruno_Latour's comment below) is harder to judge without online text sources, but that is not needed anyway. Boud ( talk) 18:53, 2 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    This all fails WP:SIGCOV, those are mentions in passing. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    Your interpretation of SIGCOV in this context has already been asserted. An uninvolved editor will look at the evidence sooner or later. Boud ( talk) 22:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    How relevant is ongoing discussion at pl wiki? At the moment none of the articles climate crisis, 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) or 2022 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP27, which starts tomorrow 6 November) exist in pl.Wikipedia, and pl:Konferencja Narodów Zjednoczonych w sprawie Zmian Klimatu, Warszawa 2013 = 2013 United Nations Climate Change Conference is only one paragraph and three one-sentence paragraphs long, despite having been held in Poland. The collective editing activity of people editing on pl.Wikipedia on topics related to the climate emergency doesn't seem like much of a help in deciding on the notability of a Polish climate activist in terms of knowledge about the world on en.Wikipedia. Boud ( talk) 13:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    This non-free photo in the Krytyka Polityczna 28 October 2022 article makes Dominika Lasota look like she must be a president or prime minister. Boud ( talk) 19:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - International media such as the New York Times, CNN, Financial Times, The Japan Times, Politico, Guardian, Sky News have written about the activist's actions. The number of different media outlets that have written about her attest to her fame (57 different sources in the footnotes in polish wikipedia). There are no awards or habilitation among climate activists to establish encyclopedic lines. Activists, as the name implies, act, and it is the measure of their actions, activities and initiatives that should be judged, and these, in the case of Dominika Lasota, are of impressive quantity and quality. These include the most important activist activities on a global scale (e.g., the COP26 summit in Glasgow, the petition with Greta Thunberg, which was signed by nearly 2 million people). Additional Lasota is so original in her theses that Gazeta Wyborcza wrote that she has created a "new current of activism." Lasota is behind some of the most important activist actions in Poland in recent years, such as the Youth Climate Strike, the All-Poland Women's Strike, and most recently the Crisis Strike. She is internationally known (and here the fact that there have been articles about her in other language versions of Wikipedia can be used as evidence), as well as a wide spectrum of foreign media that write about her. The media follows her discussions with figures such as Ursula von der Leyen and Emmanuel Macron. In the media, she appears on programs with figures such as Szymon Malinowski, Bogdan Chojnicki and Michal Kolodziejczak. It is worthwhile to supplement the English-language article with the threads contained in https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominika_Lasota Bruno Latour ( talk) 09:51, 2 November 2022 (UTC) — Bruno Latour ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep - as other editors have mentioned the amount of international news focusing on her work seems more than enough to warrant an article. BogLogs ( talk) 05:44, 19 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Meeting or talking to someone even if that person is head of the state does not judge, that the second interlocutor is such influential person to deserve for having wikipedia article. Many of sources to this article are interviews taken with Lasota, they aren't independent article suggesting she has outstanding achievments. She's casual polish activist who has been invited to media's a few times The Wolak ( talk) 13:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC) reply

One of Lasota's outstanding achievements in 2022 is, according to The New York Times, Jun 2022 that she has emerged as a protest leader ... in a dynamic new wing of the antiwar movement. See The New York Times for more information about NYT. Boud ( talk) 02:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to see more participation by experienced editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:07, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Westin Palace Milan

Westin Palace Milan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, only the first gnews hit could be considered indepth. Otherwise the coverage is mainly hotel directory listings. LibStar ( talk) 03:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle ( talk) 12:31, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep Away (song)

Keep Away (song) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSONG, utterly lacking in-depth discussion in the media. A thorough search for sources returns only automated listings. Redirect to Godsmack (album). Binksternet ( talk) 22:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Redirect unless more coverage is found. I'm as surprised as the other two respondents that you couldn't find anything for a band this huge. Unfortunately I couldn't find much either. There's a choice interview quote here which might be good to add, but otherwise I'm only getting charts and passing mentions among other songs. I wanna believe there's more out there that just hasn't been archived online, but without that we can't keep this page. QuietHere ( talk) 06:42, 2 November 2022 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Frye, Mark (June 2005). School Shooter: In His Own Words. iUniverse. p. 122. ISBN  9780595347513.
  2. ^ Dorfman, Jay (January 14, 2022). Theory and Practice of Technology-Based Music Instruction. Oxford University Press. p. 121. ISBN  9780197558980.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Potential sources added late in the discussion, relisting so editors can assess.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:06, 9 November 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Leaning keep per SBKSPP. BD2412 T 03:59, 9 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ BD2412 to be frank, I don't really understand what SBKSPP saw in the sources presented. If they're talking about the ones CJ-Moki posted, there's a reason I was so quick to say "No" to those. And if they're talking about the award Dylnuge, they said themself that they didn't think it was significant enough. And the only other source shared before that comment was in an off-topic comment about a ZZ Top song which has nothing to do with this AfD. And though they were posted after, I don't see notability in what GSWiki shared either (nor do they apparently). QuietHere ( talk) 12:28, 9 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as this discussion has a mixed consensus between Keep and Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:50, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep I also found this source, which mentions the song's popularity, style and some of the back story behind it. I suspect there would be more coverage, especially if one were to go through the print sources, given the release date. It is frequently described as the single which launched the band to prominence, so that would also increase the notability of the song itself. Chagropango ( talk) 13:24, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Closing a little early as the nomination was withdrawn. Now, I'm hungry for dinner! Liz Read! Talk! 02:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Strawberry pie

Strawberry pie (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's nothing in this article which doesn't just belong in pie. --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 03:27, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment - It's such a short stubby article for an article made so many years ago. If some more content can be added maybe it can be kept. Otherwise I'd say just delete it. Nice pictures though. BogLogs ( talk) 07:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Moot. @ Deor: deleted this as A10 after @ Metropolitan90:'s tag. Yes it's my nom, but just procedurally closing the discussion. If someone feels this is an issue, feel free to re-close. Star Mississippi 16:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Translanguaging and the Use of Multiple Languages

Translanguaging and the Use of Multiple Languages (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A class essay critiquing Translanguaging, but creator reversed @ Rosguill:.s drafitification so we're here. We really need a better process for school projects. @ Ian (Wiki Ed): you have worked with this editor, or at least posted to their Talk. Can you help on this? Thanks! Star Mississippi 03:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as redundant to Translanguaging. The same content is there – seemingly added by the same editor, User:TeachingBox. Note that I have hidden the 'peer review' comments with a comment tag, since those are obviously not appropriate to article space. It might have been better to remove them entirely, but I suspect the page will be deleted at the close of this discussion. Cnilep ( talk) 02:27, 18 November 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that this topic might be the subject of a proper article, but this is a WP:TNT situation. Mojo Hand ( talk) 16:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply

LGBT rights opposition in companies

LGBT rights opposition in companies (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is probably an article to be written about this topic, but this is woefully unsuited to mainspace. It is undersourced, full of editorializing (This article presents the recent history of companies that promoted anti-LGBT views in either a direct or indirect way in the United States of America.) and more a persuasive essay than an article. While AfD isn't clean up, the creator is move warring and won't wait for AfC, so we're here. Star Mississippi 02:59, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Marine El Himer

Marine El Himer (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable model/social media influencer. Mooonswimmer 02:57, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:00, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply

William Thomas Mason

William Thomas Mason (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I think we fall short of WP:GNG here: of the three cited sources #1 is a short obituary in a local paper as part of a "local and general" news round up; #2 A 1906 encyclopedia entry that provides the most substantial coverage of the subject, but notably does so only in the context of its entry about the local Marlborough Police Department (for which we have no article), which he was head of at the time. #3 is a trivial mention in a ship-arrival announcement. Additional coverage was not readily available on Google Scholar or Google Books. signed, Rosguill talk 01:39, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus. And further, no consensus that this is a hoax. If further discussion on merger continues editorially, would highly advise toning down the rhetoric. Star Mississippi 13:23, 25 November 2022 (UTC) Updated to Keep per discussion at User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BBC_Kids. Thanks @Scope_creep for flagging what I missed. Star Mississippi 15:06, 2 December 2022 (UTC) reply

BBC Kids

BBC Kids (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This "article" may without exaggeration be the worst example of WP:SYNTH to ever hit Wikipedia. Forget reliable, not a single source period (update: one questionable source found below) so much as mentions any two – let alone more – of these completely independent channels together! The idea of an "international BBC Kids brand" for TV channels literally only exists as this Wikipedia page, until of course some hapless media intern comes along and writes an article "inspired" by this one before it could be deleted... Modernponderer ( talk) 01:14, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

I agree there is merit in covering the "BBC Kids" channels with two separate entries, one for the 2001-2018 channel in the Americas, and one for the 2021-current offerings. A page exists for the former, but currently this is the only page that aims to cover all aspects of the latter. I would not object if the page currently focused on the Australian BBC Kids feed had it's focus broadened globally, or if the page proposed for deletion remained but was refocused on the 2021-current period. But I don't approve of deleting this page without finding a home for it's content not covered elsewhere. Transient-understanding ( talk) 06:03, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
User:Transient-understanding, even the newer channels are (with one questionable exception found below) simply not discussed together in any sources. There is already a "home" for this content: individual channel articles, which do not violate WP:SYNTH.
(By the way, there was no "2001-2018 channel in the Americas" – it was 100%, entirely, purely a Canadian channel which was simply rebroadcasted in some other countries. That's another type of misinformation that "articles" like this help propagate if they are not deleted quickly.) Modernponderer ( talk) 19:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The noms claim that "BBC Kids" is not an international brand is hard to fathom. "BBC Kids launches in South Africa and Taiwan" from Broadband TV News opens with "BBC Studios is partnering with...as it extends the BBC Kids brand." I don't think Julian Clover is a "hapless media intern" but feel free to prove me wrong. The transition from in-house to BBC Studios (the commercial arm) which created the current incarnation of the BBC Kids brand has been well covered [23] [24] [25]. I don't have an argument with Transient-understanding over the benefits of a possible split, but there really is not enough content in the page yet to make that worth doing. Spinning Spark 13:07, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    • User:Spinningspark, congratulations (seriously!) – you found a single article that actually does talk about more than one of these channels. I've updated my nomination to point that out. Unfortunately, given that it was written well after this page was created there is a significant chance that exactly what I feared has already happened – intern or no intern. Regardless, we can't base an article on a single source...
    • About the other links you provided: I'd suggest you read past the titles of sources you cite, because they are about BBC kids content in general. They have nothing whatsoever to do with "BBC Kids" as a brand name. Just look at the variety of names the articles use:
      • kids division
      • children's division
      • the BBC’s in-house children’s TV department
      • Kids and Family Productions at BBC Studios
      • BBC Children’s In-House Productions
      • BBC Studios’ Kids & Family
      • BBC Children’s & Education
      • BBC Children
    • Furthermore, they are talking about content and not TV channels, which (despite the WP:COATRACK first sentence of this article, which even tarnished my nomination with its "brand" wording) are what this article is actually about. Modernponderer ( talk) 19:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The launch in South Africa got a significant amount of press. There's also coverage about the Australia launch. Maybe it could be structured better. Chagropango ( talk) 13:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    User:Chagropango, I don't ask this often as it's rarely appropriate but: please strike out your !vote. What you wrote has literally nothing whatsoever to do with WP:SYNTH, or this article frankly. Nobody (including me) is disputing that individual channels can be notable, which is why they have their own articles. Modernponderer ( talk) 19:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    Admittedly, I don't have a lot of familiarity with WP:SYNTH, but it's very hard for me to see how it could necessitate deletion of an article on a qualifying subject rather than improvement, unless the problems were so deep rooted that WP:TNT would be less work than fixing the issues. However, if you can explain it to me I would be grateful and I would also gladly strike out my !vote. Chagropango ( talk) 08:00, 17 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    User:Chagropango, WP:SYNTH means this is NOT a "qualifying subject". You've correctly pointed out that there are reliable sources for channels in individual countries, but what we need for THIS article are reliable sources covering multiple channels together. Otherwise, we are synthesizing the sources about individual channels to create the Wikipedia-exclusive idea of an "international BBC Kids channel brand". As I pointed out below, this is an issue coming from the sources, not Wikipedia, so it is impossible to fix here and the article must therefore be deleted. Modernponderer ( talk) 22:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    So is your argument that such a brand in itself is not notable, although the individual instances are? Chagropango ( talk) 06:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    User:Chagropango, no! My factual statement (not argument) is that no brand named "BBC Kids" even exists, because the sources are ONLY about individual channels! Modernponderer ( talk) 19:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Convert to disambiguation page There are only two entities here, each with their own article (nobody should count the U.S. Pluto TV version, that's not a cable channel, nor the South African app), and it's strongly likely the Bahamas and Jamaica got the Canadian version (Canadian network carriage is common in both those nations). The latter can be put in the CA article, and this should plainly be a disambiguation. There was no 'revival' of the original Canadian service as claimed here, so I've changed that heading but do not endorse this article in any manner. Appropriate mention of progammes being made available as VOD/AVOD services in SA/US/TW can be made in a short manner on the CBBC/ CBeebies articles (US is already mentioned), but not here. Nate • ( chatter) 22:39, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • MergePer above, one possibility is to merge any content worth keeping to other pages, then convert to disambiguation page per Nate. Seems like a great solution, given that both entities already have their own articles already, and it's not 100% clear that they actually belong grouped together as part of a single article. Cielquiparle ( talk) 12:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    • As previously stated, I have no problem with the Canadian channel details being removed from here, but there is no other page that covers the various 2021-current services using the "BBC Kids" brand. They are clearly growing in number, and taking different forms in different territories. Giving them individual pages would mean WP:OVERLAP, so why not mention them all here? Transient-understanding ( talk) 05:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC) reply
      • Comment They're merely streaming services which air programming drawn from the BBC and thus do not earn articles like their permanent network counterparts, as the services can be pulled without any public notice. Thus, mention in the articles mentioned above is appropriate and proper. Nate • ( chatter) 22:35, 18 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Is it worth considering converting this page into a Set index page instead of a Disambiguation page per WP:SETINDEX...? Maybe that addresses concerns on all sides and you could keep any content that has citations? It strikes me that Set index pages are an underused option. Cielquiparle ( talk) 10:28, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, notable subdivision of the BBC. Stifle ( talk) 12:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The fact that its division opened in locations that are so disparate are a clear sign it is notable. scope_creep Talk 18:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    • OK that's it, I'm obviously being trolled so goodbye WP:AGF – what a relief! Now let me make some things crystal clear:
      • THERE IS NO SUCH "DIVISION" AS "BBC KIDS". THIS IS A FABRICATION OF WIKIPEDIA.
      • NOT A SINGLE SOURCE (including the one that was found here) MAKES THIS CLAIM.
      • @ User:Stifle and @ User:scope_creep: unless both of you want to get reported for spreading WP:Hoaxes – as I am this close to doing now that AGF has been shattered – I strongly suggest that you strike out your votes immediately (not !votes as you clearly didn't treat them as such).
      • Note to the closer: If factually false votes such as these are not disregarded, it implies your support for hoaxes on Wikipedia (and all the consequences that supporting a type of vandalism implies). Modernponderer ( talk) 20:01, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment @ Modernponderer: I'm a page reviewer and it comes with various extra search functions as part of that. One of them is Google CSE. You can set this up yourself. When you do a search on Google CSE it comes with reams of coverage. The same with Google news. When you look at one of these references, for example, one their news site, BBC Studios Kids & Family announces new senior appointments to help accelerate growth it states clearly "BBC Kids branded services and on leading content platforms around the world." which likely verifies the term. Its not the most salubrious ref but it shows the division exists, perhaps its some type of management structure for the bbc childrens brand. I'm not in the business of providing hoaxes on Wikipedia. Your comment approaches WP:BLUDGEON territory. scope_creep Talk 20:18, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
    • If a page is so grossly, obscenely out of line with Wikipedia policy that it must be deleted without delay, no tool in one's toolbox is off-limits. Call it "bludgeoning" if you want, but it is a point of pride, not a fault, to actually stand up for Wikipedia policy instead of going like most of the participants here – "It's from the BBC, and WP:IKNOWIT (the BBC, not the non-existent "brand"), so obviously the article should be kept!" – without actually reading the reason for deletion, as explained in great detail in this discussion (as if the nomination weren't clear enough).
    • And it does seem that latter point applies to you, as your source comes with the following problems:
      • It is from the BBC itself, and therefore prohibited to use for the purpose of deciding whether to have a standalone article on a subject (per WP:N's requirement of independent sources). Seriously, what is it doing here? You're an experienced editor, so how do you not know that? And as if to add insult to injury, that's after I've already explained this exact point earlier in this discussion... do you see why this really looks like trolling?
      • Even this unusable source does not call "BBC Kids" a "division"! That is the part I'm calling a hoax, made up in this very deletion discussion in fact. Modernponderer ( talk) 21:11, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
        • No one said BBC Kids is a division of the BBC. The company is BBC Studios (not BBC the corporation), the department is BBC Kids & Family (it has a department head so, duh, it is a department), and one of their brands is BBC Kids. Spinning Spark 22:47, 24 November 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Vanessa Lawrens

Vanessa Lawrens (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable model. PepperBeast (talk) 00:58, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

* Delete fails Wikipedia:NMODEL. AndrewYuke ( talk) 12:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC) - strike sock - Beccaynr ( talk) 00:35, 19 November 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect to 2022 United States Senate election in Colorado. ✗ plicit 00:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Joe O'Dea

Joe O'Dea (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only notable for being a failed candidate in the 2022 United States Senate election in Colorado; there is no significant coverage of him outside of the context of that election. Elli ( talk | contribs) 00:27, 16 November 2022 (UTC) reply

We should also do the same for this page: /info/en/?search=Stephanie_Trussell Putitonamap98 ( talk) 15:49, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply

*Delete candidates of election or a nominee for the 2022 United States Senate election in Colorado, does not pass Wikipedia:NPOL. AndrewYuke ( talk) 12:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC) - strike sock - Beccaynr ( talk) 00:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect (or merge if anyone thinks anything needs to be merged over) per above. This is less a question of notability than a WP:NOPAGE issue: everything that needs to be said about O'Dea can be said on the election page, so we can exercise our "editorial judgment" to have one stand-alone page instead of two. If O'Dea does something else that attracts RS coverage in the future, then it would of course be fine to split the article out again at that point. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 18:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_November_16&oldid=1123468113"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE