PhotosLocation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Bulgaria women's international footballers. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Yana Dineva

Yana Dineva (  | 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)

Redirect to List of Bulgaria women's international footballers. I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. All I found in my searches were passing mentions ( 1, 2, 3, etc.) JTtheOG ( talk) 23:36, 10 December 2023 (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 NHS ambulance services. Consensus is against a standalone article. History remains under the redirect if a merge is deemed necessary. Star Mississippi 23:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Ambulance services trust

Ambulance services trust (  | 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)

Mostly regurgiated article. "Ambulance services trust" is not a legal entity, as by defintion all are either NHS trusts or NHS foundation trusts, and none of the cited sources specifically mention this term.

The rest of the article is a regurgitation / duplicate of information covered at NHS ambulance services. Elshad ( talk) 12:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 00:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 22:59, 10 December 2023 (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 07:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Hospital separation

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

It is a WP:DICDEF. The single source is a dictionary entry. [1] also defines the term as "used in commentaries on hospital statistics to describe the departure of a patient from hospital without distinguishing whether the patient departed alive or dead." It could perhaps be added to wikt:separation. Darcyisverycute ( talk) 14:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 22:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Much of this article seems to be about hospital statistics that are not specifically related to separation. "In Australia, the main hospital separations of 2004–05 were: 1. Digestive system problems. 2. Neoplasms. 3. Injury/Poisoning. ..." But those are reasons why the person went into the hospital, not why they left. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:09, 11 December 2023 (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 00:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Velo Vie

Velo Vie (  | 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)

Originally prodded in 2010, and the article has not seen any more sigcov. There is a review on one of their bicycles but it seems to be more about the bike than the company, barely counting as one source. Sungodtemple ( talkcontribs) 16:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft-deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 22:58, 10 December 2023 (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. Daniel ( talk) 21:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Vietnamese teams in the League of Legends World Championship

Vietnamese teams in the League of Legends World Championship (  | 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)

Similar to this deletion discussion. This article is full of unsourced cruft and tables of statistics with no accompanied commentary. There are no sources that indicate that the subject of "Vienamese teams at the World Championship" is a notable topic. There is no reason to merge this article to any of the World Championship articles, as its simply statistics. –  Pbrks ( t ·  c) 16:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While eligible for soft-deletion, this has been recently edited and so a soft-deletion is unlikely to 'stick'. Relisting for further consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 22:57, 10 December 2023 (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. Daniel ( talk) 00:39, 18 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Muzeum Miniaturowej Sztuki Profesjonalnej Henryk Jan Dominiak in Tychy

Muzeum Miniaturowej Sztuki Profesjonalnej Henryk Jan Dominiak in Tychy (  | 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 is not a G4, but issues and sourcing raised at the prior AfD don't appear to have changed. The promotional tone wouldn't be as much of an issue with independent sourcing to address it. Star Mississippi 13:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 13:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 16:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 22:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: are our notability standards more stringent than those of the 45 other language wikis that have a page about this government-accredited museum? The poor writing and sloppy sourcing are certainly making it difficult to endorse the article in its current form, but that's an argument for rewriting, not deleting.it. Owen× 00:09, 11 December 2023 (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 Protection Command. Daniel ( talk) 21:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Personal protection officer

Personal protection officer (  | 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 sure this term is sufficiently specific to warrant an article. "Personal protection officer" is a generic term that could apply anywhere in the English-speaking world. Some of the references are newspaper article where the writer may have just used it as a generic term.

I can find no statutory footing for this term or published material from the Met clearly demonstrating that this is a term specific to the Met.

Overall is a vague article. Elshad ( talk) 22:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft-deletion - previously at AfD under another title.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 22:53, 10 December 2023 (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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Ilgar Nabiyev

Ilgar Nabiyev (  | 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)

Despite searching "İlqar Nəbiyev" and "Ilgar Nabiyev", I was unable to find any evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. The best that I could find was Milli, which is just a Q&A with no independent analysis at all. In any case, one source is not enough for GNG or SPORTBASIC. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:33, 10 December 2023 (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. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 21:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Garden Networks

Garden Networks (  | 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, seems to be defunct. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 21:44, 10 December 2023 (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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Val Jobara

Val Jobara (  | 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 actor. Few minor roles, but no real claim to fame. Orphaned for a decade. PepperBeast (talk) 21:04, 10 December 2023 (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. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 21:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Muhammad Qasim Sadiq

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

The article currently has two sources, one of which is a dead link and the other isn't verified. BEFORE hasn't turned up anything, though sources may be available in other languages. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk) 20:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Strong Keep I am surprised that even after the first deletion discussions which closed as Keep it was again tagged for deletion discussion. These are some references I would like to mention: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15] Kkb091 ( talk) 09:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • KEEP Seems to me Kkb091 has provided many additional sources shown above. Also, today I looked and saw that he has worked on the article and further improved it, so there are no lack of sources any more at the article for notability. This Sufi sheikh (1845 - 1942) has a large number of followers in Pakistan. Ngrewal1 ( talk) 16:41, 13 December 2023 (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 EarthBound or an appropriate section thereof Star Mississippi 23:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Ness (EarthBound)

Ness (EarthBound) (  | 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)

Despite being a pretty well known character and the main face of Earthbound, there really isn't much being said about Ness. His entire reception is based around his Smash appearances, with most of it being summed up as "Ness is more known for Smash than Earthbound and is pretty fun to play." I did find this pretty good source while searching https://www.nintendojo.com/features/editorials/best-of-2012-the-church-of-ness-earthbounds-religious-overtones But I couldn't really find much more, as most discussion is just about Earthbound's plot than about Ness as a character. Given that Ness already has a section in the main Earthbound article, a merge there I feel would work as a perfect AtD, given that Ness has some legacy beyond his game, even if it isn't really enough for an article, in my book. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 20:10, 10 December 2023 (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. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 20:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Nevaun Turner

Nevaun Turner (  | 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)

Failure of WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 20:10, 10 December 2023 (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. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 20:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Port Harcourt bus electrocution

Port Harcourt bus electrocution (  | 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 lasting coverage; all significant coverage I can find is from within two days of the incident. Otherwise only passing mentions in summary in ProQuest results, never exceeding about 2 sentences, mostly in relation to similar events in Nigeria. – LaundryPizza03 ( d ) 19:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep per Owen and HJ Mitchell. S5A-0043 Talk 04:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎ per sourcing identified. Normally I'd relist for source assessment to see if any of the deletes changed, but these sources are an objective answer to the nomination and many of those !votes Star Mississippi 23:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Queens Well, Arizona

Queens Well, Arizona (  | 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 did not find SIGCOV for that topic. बिनोद थारू ( talk) 16:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. बिनोद थारू ( talk) 16:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - passes WP:GEOLAND. Onel5969 TT me 18:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Comment. From WP:GEOLAND,

      The Geographic Names Information System and the GEOnet Names Server do not satisfy the "legal recognition" requirement and are also unreliable for "populated place" designation.

      Yet those are the only sources. बिनोद थारू ( talk) 18:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

    • No it doesn't. It's a well. Uncle G ( talk) 19:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • The 1986 GNIS record for this actually gave it the feature class "well" and said that it was "UNOFF". Unfortunately, feature classes have become eroded over the years. And here we are declaring that a well "passes GEOLAND" for being an "unincorporated area" (piped as "populated place") 37 years later. The extra saddening thing, over the fact that we are still so uncritical of the GNIS that a well that even says "Well" in its name, is taken to be where people live, is that the coördinates for this in the GNIS are for the words "Queens Well" printed at the bottom left of the quadrangle map. It is the Queens Well quadrangle map. The actual location of the well on the map, where it says Queen's Well, is at 32°16′35″N 111°38′05″W / 32.276514°N 111.634689°W / 32.276514; -111.634689, with (on the 1:62500 maps) a handy stylized icon of a well to confirm that, as the GNIS used to say, it is a well. Uncle G ( talk) 19:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • It's not a physical well, anymore than Indian Wells, California is a collection of wells made by a group of native Americans. "Wells" itself is a pretty common name for geographic areas: please see Wells. — Maile ( talk) 00:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    • It is. Ironically, one can even see it, at the coördinates given above. It's the round thing, exactly where the well symbol and the words "Queens Well" on the topographic maps say it is, at the end of the little service road. The maps say it's a well. The GNIS said that it was a "well" up until "well" was squashed and mass replaced (incorrectly) a few years ago. We can see that it's a well. It's mind-boggling that people want to argue that no, it isn't a well and it could be a populated place. We've got the evidence of the very computer database record that the article is based upon outright saying that it is a well for a good 30 years. Uncle G ( talk) 01:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: It's a well. The name says it's a well. The GNIS says it's a well. The USGS topographic map says it's a well. The satellite image: [16] shows a well, or possibly a cistern, surrounded by desert. Look at the image. Do you see any sign of human population? This shouldn't be this difficult. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 02:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • delete A person can always argue / assume that not enough searching has been done and that the needed sources have been overlooked. The burden of proof that this well is either a populated place or otherwise notable lies on the person arguing for it. Just because it might be notable does not make a feature notable. If sources showing that can't be found, it does not belong in Wikipedia until an acceptable source showing notability is found.
  • I found two sources for Queen's Well, but neither shows that it is notable in any way. First on page 15 of McKenzie, D.N., (1985, RangeWater Pumping Systems State-of-The-Art-Review. Agriculture Forest Service Equipment Development Center Project Report 8522 1201, 2200-Range, San Dimas, California.) the caption of a water well picture reads, Figure 22. - Large maximum power controller pump jack water pumping system at Queens Well on the Papago Indian Reservation near Tuscon, Arizona. Finally, in Carlson, K.E., ( 1978. Laramie, Wyo.; Kent A. Crofts, Colorado Yampa Coal. Annual Report) there are three pictures of water pumping system at Queens Well on page 45 and two other page. None of these sources indicate any significance for Queens Wells. It is just an example of a water well run by solar panels as many wells are. Paul H. ( talk) 03:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Nothing is here to indicate this is or has ever been a populated place. Fails WP:GEOLAND. Let'srun ( talk) 04:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - this is literally a well, and in fact, it may border on a WP:HOAX to claim it's anything more than a well. Kinopiko talk 20:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    • It's not a bad-faith hoax. This article was created in 2017, relying solely upon GNIS as a source for the "populated place" requirement. Whether that practice was acceptable was debated prior to 2021, but an 2021 RfC found affirmative consensus that GNIS by itself is not enough to count as a legal recognition the populated place requirement.

      So, judging from currently clear standards, it is IMO patently clear that this does not meet the populated places requirement and be deleted. But a hoax requires a bad-faith intention to trick the audience in believing that something is real. I don't find it to be the case here, as the article's creation was more due to laxer standards before that had no clear consensus on whether GNIS is enough by itself, allowing stubs such as this to be created. VickKiang (talk) 02:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. This is no indication that this site is a populated place, and the 2021 RfC I mentioned above notes that The Geographic Names Information System and the GEOnet Names Server do not satisfy the "legal recognition" requirement and are also unreliable for "populated place" designation. As such, GEOLAND is failed and this should be deleted. VickKiang (talk) 02:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: On Wikipedia, one thing I learned we can do, is look for sources! Queens Well, this exact location, was described as a "village of 15 homes" by the Tuscon Citizen in 1993 [17], and a Papago village with solar equipment constructed in 1982 [18] (Edit to add: another 1982 mention [19]), and an "outlying Indian village" in which 3 homes were destroyed in a flood in 1962 where the "Red Cross is feeing and clothing all the residents of Queens Well." [20] Surely these are poor native americans without the favor of white skin so that the US Government sees them, but it does seem to be a populated place.-- Milowent has spoken 17:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    Yes, but SIGCOV is needed for GNG and passing SNG alone does not pass GNG if the sources were exhausted. That's what people said on Talk:Notability recently. बिनोद थारू ( talk) 01:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC) reply
I don't know what people said on Notability recently, but we have editors concluding this article is a "hoax", when searching newspapers.com with my free wiki editor account yielded a number of hits. The primary ground for the delete votes to date is that they don't think its a populated place, and that assumption has been shown to be incorrect. I believe the nomination was completely in good faith, but incorrect.-- Milowent has spoken 12:36, 14 December 2023 (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 since WP:V precludes a redirect. Should that change, happy to restore the history for a redirect Star Mississippi 23:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

San Luis (I), Pima County, Arizona

San Luis (I), Pima County, Arizona (  | 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)

Did not find any SIGCOV for this topic. बिनोद थारू ( talk) 16:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Per Uncle G's investigation, it's not even clear that this place exists.
JoelleJay ( talk) 07:28, 14 December 2023 (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 Imaginary chair. I have taken the suggestion to preemptively move wall sit to imaginary chair. But the move can be undone at editorial discretion. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 20:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Jetliner position

Jetliner position (  | 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)

Issues have been raised regarding this name since 2005, and no RS has been provided to give this name since. Move relevant information into wall sit article and delete this unless RS can be given for this name. GnocchiFan ( talk) 15:55, 10 December 2023 (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 Tindle Radio. Content may be merged at editorial discretion. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 20:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Anglian Radio

Anglian Radio (  | 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 company that bought and then subsequently sold some local radio stations four years later. Trade press coverage revolves around the company buying and then selling its radio stations, nothing appears to be covered other than this. There is nothing here that could not be covered in the articles for the individual stations - it warrants a brief mention of the ownership transfers, rather than a full article. Flip Format ( talk) 15:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete as there are huge problems with general notability and NCROP as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpaul2030 ( talkcontribs) 08:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment This is a difficult one to call as I am never in favour of article deletion. I think it passes notability but only just but, as Flip Fprmat says, the references are only related to the forming and selling of the company. However, to delete it means that the information which is contains will be lost. Merge with Tindle is another option, and maybe the best option, and ensure that the relevant information is transferred to the Tindle Radio article before it is merged as merge is another word for delete. Rillington ( talk) 11:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

I have now done this so I'm prepared to change my vote to Merge. Rillington ( talk) 12:02, 15 December 2023 (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. It seems like this discussion has resolved at least some confusion about how this topic is different than others. We should also expect more clarity on definitions from outside sources in the coming years. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 20:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Cisgenderism

Cisgenderism (  | 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)

Three reasons for nomination in AfD:

  • All of the sources I could find in my BEFORE and currently present in the article are WP:PRIMARY journal articles investigating the topic at hand.
  • This article is a WP:CFORK of cisnormativity, trans erasure and lastly misgendering (per the original paper [21]). No secondary source clearly delineates cisnormativity and cisgenderism leading me to think that they're just WP:DICDEFs that are synonyms of each other (all mean biases towards cisgender).
  • The only and main secondary source:
Ansara, Y. Gavriel; Berger, Israel. Cisgenderism. In: Goldberg, Abbie; Beemyn, Gemmy, editors. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Trans Studies. SAGE Publications; 2021. ISBN  978-1-5443-9381-0.
was co-written by the same person who invented the term for his masters thesis (making it likely a WP:NEOLOGISM). All sources were selected from very few psychology or gender journal articles (half of them having Ansara as a co-author), raising WP:NOTABILITY concerns. Such publications are WP:MILL research output and not been picked up by independent secondary sources. बिनोद थारू ( talk) 15:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Ansara (2015): 46
  • Blumer, Ansara & Watson (2013): 51
  • Rogers (2021): 17
  • Ansara & Hegarty (2012): 162
By the way of comparison, the Annual Review of Sociology, one of the most highly cited sociology journals, has an impact factor (average citations per article) of 10.5 [22]. You bring up "Isolated studies", but I have already said that of the articles cited, those that actually are studies include literature reviews in them, making them more than isolated studies. You have failed to substantiate what you mean when referring to "POV and peer review in journals". Are you saying that SAGE Publications, Psychology and Sexuality, Psychology of Women Section Review, Violence Against Women, Journal of Family Psychotherapy, Transgender Studies Quarterly, Australasian Journal on Ageing, and Journal on Family Strengths all "exist mainly to promote a particular point of view"? --  Maddy from Celeste ( WAVEDASH) 20:20, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • 3/4 of those sources:
  • Ansara (2015): 46
  • Blumer, Ansara & Watson (2013): 51
  • Rogers (2021): 17
  • Ansara & Hegarty (2012): 162
are by Gabriel Ansara, the one who coined the term in 2012 for his master thesis. So as well as being WP:PRIMARY (ie. not being "Reviews of Cisgenderism" or "Textbooks about Cisgenderism") they are also not WP:INDEPENDENT of the topic. बिनोद थारू ( talk) 21:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • "POV and peer review in journals" in WP:SCHOLARSHIP gives the examples of The Creation Research Society Quarterly and Journal of Frontier Science, in other words, fringe sources.
The seminal paper for this subject Cisgenderism in psychology: pathologising and misgendering children from 1999 to 2008 (Ansara) states:
Note that ‘scientific objectivity’ has been used to obscure prejudicial ideologies focused on marginalised populations and that many scientists have critiqued ‘objectivity’ as a social construct that is fashioned from the subjective experiences of the researchers. See Crasnow; Danziger; Fairchild; Fernando, (2009); Jiménez-Domínguez; Spanier; and Stanley and Wise (esp. p. 174)
This is typical of what one would find in a WP:FRINGE publication. To not stick with calling it fringe, I read the paper further. In section 1.4, the purpose the paper is given as:
In the present study, we examined whether cisgenderism has characterised the language of scientific communication about children in psychology in the period since Parlee’s (1996).
So the only purpose of this study is grepping all the psych studies with misgendering keywords and yet it makes completely unrelated conclusions at the end like:
Where some researchers (e.g., Zucker et al., 2009) see mere semantics, others consider sexist language an abusive and destructive form of hate speech (e.g., Lillian, 2007). Cisgenderist language can function to dehumanise, silence and erase. Indeed, even Parlee’s (1996) important criticism of cisgenderist language is limited by numerous instances of misgendering,7 an illustration that shifting the discourse is extremely difficult even for those engaged in critical analysis. Editors, peer reviewers, psychological researchers, mental health professionals and professional organisations all have ethical duties to address institutional cisgenderism, including cisgenderism that is institutionalised in scientific communication. Children’s self-definition and self-expression are not the only issues at stake. The moral integrity of psychology and its public image as an agent of the greater social good depends, in part, upon implementation of APA policy – which our current findings suggest has yet to impact how psychological scientists construct knowledge
How does "a frequency f of misgendering keywords" imply "Cisgenderist language can function to dehumanise, silence and erase"?
This is bad research (if you cannot see why this is the case, answer the question: what can I take out of it?). Regardless, this CTRL+F study defines cisgenderism as either misgendering or pathologizing so gives yet another WP:CFORK. बिनोद थारू ( talk) 22:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
This is a gish gallop. Instead of responding to the arguments I make, you just throw out more and more assertions. --  Maddy from Celeste ( WAVEDASH) 07:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture and Psychology. बिनोद थारू ( talk) 16:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Adequately sourced for an article on a sociological concept. Invoking WP:ROUTINE is beside the point; as noted above, that would be trying to apply a standard for news coverage to academic work, which just doesn't make sense. (Vast swaths of our mathematics, physics, and biology coverage could be disparaged as "routine": we don't ask that someone win the Fields Medal or the Nobel Prize before we write an article about their research topic.) It could be that after further editing, this material would make more sense as a section in a larger article, but this is not the forum to decide that. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Merging an article into another article instead of deleting it outright, is definitively within the purview of Articles for Deletion. Merging is made very clear as an option to consider in this forum in the Guide to Deletion section titled Recommendations and outcomes. In the list of vote types presented there, it states: "Merge is a recommendation to keep the article's content but to move it into some more appropriate article. It is either inappropriate or insufficient for a stand-alone article. After the merger, the article will be replaced with a redirect to the target article (in order to preserve the attribution history)."    — The Transhumanist   08:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • In a brief search, I found scholarly sources discussing both cisgenderism and cisnormativity; e.g.
Sources discussing cisgenderism and cisnormativity
I also think the cisgenderism and cisnormativity articles can account (according to WP:NPOV) for research literature that indicates the terminology may be used synonymously, e.g. Rosenberg, Shoshana; Callander, Denton; Holt, Martin; Duck-Chong, Liz; Pony, Mish; Cornelisse, Vincent; Baradaran, Amir; Duncan, Dustin T.; Cook, Teddy (21 July 2021). "Cisgenderism and transphobia in sexual health care and associations with testing for HIV and other sexually transmitted infections: Findings from the Australian Trans & Gender Diverse Sexual Health Survey". PLOS ONE. 16 (7): e0253589. Bibcode: 2021PLoSO..1653589R. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253589. ISSN  1932-6203. PMC  8294496. PMID  34288911. ("Cisgenderism (sometimes referred to as cisnormativity) is a form of stigma that denies, ignores, and marginalizes genders other than those that adhere to a fixed gender binary" citing Ansara YG, Hegarty P. Methodologies of misgendering: Recommendations for reducing cisgenderism in psychological research. Fem Psychol. 2014;24(2):259–70.) Overall, this seems to be a broad concept article, and based on available sources, keep seems supported at this time. Beccaynr ( talk) 00:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply

"Cisgenderism (sometimes referred to as cisnormativity) ..."

"I also think the cisgenderism and cisnormativity articles can account (according to WP:NPOV) for research literature that indicates the terminology may be used synonymously"

You say cisgenderism has the same definition as cisnormativity, which already has an article. Why wouldn't it be considered a WP:REDUNDANTFORK then? बिनोद थारू ( talk) 00:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • To clarify, in my comment above, I pointed to what appears to be medical research literature (stating cisgenderism is "sometimes referred to as cisnormativity") that according to WP:NPOV, does not seem to have the same WP:WEIGHT as the sociological and psychological literature that appears to be available. This is why I think an application of this core content policy to both articles, along with further review of sources and discussion, can help develop the broad concepts.
Additional sources
Beccaynr ( talk) 01:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply
If you say they mean the same thing, then the consensus is to keep them on one page (delete, merge, or redirect this one).
This is a standard case of WP:REDUNDANTFORK. बिनोद थारू ( talk) 01:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply
As an additional clarification, I did not say cisgenderism has the same definition as cisnormativity; I added sources to my first comment above that discuss both concepts, and in my second comment above I added more sources, including a source that appears to use cisgenderism in its title as a broader concept that includes cisnormativity. As to WP:REDUNDANTFORK, that section of the guideline includes, If you suspect a redundant article fork, check with people who watch the respective articles and participate in talk page discussions to see if the fork was justified. If the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged into the main article. For now, cisgenderism seems to be a distinct sociological/psychological concept that has gained traction in the research literature, so alternatives to deletion seem to be available. Beccaynr ( talk) 01:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply

"As to WP:REDUNDANTFORK, that section of the guideline includes, If you suspect a redundant article fork, check with people who watch the respective articles"

I am nominating for deletion since I noticed everything has already been merged to the other article. बिनोद थारू ( talk) 02:02, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Reluctant Keep -- At what point does a neologism become just a logism? This was clearly a neologism, but one that has started to appear in RS as shown both in the article and in the sources mentioned in the collapsed section above. As such, I feel that sources just barely establish WP:GNG beyond the neologistic nature of the word. As for the other point WP:BLUDGEONed above, I do not feel that it is a fork from cisnormativity. That term refers to the belief that cis is "the only normal", where this one refers to discriminatory behaviours based on that belief. I don't like the term (or the article), but it appears to just cross the line into an encyclopaedic subject. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 13:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I thought that "cisgenderism" would refer to the status of being cisgender, just like "transgenderism" can refer to being transgender. I realize that the article clarifies this but I was confused reading the deletion discussion. ( t · c) buidhe 02:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The article currently reads "Cisgenderism relies on the assumption that there are only two sex and gender categories, that gender is unchanging through life". The definition of "sex" says there are only two sexes. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sex Sex explains that classification also. I clicked the reliable sources search at the top of the AFD, and don't see any reliable sources appearing. This article was made entirely by one user, who identifies as queer, non-binary, and trans. It reads like a personal essay. Dream Focus 23:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    Sex and gender are different concepts, e.g. see gender binary. Reading like a personal essay is arguably a surmountable issue. Darcyisverycute ( talk) 05:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Dream Focus I ask you strike your comment about Maddy from Celeste's identity - it's irrelevant to the discussion and we are supposed to comment on content, not the contributor. Additionally, I'm a little confused how the reliable sources search didn't return anything for you - checking the link to google scholar there were over 3,500 results - so I'd appreciate a clarification of your methodology. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 22:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I am not familiar with the term cisgenderism, but I do happen to know the synonym term cissexism which currently redirects to cisgenderism. My understanding is that cisnormativity is the assumption that people are cisgender, whereas cissexism is defined as a type of systemic discrimination towards transgender people, perpetrated by societies and not individuals. It can also be thought of as the difference between "sexists" and "sexism"; in the former there are individuals argued to cause harm, and in the latter there are systemic forces such as wage discrimination which no single or even small group of individuals is responsible for. At least, that is the definition for these terms to my best understanding.
I believe the term cissexism entered popular usage due to the 2007 book Whipping Girl, and there is now vast feminist literature on the term. If I had tPages of the same type on the same subjecto give a top three for independent significant coverage of the term cissexism, noting all the sources are independent of each other: [24] [25] [26]
My personal impression is that the term cissexism is in wider circulation than the term cisgenderism, eg. see [27] and [28]. Since they define their own concept and the etymology doesn't seem notable on its own to me, I think one should redirect to the other, but perhaps the other way around to what it is currently (ie. I would support having cisgenderism redirect to cissexism and treat sources using the terms interchangeably as long as they establish equivalent definitions in-text). Note the curious discussion at Talk:Cissexism#Merge which established merging of cisgenderism to transphobia, not cisgenderism as it redirects to currently. And, not to invoke WP:WHATABOUTX, but sources from the more well-developed transmisogyny article could be useful additions this article as the two terms are frequently discussed together. I also concur with XOR'easter that WP:ROUTINE is only relevant for news reporting and not academic coverage. Darcyisverycute ( talk) 05:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment. Your answer does not cover:
  • WP:PRIMARY "academic" essays being unfit to write an article especially when no mainstream secondary source has picked it up.
  • Example of WP:DICDEF. Only mentions of cisgenderism are under multiple conflicting definitions. (half say "cisgenderism/transphobia" as in both are identical)
  • I referred to WP:MILL in my nom yet you stuck with WP:ROUTINE.
Finally you are suggesting WP:OR by changing the name from "Cisgenderism" to "cissexism", since the sources were all cherrypicked for their use of "cisgenderism", not based on an existing concept covered in secondary sources.
By the current logic, we would have to WP:TNT the article to create a different high school essay around CTRL+Fed "cissexism" sources. बिनोद थारू ( talk) 05:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Commentcisgenderism is distinct from cisnormativity, with the latter being a bias of perception and the former being a form of prejudice. While related, cisgenderism is not a subtopic of cisnormativity, but it is a subtopic of cisgender. So, if there is to be a merge, the latter is the article it should be merged into.

    That being said, the hurdle that needs to be overcome is meeting the inclusion criteria set forth by WP:NOTNEO:

    "To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term (see use–mention distinction). An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy."

    And...

    "Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic, or use the term within other articles."    — The Transhumanist   08:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep The relentless WP:BLUDGEONing and gish galloping on this subject led me to reexamine the sources. I have changed from a reluctant keep !vote (struck above) to a very solid Keep. Since the nominator apparently believes that every response must remove every objection, I'll try to do just that.
  1. Journal articles are not always WP:PRIMARY sources, so that argument is moot. Worse, it is disingenuous in the extreme. The vast majority of RS are published in journals. A subject matter expert writing journal articles investigating the topic at hand is the soul and centre of WP:SECONDARY sourcing. As examples, I'd pick Boe & Baldwin, who tackle cisgenderism in family therapy [29]; Dalton, et al, who dissects coaching and managing people to (in part) avoid cisgenderism [30]; and Rogers, who looks at cisgenderism and hate crimes with secondary analysis of primary sources [31]. If you really want books instead of journals, I'd start with these: Ross explicitly discusses cisgenderism in relationship to homelessness and rehousing [32], just as Knott-Fayle & Peel do regarding qualitative research [33] and Knott-Fayle does solo regarding sports [34]. I am not suggesting that this is the end of the sourcing list, nor that they are the best sources; this is not my area of expertise. They are, however, solid and reliable sources in accordance with Wikipedia policy.
  2. This is not a content or POV fork off any subject. Cisnormativity is about a belief that "cis is the only normal", whereas cisgenderism is discriminatory behaviour or attitudes based on that belief. Those are separate subjects. Erasure is a wholly different phenomenon related to attempts to remove trans people from the conversation, or to ignore their existence entirely. Misgendering is not remotely related to cisgenderism at all.
  3. The statement that there is only one secondary source in the article is false (see 1, above) and utterly irrelevant. The point of WP:BEFORE, which was obviously not done in this case, is that sources must exist, not that those sources must be in the article at the time of the AfD.
  4. WP:NOTNEO is a weak argument in any AfD as there is no clear rule on what constitutes a neologism. Regardless, there is a substantial body of work very specifically about both the term and the concept (again, see cites in 1, above). As for the amusing statement that the article relies on a very few psychology or gender journal articles (half of them having Ansara as a co-author), did anyone even try to do a BEFORE search? gScholar comes back with hundreds of viable sources not authored by or with the Ansara that are both secondary and explanatory, and gBooks has even more.
  5. WP:MILL is about run-of-the-mill news coverage. Trying to equate a discussion of cisgenderism to 'dog bites man' is just throwing every policy one can think of at the AfD wall and seeing if something sticks. If it were run of the mill, the individual events of cisgenderistic behaviour would be routine coverage and the concept, what this article is about, would be unquestionably encyclopaedic. This deletion argument literally makes the case for inclusion.

Overall, there is simply no good policy-based reason to delete this article, and it improves the encyclopaedia to include it. The article needs work, but WP:DINC. As it stands, though, the article more than meets GNG and is worthy of inclusion. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 14:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep; oppose renaming cissexism per Maddy from Celeste, Beccaynr, XOR'Easter, and Last1in. With regards to the relationship between cisgenderism, cisnormativity, and transphobia: it matches the relationship between heterosexism, heteronormativity, and homophobia - closely related but separate concepts. With regards to renaming as cissexism, Julie Serano has clarified that I also make a distinction between cissexism (i.e., the assumption that transsexual gender identities and sex embodiments are less legitimate than cissexual ones) and cisgenderism (i.e., the assumption that people who defy gender norms are less legitimate than people who conform to them), this distinction is noted in other sources [35] [36] so I think the article should clarify cissexism is a subset of cisgenderism rather than synonym (though often used that way). Additionally, this ngram search (admittedly an imperfect metric) shows that cisgenderism is a more common term than cissexism. [37]

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 22:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Ah, thanks for the clarification on the difference between cissexism and cigenderism. It's gonna take work, but in that case maybe it will be later worth turning back cissexism from a redirect to a proper article. Having confused definitions in feminism and gender studies is such a common issue, especially given half the papers don't bother defining the terms too. Darcyisverycute ( talk) 03:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply
No problem, thank you for noting the scholarly coverage of the terms! For the record my keep vote was also based on yours - I feel a little silly I left that out above considering it inspired a large part of my vote lol. I agree an independent article for cissexism might be a good idea, I've got it on my to-do list now! Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 16:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • KeepLast1in has shown irrefutably above that the article surpasses the thresholds for WP:NOTNEO and WP:GNG, that there is plenty more material out there to research on this topic, and that the arguments levied against it are invalid. The discussion above also shows that there is the will to research it, an indication that the article will improve further over time. I came here researching the uses of the shortcuts presented at Wikipedia:Content forks, and I've found that the claim that the article is a redundant fork is false, because it is about a distinct topic. Conclusion: it's a policy-backed bona fide Wikipedia article.    — The Transhumanist   13:08, 17 December 2023 (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 East Aceh Regency. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 20:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

PSKBS Kuta Binjai

PSKBS Kuta Binjai (  | 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)

AFD as PROD is likely to be contested. The club existed but sources didn't show that this club passes WP:GNG or WP:NSPORTS. Sources shown the games that the team played, but no in-depth coverage of this team. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:24, 10 December 2023 (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 14:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Mohammed Rashed Farazuddin

Mohammed Rashed Farazuddin (  | 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 a corporator of an Municipal Corporation, just fought the election and got only 7848 votes see [38]. Doesn’t passes the WP:NPOL. — Syed A. Hussain Quadri ( talk) 14:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

KEEP. Farazuddin has been a Councillor for more that 7 years(for two terms). In addition to that, he has been a member of GHMC standing community since 2021. [39] Thewikicolumnist ( talk) 20:42, 13 December 2023 (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 close‎. Superseded by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Coia (3rd nomination) which presents a deletion rationale (non-admin closure) Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Paul Coia

Paul Coia (  | 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)

Second attempt at non-notable deletion Funky Snack ( Talk | Contribs) 10:57, 10 December 2023 (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 12:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

All-Knighters

All-Knighters (  | 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 notable tag team, NO IN-DEEP coverage about them. Only worked on independent level. According to Cagematch, they only had 32 matches. HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 12:07, 10 December 2023 (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 12:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Andrew Marston

Andrew Marston (  | 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 big page of self-promotion. Nothing of note. Links are purely to interviews and programme links. Funky Snack ( Talk | Contribs) 11:31, 10 December 2023 (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 12:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Paul Miller (radio presenter)

Paul Miller (radio presenter) (  | 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 radio presenter Funky Snack ( Talk | Contribs) 11:19, 10 December 2023 (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. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 20:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

John Viega

John Viega (  | 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. Almost every reference is a paper co-authored by Viega himself. Out of the three that aren't, two don't mention his name at all, and one uses a single quote from him. benǝʇᴉɯ 07:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:44, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Hey, I don't have an account, though I am the subject of the article.
I've been lucky enough to be in a position to do work that had impact on the industry, even if I haven't gone around promoting myself heavily (I am pretty private generally). Certainly, it was mostly a combination of dumb luck (right places, right times) and privilege. I'm definitely grateful to those looking to keep, and whoever has put this up and kept updating it over the years.
But, if you're looking for notable mentions in third-party press, two things do come to mind:
1) a popular science article about me playing Defcon Capture the Flag the hear before we hosted it ( https://www.popsci.com/gear-gadgets/article/2005-04/i-attended-hacker-conference-and-all-i-got-was-all-data-your-hard-drive/).
2) A bit of the software security stuff, along with a mention of the sale of my first startup to Fortify was mentioned when I was quoted in the Economist in the March 2008 Technology Quarterly (page 14).
Also, GCM does have its own page, and I think does merit it. For GCM mode, simply being the default cipher mode for TLS 1.3 (plus having hardware support in Intel and ARM architectures) has made it ubiquitous. The 2021 F5 Labs data ( https://www.f5.com/labs/articles/threat-intelligence/the-2021-tls-telemetry-report) seems to indicate ~80% plus of all TLS connections globally were using it; I've anecdotally (from people at a major CDN) that it's above 90% now.
Also, NIST is looking to update the GCM standard. https://csrc.nist.gov/News/2023/proposal-to-revise-sp-800-38d
It's not going anywhere any time soon.
Either way, thanks for the consideration. It does feel good to be thought about, even if I don't make the cut! 68.129.210.33 ( talk) 17:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 11:15, 10 December 2023 (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 00:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Clare Thomas

Clare Thomas (  | 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)

Has been in notable shows, but she doesn't seem to be notable herself. Boleyn ( talk) 15:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further input on the source presented above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:36, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO, no sources showing this meets any SNG. Source eval:
Comments Source
Youtube channel 1. "Clare Lucy P - YouTube". www.youtube.com. Retrieved 27 July 2020.
Streaming site database page, nothing meets SIGCOV MUBI, retrieved 18 November 2023
Streaming site database page, nothing meets SIGCOV MUBI, retrieved 18 November 2023
TVGuide database page, nothing meets SIGCOV 4. ^ "The Railway Children". TVGuide.com. Retrieved 18 November 2023.
Cast list mention, nothing meets SIGCOV 5. ^ Miles, Tina (21 April 2011). "Young Dracula children's series to be filmed in Liverpool". Liverpool Echo. Retrieved 18 November 2023.
Cast list mention, nothing meets SIGCOV 6. ^ Tzvetkova, Juliana (12 October 2017). Pop Culture in Europe. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. ISBN 978-1-4408-4466-9.
Cast list mention, nothing meets SIGCOV 7. ^ Melton, J. Gordon (1 October 2021). The Vampire Almanac: The Complete History. Visible Ink Press. ISBN 978-1-57859-754-3.
Nothing above or in BEFORE shows WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from WP:IS WP:RS. WP:BLP require strong sourcing.  //  Timothy ::  talk  04:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to review Timothy's source analysis and for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 11:15, 10 December 2023 (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. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 20:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Mollie Green (broadcaster)

Mollie Green (broadcaster) (  | 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 local radio presenter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funky Snack ( talkcontribs) 11:11, 10 December 2023 (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. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 20:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Paul Coia

Paul Coia (  | 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)

Third attempt as page doesn't really give anything. Possible self-promotion Funky Snack ( Talk | Contribs) 11:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep, per the overwhelming view regarding the previous nomination. This clearly fulfils WP:BASIC, as it did before. Nothing has changed in that regard. Rationale "doesn't really give anything" vague and evidently baseless and if there is an indication of self-promotion, please elaborate. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 00:48, 11 December 2023 (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. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 20:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Alex Dyke

Alex Dyke (  | 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. Links and references are generic Funky Snack ( Talk | Contribs) 10:59, 10 December 2023 (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. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 20:36, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

The Seventh Veil (1927 film)

The Seventh Veil (1927 film) (  | 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 any single reliable source. Nexovia ( talk) 03:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 03:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus‎. No prejudice against merging. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 20:36, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Debate camp

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

The concept of a debate camp doesn't seem to be notable in-and-of itself, with this page basically being a collection of primary sources linking to different camps. WP:BEFORE was difficult due to the deluge of primary sources, but I was unable to find consistent + independent coverage. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him) Talk to Me! 11:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Education. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him) Talk to Me! 11:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- This is the edge of WP:DINC. This purports to be an article, but is effectively a list of debate camps which definitely does not belong in the encyclopaedia ( WP:NOTDB and WP:NOTDIRECTORY). However, it could become an actual article. I am seeing solid, secondary and tertiary references including [41], [42], and [43] (p38-40, 112-118). There are hundreds more, but this will be a monster to research digitally with the challenging signal-to-noise ratio noted by nominator. As for GNG, I think that this is a pretty mainstream concept with lots of supporting RS. Debate camps are a big deal for certain educational tracks, mainly for secondary schoolers but also for some adult learners. I can't find it any longer, but there was an excellent piece of MBA coursework a decade or two ago comparing the net impact of debate camps to programmes such as Toastmasters; its bibliography would have made a wonderful launchpad to sources. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 20:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    I am well aware of what debate camps are and the impact they can have on kids (My full-time job is as a speech and debate teacher). I am getting an "AccessDeniedAccess denied" error when I try to go to your first source and your third source is a self-published middle-grade textbook that definitely does not count for notability. The second source is solid, although it notes that research on debate camps is extremely limited. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him) Talk to Me! 22:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    I was able to find this from the Washington Post ( EBSCOhost  wapo.f73785f8-5f3d-11e6-8e45-477372e89d78) but mostly only found puff-piece and ROTM coverage of specific camps, not of camps as a category. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him) Talk to Me! 22:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eternal Shadow Talk 04:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 03:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:40, 10 December 2023 (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 Jiangnan. This is a difficult discussion to assess consensus in, but my reading is that there is a consensus below not to retain the article. On that basis, I have chosen the redirect as an ATD to preserve the history and as it was suggested within the discussion but not objected to by those !voting delete. Daniel ( talk) 22:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Jianghuai people

Jianghuai people (  | 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)

user:Newbamboo proposed to delete this article on the Chinese Wiki page, saying that it was "forcibly splicing irrelevant information together to conduct original research." And I did not see a direct introduction about Jianghuai People on Google Scholar, Google Books, and CNKI.The source given in the English article, the title seems to have little to do with Jianghuai People. 日期20220626 ( talk) 04:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • This is not an encyclopaedic topic. This is kinda like if we had an article Yorkshiremen or Manitoban or Adelaidean that was positioning residents of those geographical areas as separate ethnic groups (all three of the above are redirects). Whoever said "splicing together unrelated information" nailed it. There's no sources discussing "江淮人" as an ethnic group.
    It's extra weird because it feels like some irredentist Jianghuai local pushing for the recognition of their natal area's people as some distinct and separable subset of Han Chinese, right? But the citations to Chinese sources are so bungled I can't believe anyone with a familiarity with the language could have done this.
    Redirect to Jiangnan or delete. Folly Mox ( talk) 19:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    Jianghuai is the area north of the Yangtze River in Jiangsu Province and does not belong to Jiangnan. Redirecting is inappropriate. 日期20220626 ( talk) 01:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • As someone who edited similar pages in past IP adresses, strong disagree, nowhere in the page are the Jianghuai people stated as an "ethnic group", but as a regional subgroup of Han people, like the Sichuanese or Wuyue, speaking Jianghuai chinese and sharing some cultural aspects and history by simply being in the same region of China, so saying otherwise is disingenuous as this is not what the page says. Just because it has a problem of sources here for now, doesn't mean it doesn't warrant a page. It was good enough for Wikipedia in Mandarin so maybe we're missing something, nothing says there aren't any. My familiarity with such subjects indicate to me this is a quite recent and currently fringe phenomenon of national genesis, pioneered by a cultural theorist and historian named Liu Zhongjing, who had a master in history studies at Wuhan University. He is quite the active figure in chinese opposition spaces with his philosophy of auntology. Perhaps there are other figures who talked about this within this philosophy? Perhaps it could be reworked as a hub for siocultural particularities, culture specific to this region? Just food for thought -- 142.170.60.67 ( talk) 00:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    However, no source can be found that fully introduces the concept of Jianghuai people, and Liu Zhongjing does not seem to have invented the concept of JACs, and his own teachings are marginal. Wikipedia should not create its own concept. 日期20220626 ( talk) 11:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. There seems to be some merit to the idea that few if any sources treat "Jianghuai people" as a separate "ethnic group" compared to the clearly adequate coverage of Lower Yangtze Mandarin as a separate topolect, but the suggestion that Wikipedia shouldn't or doesn't, have articles on Han Chinese subgroups is just wrong. As many of the sources are in Chinese I don't feel confident balancing the different considerations myself, but wanted to clear up what seemed to be confusion above. Eluchil404 ( talk) 06:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. While I'm open to the argument put forward in the nomination, I think this subject and article could use more discussion to arrive at a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:37, 10 December 2023 (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. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 20:35, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

List of resorts in the Maldives

List of resorts in the Maldives (  | 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)

SImple case of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Any notable resorts or entries can be accommodated at List of hotels: Countries M. Ajf773 ( talk) 08:35, 10 December 2023 (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 Treaty of Hadiach. Daniel ( talk) 00:39, 18 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Polish–Lithuanian–Ruthenian Commonwealth

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

The article reproduces the Treaty of Hadiach. There is no information here that is not in that article, so I do not propose a merge. You should delete that article and create a redirect. Marcelus ( talk) 19:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose The article is about a different topic from the treaty article and I think that an article about a possible commonwealth is worthwhile, considering that similar articles like Franco-British Union exist. Cukrakalnis ( talk) 20:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Can you explain how is it different if it literally describe the same events? Marcelus ( talk) 20:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Treaty =/= Commonwealth itself. The Maastricht Treaty is not the same as the European Union. Cukrakalnis ( talk) 12:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep - Jungleman's claim that this was proposed in a treaty but nowhere else is objectively false; it was a somewhat notable idea throughout the 1650s and was of later historical significance during the January Uprising. This is clearly more tha just a one off idea. — Knightof theswords 14:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 05:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Changed merge target per Renata3, Eluchil404 and nom. Owen× 12:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. There seems to be a rough consensus that some of the content in this article should be Merged but several options on what the target article should be.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:27, 10 December 2023 (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 07:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Gaynor Barnes

Gaynor Barnes (  | 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)

Exists, and did work for regional media mainly. Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 20:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep: Yes she was a regional broadcaster but she was a leading presenter on Yorkshire Television for three decades. This is more than enough to demonstrate notability. Also, the article has plenty of independent references. Rillington ( talk) 10:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 05:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. WP:BLP require strong sourcing, this has none with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indpeth from WP:IS WP:RS. Source eval:
Comments Source
Fails WP:IS, primary, "Barnes is a patron of Yorkshire Air Ambulance", fails WP:SIGCOV, does not address the subject directly and indepth, name mentioned in list and caption 1. "Yorkshire Air Ambulance Annual Report 2017" (PDF). Yorkshire Air Ambulance Annual Report. March 2018. Archived from the original (PDF) on 4 July 2019. Retrieved 4 July 2019.
Fails WP:IS, primary, interview "The Prince of Wales Hospice welcomes three new Patrons, ITV Calendar presenters Gaynor, Christine and Du" 2. ^ "Calendar Presenters Become Patrons". The Prince of Wales Hospice. 14 August 2020. Retrieved 20 October 2021.
Interview, fails WP:IS 3. ^ "TV Presenter Gaynor Barnes talks to Yorkshire Life". Yorkshire Life. 11 January 2010. Retrieved 31 January 2019.
Fails WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 4. ^ Berry, Chris (13 May 2005). "The Southern 'softie' with northern grit". The Yorkshire Post. Archived from the original on 1 February 2019. Retrieved 31 January 2019.
Primary, fails WP:IS, "Meet the team" promo 5. ^ "Meet the team". ITV Calendar. 31 January 2019.
Name mention, panelist, fails WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. 6. ^ Zientek, Henryk (19 November 2008). "Help for entrepreneurs". Huddersfield Examiner. Retrieved 10 August 2010.
Interview, fails WP:IS 7. ^ TV Presenter Gaynor Barnes talks to Yorkshire Life Yorkshire Life, 11 January 2010
Routine news about programming change. Fails primary, fails WP:SIGCOV addressing subject directly and indepth 8. ^ "John Shires and Gaynor Barnes to leave ITV News Calendar". ITV News. Retrieved 19 March 2021.
Name listed, fails SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. 9. ^ "RTS Yorkshire Programme Awards 2021". Royal Television Society. 15 January 2021. Retrieved 20 October 2021.
Above keep vote provides no sources or guidelines for eval. BLPs require strong sourcing.  //  Timothy ::  talk  11:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would help for those editors who want to Keep this article to respond to the source analysis or bring forward some additional sources that could help establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:21, 10 December 2023 (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 06:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Bill Jackson (photographer)

Bill Jackson (photographer) (  | 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)

Successful photographer, but I couldn't establish that he meets WP:N. Has been in CAT:NN for over 13 years. Boleyn ( talk) 21:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 05:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still ineligible for Soft Deletion. Some more participation here would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. The PROD nom and contention were from 2008 and the article has remained poorly sourced since then (and since its creation), due to a dearth of available coverage that a search confirms. Uhai ( talk) 06:21, 11 December 2023 (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 00:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Secretarias

Secretarias (  | 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)

Does not appear to be notable. Nothing found in a BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2018.

PROD removed with links to 2 sites with nothing more than blurbs about it, no indepth coverage. DonaldD23 talk to me 15:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, links in the deprod are not sufficient.
JoelleJay ( talk) 21:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:16, 10 December 2023 (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. No one is arguing for retention, and no indication any input is forthcoming. Star Mississippi 19:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Amir Válá Meshkin

Amir Válá Meshkin (  | 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)

Declined prod. Only 1 article links to this. Could not significant coverage of this individual in news and google books searches. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar ( talk) 11:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 11:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. plicit 00:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Vion Pharmaceuticals

Vion Pharmaceuticals (  | 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:MULTSOURCES - one source for its bankruptcy alone is not notable, nor did the experimental drugs ever leave trial stage. Cannot find any other sources. Darcyisverycute ( talk) 13:44, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:13, 10 December 2023 (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 Eliminative materialism. History remains under the redirect for a merge, if desired Star Mississippi 18:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Revisionary materialism

Revisionary materialism (  | 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 significant coverage at [44] and [45] (they mention the term twice and once respectively. Cannot find any other verbatim usage. Suggest merging/redirecting to eliminative materialism if anything can be salvaged. Darcyisverycute ( talk) 13:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Guyana women's international footballers. Star Mississippi 18:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Chantal Lynch

Chantal Lynch (  | 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)

Redirect to List of Guyana women's international footballers. I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. All I found in my searches were passing mentions ( 1, 2, 3, etc.) No indication of notability, either. JTtheOG ( talk) 06:33, 10 December 2023 (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 06:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Odaliana Gómez

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

The subject earned a couple of caps for the Dominican Republic women's national football team, but I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV I found in my searches was this; everything else was passing mentions. JTtheOG ( talk) 06:25, 10 December 2023 (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 06:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Sensorimotor psychotherapy

Sensorimotor psychotherapy (  | 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)

Classified as a complementary and alternative medicine [49], which sets a high bar for notability without undue weight. I cannot find reliable sources providing significant coverage independent of its main author, Pat Ogden. Note that Ogden frequently co-authors with Janina Fisher, ideally there would be review material or robust studies without either of them as listed authors. Sources need to meet WP:MEDRS also. The article history has had multiple attempted insertions of copyvio and advertising/promotional material since creation. Darcyisverycute ( talk) 06:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Santos FC seasons. plicit 06:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

1921 Santos FC season

1921 Santos FC season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article contains one sentence and no references. 1keyhole ( talk) 05:18, 10 December 2023 (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 Te Unuhanga-a-Rangitoto / Mercer Bay. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 20:34, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Mercer Bay

Mercer Bay (  | 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)

Per WP:ONEOTHER; this page should be deleted and redirected to Te Unuhanga-a-Rangitoto / Mercer Bay as the primary topic for this River.

The topic which this is competing with, a Mercer Bay in Cumberland West Bay, is an obscure location that doesn't even warrant an article. Further, a Google News search for the past year finds no results for the bay in Cumberland West Bay, but over a dozen for Unuhanga-a-Rangitoto / Mercer Bay. BilledMammal ( talk) 04:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Disambiguations. WCQuidditch 05:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • A redirect does not require deleting an edit history first, and could have been done with 13 the number of edits that an AFD nomination takes. This is not an appropriate use of Articles for deletion. Uncle G ( talk) 10:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    • To clarify, I intended to propose a redirect; I agree that the edit history doesn't need to be deleted.

      However, AfD can be used to propose redirects; I expected that if I made this boldly it would be reverted or otherwise objected to and so I wanted to get consensus for it, and this is the appropriate venue for that. BilledMammal ( talk) 11:11, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

      • No, that would be Talk:Mercer Bay. You are utterly wasting people's time, everyone who even looks at this, with a simple disambiguation fix that you could have just done. Uncle G ( talk)
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 05:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

The Cheap Seats (American TV series)

The Cheap Seats (American TV series) (  | 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)

Subject lacks the needed coverage from independent sources to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun ( talk) 04:00, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Agreed. The show is mentioned in the articles for Chris Rose, Brian Wilson, etc. This article doesn't really provide any additional information. Lack of reliable sources confirms it's not notable. Fnordware ( talk) 16:27, 10 December 2023 (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. Deletion is not being contemplated. Moves can be handled editorially. Star Mississippi 18:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Shag River

Shag River (  | 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)

Per WP:ONEOTHER; this page should be deleted and redirected to Waihemo / Shag River as the primary topic for this River.

Looking at pageviews, we see that Waihemo / Shag River receives over ten times the views of Shag River (Fiordland), demonstrating that it is primary by usage.

It also appears to be primary by long term significance; a search on Google News and Google Scholar shows that the vast majority of results are for the river in Otago. BilledMammal ( talk) 03:53, 10 December 2023 (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. Sourcing has been IDed that addresses both the nom and delete !votes. Star Mississippi 18:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

A Bride of the Plains

A Bride of the Plains (  | 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)

Article has been unsourced since at least 2020. I have done a quick Google search and Google Scholar search but have been unable to find more reliable sources. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk) 02:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete lack of sourcing that meets WP:RS, aka also fails WP:SIGCOV
Cray04 ( talk) 08:06, 10 December 2023 (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. Despite difficulty, sources with sufficient coverage to meet WP:NBOOK were eventually identified. signed, Rosguill talk 02:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC) reply

A Child of the Revolution

A Child of the Revolution (  | 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)

Article is reliant upon a single citation, which was added in September 2023 without adding additional content. I have done a quick Google search and Google Scholar search but have been unable to find more reliable sources. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk) 02:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch 05:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I'm a little surprised how little I'm finding. Two things so far:
    • Accordng to the index, Baroness Orczy's The Scarlet Pimpernel: A Publishing History mentions A Child of the Revolution on p. 146 and p. 248; it's possible there is significant coverage there but I can't access it.
    • This article mentions "A Child of the Revolution, seul opus non traduit de la série" ["the only work not translated in the series", presumably meaning not translated into French] as an example of a Pimpernel novel with an important love story, there's no significant coverage.
I want to look for reviews from 1932 but haven't found a good database yet. It's an unfortunate gap where things are copyrighted but not widely popular/accessible. The one source in the article is so good it feels like a WP:NBOOK pass should be possible...! ~ L 🌸 ( talk) 00:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
OK, checking ProQuest Historical Newspapers I found a surprising amount of "not much":
  • NYT "Book Notes" Dec 23, 1931, says only "Other works of fiction to be issued during February under the Doubleday, Doran imprint include ... "A Child of the Revolution" by Baroness Orczy." (fun historical coincidence, the first book in this list is A Brave New World!).
  • A half dozen lists of books available in China in the 30s, this one listed also
  • "Meet the Baronness Orczy", 1934 says only "I did ask what books she had written lately. 'Well, you see, so many of my readers wrote to me and implored me to write more about the same characters in The Scarlet Pimpernel series, so I wrote A Child of the Revolution to please them. You would not believe how many people write to me from all over the world.'"
  • The only actual review I can find traces off is one by Jerry Siegel (the creator of Superman) in his high school newspaper. I find this quite intriguing and it would certainly be sigcov but of course a high school paper is not an RS.
    • Men of Tomorrow: Geeks, Gangsters & the Birth of the Comic Book "He wrote occasional book reviews for The Torch, breathless advertisements for the most socially acceptable of the books he loved. “The Reign of Terror— the guillotine descending swiftly on innocent and guilty alike. The only hope lies in the aid of the ‘Scarlet Pimpernel,’ a mysterious Englishman who risks his life to save . . . the unjustly condemned.” Surely no one else on the wise-ass Torch staff would have gushed so over Baroness Orczy’s Child of the Revolution, but Jerry loved the Pimpernel and Zorro and all those secret heroes who masquerade as mild-mannered citizens." (65-6)
    • "Looking for Lois Lane": "It soon became clear Siegel was the mysterious author behind certain pieces that appeared in the Torch. One was a review of the Baroness Orczy's "A Child of the Revolution" (1932), the last in a series of novels about an English nobleman who dons mask and costume nights to fight for the oppressed . . . as the Scarlet Pimpernel."
I can't shake the feeling that this is the sort of book which ought to have gotten some reviews in 1931, but the evidence is really against me! ~ L 🌸 ( talk) 03:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge. Okay, after having done a bunch of digging and checking out some of the other Pimpernel novel articles, I'd like to propose that actually an appropriate outcome here would be the creation of List of Scarlet Pimpernel novels, structured as a prose list (with headings) which provides brief plot summaries of each novel. The series overall certainly gets all kind of coverage! There can be links out to 'main' articles for the subset of these novels which have more substantial independent coverage. If the consensus is to create this list article, I volunteer to make it (please ping me). ~ L 🌸 ( talk) 03:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep: I agree with @ LEvalyn that there seems to surprisingly little coverage, especially compared to the other books in this series, but after a bit of digging, I was able to find three reviews in The Liverpool Daily Post, The Charleston Daily Mail and The New York Times (final page, under the header "Paris and the Terror"), which is sufficient to meet WP:NBOOK. ARandomName123 ( talk)Ping me! 16:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Thank you for these finds!! I agree that this now an NBOOK keep, and frankly this raises my confidence that the other currently-unsourced Pimpernel novels will have enough coverage too. For my own personal improvement, would you mind sharing where/how you looked in order to find these? (Maybe on my talk page if it's too off topic here?) I tried the Wikipedia Library but I must not have been using the right queries or trying the right places, so I'd love to know what worked for you. ~ L 🌸 ( talk) 21:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    I've responded on your talk page. Thanks, ARandomName123 ( talk)Ping me! 00:25, 18 December 2023 (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. It would be great if some of the sources brought up in this discussion could be added to this article. Liz Read! Talk! 01:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Nael Eltoukhy

Nael Eltoukhy (  | 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:BLP of a writer, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for writers. As always, writers are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because their work exists, and have to show notability markers such as notable literary awards and/or the reception of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about them and their work in real reliable sources -- but the only notability claim being attempted here is that his work exists, and the only source being cited is his "staff" profile on the self-published website of his own publisher, which is not a notability-building source.
As I can't read Arabic, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with the necessary language skills and resource access can find enough improved sourcing to salvage it -- but nothing in this version of the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have better sourcing than this. Bearcat ( talk) 14:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This article needs additional review after article improvements.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Well AfD isn’t for cleanup. If there are sources to demonstrate notability it’s not a requirement to fix the article right away to save it from deletion. Mccapra ( talk) 00:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No one has performed an analysis of the sources added or presented. If I had to close right now, I would close as no consensus. But I'm relisting in hope for a more definitive answer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 01:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment ok I will start on this and add as I find more.
1. Review of his work in a chapter of a book on contemporary Egyptian literature here. Mccapra ( talk) 09:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
2. multiple references to his writing as a blogger in this scholarly work on contemporary Egyptian writers
3. independent in depth review of one of his novels in a major international newspaper
4. independent in depth review of another one of his novels in a major newspaper
5. another independent in depth review of the same novel
6. independent in depth review of a third novel
7. Independent in depth review of the same novel as no.6 above. I’ll stop here but if more is needed I’ll keep looking. Mccapra ( talk) 09:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
I’ve also managed to connect it to the ar.wiki article on wikidata. Mccapra ( talk) 09:50, 10 December 2023 (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.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Bulgaria women's international footballers. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Yana Dineva

Yana Dineva (  | 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)

Redirect to List of Bulgaria women's international footballers. I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. All I found in my searches were passing mentions ( 1, 2, 3, etc.) JTtheOG ( talk) 23:36, 10 December 2023 (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 NHS ambulance services. Consensus is against a standalone article. History remains under the redirect if a merge is deemed necessary. Star Mississippi 23:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Ambulance services trust

Ambulance services trust (  | 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)

Mostly regurgiated article. "Ambulance services trust" is not a legal entity, as by defintion all are either NHS trusts or NHS foundation trusts, and none of the cited sources specifically mention this term.

The rest of the article is a regurgitation / duplicate of information covered at NHS ambulance services. Elshad ( talk) 12:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 00:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 22:59, 10 December 2023 (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 07:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Hospital separation

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

It is a WP:DICDEF. The single source is a dictionary entry. [1] also defines the term as "used in commentaries on hospital statistics to describe the departure of a patient from hospital without distinguishing whether the patient departed alive or dead." It could perhaps be added to wikt:separation. Darcyisverycute ( talk) 14:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 22:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Much of this article seems to be about hospital statistics that are not specifically related to separation. "In Australia, the main hospital separations of 2004–05 were: 1. Digestive system problems. 2. Neoplasms. 3. Injury/Poisoning. ..." But those are reasons why the person went into the hospital, not why they left. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:09, 11 December 2023 (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 00:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Velo Vie

Velo Vie (  | 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)

Originally prodded in 2010, and the article has not seen any more sigcov. There is a review on one of their bicycles but it seems to be more about the bike than the company, barely counting as one source. Sungodtemple ( talkcontribs) 16:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft-deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 22:58, 10 December 2023 (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. Daniel ( talk) 21:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Vietnamese teams in the League of Legends World Championship

Vietnamese teams in the League of Legends World Championship (  | 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)

Similar to this deletion discussion. This article is full of unsourced cruft and tables of statistics with no accompanied commentary. There are no sources that indicate that the subject of "Vienamese teams at the World Championship" is a notable topic. There is no reason to merge this article to any of the World Championship articles, as its simply statistics. –  Pbrks ( t ·  c) 16:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While eligible for soft-deletion, this has been recently edited and so a soft-deletion is unlikely to 'stick'. Relisting for further consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 22:57, 10 December 2023 (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. Daniel ( talk) 00:39, 18 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Muzeum Miniaturowej Sztuki Profesjonalnej Henryk Jan Dominiak in Tychy

Muzeum Miniaturowej Sztuki Profesjonalnej Henryk Jan Dominiak in Tychy (  | 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 is not a G4, but issues and sourcing raised at the prior AfD don't appear to have changed. The promotional tone wouldn't be as much of an issue with independent sourcing to address it. Star Mississippi 13:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 13:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 16:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 22:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: are our notability standards more stringent than those of the 45 other language wikis that have a page about this government-accredited museum? The poor writing and sloppy sourcing are certainly making it difficult to endorse the article in its current form, but that's an argument for rewriting, not deleting.it. Owen× 00:09, 11 December 2023 (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 Protection Command. Daniel ( talk) 21:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Personal protection officer

Personal protection officer (  | 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 sure this term is sufficiently specific to warrant an article. "Personal protection officer" is a generic term that could apply anywhere in the English-speaking world. Some of the references are newspaper article where the writer may have just used it as a generic term.

I can find no statutory footing for this term or published material from the Met clearly demonstrating that this is a term specific to the Met.

Overall is a vague article. Elshad ( talk) 22:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft-deletion - previously at AfD under another title.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 22:53, 10 December 2023 (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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Ilgar Nabiyev

Ilgar Nabiyev (  | 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)

Despite searching "İlqar Nəbiyev" and "Ilgar Nabiyev", I was unable to find any evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. The best that I could find was Milli, which is just a Q&A with no independent analysis at all. In any case, one source is not enough for GNG or SPORTBASIC. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:33, 10 December 2023 (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. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 21:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Garden Networks

Garden Networks (  | 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, seems to be defunct. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 21:44, 10 December 2023 (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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Val Jobara

Val Jobara (  | 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 actor. Few minor roles, but no real claim to fame. Orphaned for a decade. PepperBeast (talk) 21:04, 10 December 2023 (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. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 21:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Muhammad Qasim Sadiq

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

The article currently has two sources, one of which is a dead link and the other isn't verified. BEFORE hasn't turned up anything, though sources may be available in other languages. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk) 20:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Strong Keep I am surprised that even after the first deletion discussions which closed as Keep it was again tagged for deletion discussion. These are some references I would like to mention: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15] Kkb091 ( talk) 09:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • KEEP Seems to me Kkb091 has provided many additional sources shown above. Also, today I looked and saw that he has worked on the article and further improved it, so there are no lack of sources any more at the article for notability. This Sufi sheikh (1845 - 1942) has a large number of followers in Pakistan. Ngrewal1 ( talk) 16:41, 13 December 2023 (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 EarthBound or an appropriate section thereof Star Mississippi 23:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Ness (EarthBound)

Ness (EarthBound) (  | 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)

Despite being a pretty well known character and the main face of Earthbound, there really isn't much being said about Ness. His entire reception is based around his Smash appearances, with most of it being summed up as "Ness is more known for Smash than Earthbound and is pretty fun to play." I did find this pretty good source while searching https://www.nintendojo.com/features/editorials/best-of-2012-the-church-of-ness-earthbounds-religious-overtones But I couldn't really find much more, as most discussion is just about Earthbound's plot than about Ness as a character. Given that Ness already has a section in the main Earthbound article, a merge there I feel would work as a perfect AtD, given that Ness has some legacy beyond his game, even if it isn't really enough for an article, in my book. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 20:10, 10 December 2023 (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. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 20:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Nevaun Turner

Nevaun Turner (  | 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)

Failure of WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 20:10, 10 December 2023 (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. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 20:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Port Harcourt bus electrocution

Port Harcourt bus electrocution (  | 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 lasting coverage; all significant coverage I can find is from within two days of the incident. Otherwise only passing mentions in summary in ProQuest results, never exceeding about 2 sentences, mostly in relation to similar events in Nigeria. – LaundryPizza03 ( d ) 19:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep per Owen and HJ Mitchell. S5A-0043 Talk 04:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎ per sourcing identified. Normally I'd relist for source assessment to see if any of the deletes changed, but these sources are an objective answer to the nomination and many of those !votes Star Mississippi 23:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Queens Well, Arizona

Queens Well, Arizona (  | 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 did not find SIGCOV for that topic. बिनोद थारू ( talk) 16:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. बिनोद थारू ( talk) 16:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - passes WP:GEOLAND. Onel5969 TT me 18:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Comment. From WP:GEOLAND,

      The Geographic Names Information System and the GEOnet Names Server do not satisfy the "legal recognition" requirement and are also unreliable for "populated place" designation.

      Yet those are the only sources. बिनोद थारू ( talk) 18:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

    • No it doesn't. It's a well. Uncle G ( talk) 19:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • The 1986 GNIS record for this actually gave it the feature class "well" and said that it was "UNOFF". Unfortunately, feature classes have become eroded over the years. And here we are declaring that a well "passes GEOLAND" for being an "unincorporated area" (piped as "populated place") 37 years later. The extra saddening thing, over the fact that we are still so uncritical of the GNIS that a well that even says "Well" in its name, is taken to be where people live, is that the coördinates for this in the GNIS are for the words "Queens Well" printed at the bottom left of the quadrangle map. It is the Queens Well quadrangle map. The actual location of the well on the map, where it says Queen's Well, is at 32°16′35″N 111°38′05″W / 32.276514°N 111.634689°W / 32.276514; -111.634689, with (on the 1:62500 maps) a handy stylized icon of a well to confirm that, as the GNIS used to say, it is a well. Uncle G ( talk) 19:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • It's not a physical well, anymore than Indian Wells, California is a collection of wells made by a group of native Americans. "Wells" itself is a pretty common name for geographic areas: please see Wells. — Maile ( talk) 00:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    • It is. Ironically, one can even see it, at the coördinates given above. It's the round thing, exactly where the well symbol and the words "Queens Well" on the topographic maps say it is, at the end of the little service road. The maps say it's a well. The GNIS said that it was a "well" up until "well" was squashed and mass replaced (incorrectly) a few years ago. We can see that it's a well. It's mind-boggling that people want to argue that no, it isn't a well and it could be a populated place. We've got the evidence of the very computer database record that the article is based upon outright saying that it is a well for a good 30 years. Uncle G ( talk) 01:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: It's a well. The name says it's a well. The GNIS says it's a well. The USGS topographic map says it's a well. The satellite image: [16] shows a well, or possibly a cistern, surrounded by desert. Look at the image. Do you see any sign of human population? This shouldn't be this difficult. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 02:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • delete A person can always argue / assume that not enough searching has been done and that the needed sources have been overlooked. The burden of proof that this well is either a populated place or otherwise notable lies on the person arguing for it. Just because it might be notable does not make a feature notable. If sources showing that can't be found, it does not belong in Wikipedia until an acceptable source showing notability is found.
  • I found two sources for Queen's Well, but neither shows that it is notable in any way. First on page 15 of McKenzie, D.N., (1985, RangeWater Pumping Systems State-of-The-Art-Review. Agriculture Forest Service Equipment Development Center Project Report 8522 1201, 2200-Range, San Dimas, California.) the caption of a water well picture reads, Figure 22. - Large maximum power controller pump jack water pumping system at Queens Well on the Papago Indian Reservation near Tuscon, Arizona. Finally, in Carlson, K.E., ( 1978. Laramie, Wyo.; Kent A. Crofts, Colorado Yampa Coal. Annual Report) there are three pictures of water pumping system at Queens Well on page 45 and two other page. None of these sources indicate any significance for Queens Wells. It is just an example of a water well run by solar panels as many wells are. Paul H. ( talk) 03:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Nothing is here to indicate this is or has ever been a populated place. Fails WP:GEOLAND. Let'srun ( talk) 04:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - this is literally a well, and in fact, it may border on a WP:HOAX to claim it's anything more than a well. Kinopiko talk 20:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    • It's not a bad-faith hoax. This article was created in 2017, relying solely upon GNIS as a source for the "populated place" requirement. Whether that practice was acceptable was debated prior to 2021, but an 2021 RfC found affirmative consensus that GNIS by itself is not enough to count as a legal recognition the populated place requirement.

      So, judging from currently clear standards, it is IMO patently clear that this does not meet the populated places requirement and be deleted. But a hoax requires a bad-faith intention to trick the audience in believing that something is real. I don't find it to be the case here, as the article's creation was more due to laxer standards before that had no clear consensus on whether GNIS is enough by itself, allowing stubs such as this to be created. VickKiang (talk) 02:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. This is no indication that this site is a populated place, and the 2021 RfC I mentioned above notes that The Geographic Names Information System and the GEOnet Names Server do not satisfy the "legal recognition" requirement and are also unreliable for "populated place" designation. As such, GEOLAND is failed and this should be deleted. VickKiang (talk) 02:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: On Wikipedia, one thing I learned we can do, is look for sources! Queens Well, this exact location, was described as a "village of 15 homes" by the Tuscon Citizen in 1993 [17], and a Papago village with solar equipment constructed in 1982 [18] (Edit to add: another 1982 mention [19]), and an "outlying Indian village" in which 3 homes were destroyed in a flood in 1962 where the "Red Cross is feeing and clothing all the residents of Queens Well." [20] Surely these are poor native americans without the favor of white skin so that the US Government sees them, but it does seem to be a populated place.-- Milowent has spoken 17:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    Yes, but SIGCOV is needed for GNG and passing SNG alone does not pass GNG if the sources were exhausted. That's what people said on Talk:Notability recently. बिनोद थारू ( talk) 01:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC) reply
I don't know what people said on Notability recently, but we have editors concluding this article is a "hoax", when searching newspapers.com with my free wiki editor account yielded a number of hits. The primary ground for the delete votes to date is that they don't think its a populated place, and that assumption has been shown to be incorrect. I believe the nomination was completely in good faith, but incorrect.-- Milowent has spoken 12:36, 14 December 2023 (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 since WP:V precludes a redirect. Should that change, happy to restore the history for a redirect Star Mississippi 23:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

San Luis (I), Pima County, Arizona

San Luis (I), Pima County, Arizona (  | 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)

Did not find any SIGCOV for this topic. बिनोद थारू ( talk) 16:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Per Uncle G's investigation, it's not even clear that this place exists.
JoelleJay ( talk) 07:28, 14 December 2023 (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 Imaginary chair. I have taken the suggestion to preemptively move wall sit to imaginary chair. But the move can be undone at editorial discretion. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 20:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Jetliner position

Jetliner position (  | 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)

Issues have been raised regarding this name since 2005, and no RS has been provided to give this name since. Move relevant information into wall sit article and delete this unless RS can be given for this name. GnocchiFan ( talk) 15:55, 10 December 2023 (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 Tindle Radio. Content may be merged at editorial discretion. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 20:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Anglian Radio

Anglian Radio (  | 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 company that bought and then subsequently sold some local radio stations four years later. Trade press coverage revolves around the company buying and then selling its radio stations, nothing appears to be covered other than this. There is nothing here that could not be covered in the articles for the individual stations - it warrants a brief mention of the ownership transfers, rather than a full article. Flip Format ( talk) 15:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete as there are huge problems with general notability and NCROP as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpaul2030 ( talkcontribs) 08:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment This is a difficult one to call as I am never in favour of article deletion. I think it passes notability but only just but, as Flip Fprmat says, the references are only related to the forming and selling of the company. However, to delete it means that the information which is contains will be lost. Merge with Tindle is another option, and maybe the best option, and ensure that the relevant information is transferred to the Tindle Radio article before it is merged as merge is another word for delete. Rillington ( talk) 11:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

I have now done this so I'm prepared to change my vote to Merge. Rillington ( talk) 12:02, 15 December 2023 (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. It seems like this discussion has resolved at least some confusion about how this topic is different than others. We should also expect more clarity on definitions from outside sources in the coming years. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 20:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Cisgenderism

Cisgenderism (  | 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)

Three reasons for nomination in AfD:

  • All of the sources I could find in my BEFORE and currently present in the article are WP:PRIMARY journal articles investigating the topic at hand.
  • This article is a WP:CFORK of cisnormativity, trans erasure and lastly misgendering (per the original paper [21]). No secondary source clearly delineates cisnormativity and cisgenderism leading me to think that they're just WP:DICDEFs that are synonyms of each other (all mean biases towards cisgender).
  • The only and main secondary source:
Ansara, Y. Gavriel; Berger, Israel. Cisgenderism. In: Goldberg, Abbie; Beemyn, Gemmy, editors. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Trans Studies. SAGE Publications; 2021. ISBN  978-1-5443-9381-0.
was co-written by the same person who invented the term for his masters thesis (making it likely a WP:NEOLOGISM). All sources were selected from very few psychology or gender journal articles (half of them having Ansara as a co-author), raising WP:NOTABILITY concerns. Such publications are WP:MILL research output and not been picked up by independent secondary sources. बिनोद थारू ( talk) 15:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Ansara (2015): 46
  • Blumer, Ansara & Watson (2013): 51
  • Rogers (2021): 17
  • Ansara & Hegarty (2012): 162
By the way of comparison, the Annual Review of Sociology, one of the most highly cited sociology journals, has an impact factor (average citations per article) of 10.5 [22]. You bring up "Isolated studies", but I have already said that of the articles cited, those that actually are studies include literature reviews in them, making them more than isolated studies. You have failed to substantiate what you mean when referring to "POV and peer review in journals". Are you saying that SAGE Publications, Psychology and Sexuality, Psychology of Women Section Review, Violence Against Women, Journal of Family Psychotherapy, Transgender Studies Quarterly, Australasian Journal on Ageing, and Journal on Family Strengths all "exist mainly to promote a particular point of view"? --  Maddy from Celeste ( WAVEDASH) 20:20, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • 3/4 of those sources:
  • Ansara (2015): 46
  • Blumer, Ansara & Watson (2013): 51
  • Rogers (2021): 17
  • Ansara & Hegarty (2012): 162
are by Gabriel Ansara, the one who coined the term in 2012 for his master thesis. So as well as being WP:PRIMARY (ie. not being "Reviews of Cisgenderism" or "Textbooks about Cisgenderism") they are also not WP:INDEPENDENT of the topic. बिनोद थारू ( talk) 21:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • "POV and peer review in journals" in WP:SCHOLARSHIP gives the examples of The Creation Research Society Quarterly and Journal of Frontier Science, in other words, fringe sources.
The seminal paper for this subject Cisgenderism in psychology: pathologising and misgendering children from 1999 to 2008 (Ansara) states:
Note that ‘scientific objectivity’ has been used to obscure prejudicial ideologies focused on marginalised populations and that many scientists have critiqued ‘objectivity’ as a social construct that is fashioned from the subjective experiences of the researchers. See Crasnow; Danziger; Fairchild; Fernando, (2009); Jiménez-Domínguez; Spanier; and Stanley and Wise (esp. p. 174)
This is typical of what one would find in a WP:FRINGE publication. To not stick with calling it fringe, I read the paper further. In section 1.4, the purpose the paper is given as:
In the present study, we examined whether cisgenderism has characterised the language of scientific communication about children in psychology in the period since Parlee’s (1996).
So the only purpose of this study is grepping all the psych studies with misgendering keywords and yet it makes completely unrelated conclusions at the end like:
Where some researchers (e.g., Zucker et al., 2009) see mere semantics, others consider sexist language an abusive and destructive form of hate speech (e.g., Lillian, 2007). Cisgenderist language can function to dehumanise, silence and erase. Indeed, even Parlee’s (1996) important criticism of cisgenderist language is limited by numerous instances of misgendering,7 an illustration that shifting the discourse is extremely difficult even for those engaged in critical analysis. Editors, peer reviewers, psychological researchers, mental health professionals and professional organisations all have ethical duties to address institutional cisgenderism, including cisgenderism that is institutionalised in scientific communication. Children’s self-definition and self-expression are not the only issues at stake. The moral integrity of psychology and its public image as an agent of the greater social good depends, in part, upon implementation of APA policy – which our current findings suggest has yet to impact how psychological scientists construct knowledge
How does "a frequency f of misgendering keywords" imply "Cisgenderist language can function to dehumanise, silence and erase"?
This is bad research (if you cannot see why this is the case, answer the question: what can I take out of it?). Regardless, this CTRL+F study defines cisgenderism as either misgendering or pathologizing so gives yet another WP:CFORK. बिनोद थारू ( talk) 22:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
This is a gish gallop. Instead of responding to the arguments I make, you just throw out more and more assertions. --  Maddy from Celeste ( WAVEDASH) 07:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture and Psychology. बिनोद थारू ( talk) 16:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Adequately sourced for an article on a sociological concept. Invoking WP:ROUTINE is beside the point; as noted above, that would be trying to apply a standard for news coverage to academic work, which just doesn't make sense. (Vast swaths of our mathematics, physics, and biology coverage could be disparaged as "routine": we don't ask that someone win the Fields Medal or the Nobel Prize before we write an article about their research topic.) It could be that after further editing, this material would make more sense as a section in a larger article, but this is not the forum to decide that. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Merging an article into another article instead of deleting it outright, is definitively within the purview of Articles for Deletion. Merging is made very clear as an option to consider in this forum in the Guide to Deletion section titled Recommendations and outcomes. In the list of vote types presented there, it states: "Merge is a recommendation to keep the article's content but to move it into some more appropriate article. It is either inappropriate or insufficient for a stand-alone article. After the merger, the article will be replaced with a redirect to the target article (in order to preserve the attribution history)."    — The Transhumanist   08:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • In a brief search, I found scholarly sources discussing both cisgenderism and cisnormativity; e.g.
Sources discussing cisgenderism and cisnormativity
I also think the cisgenderism and cisnormativity articles can account (according to WP:NPOV) for research literature that indicates the terminology may be used synonymously, e.g. Rosenberg, Shoshana; Callander, Denton; Holt, Martin; Duck-Chong, Liz; Pony, Mish; Cornelisse, Vincent; Baradaran, Amir; Duncan, Dustin T.; Cook, Teddy (21 July 2021). "Cisgenderism and transphobia in sexual health care and associations with testing for HIV and other sexually transmitted infections: Findings from the Australian Trans & Gender Diverse Sexual Health Survey". PLOS ONE. 16 (7): e0253589. Bibcode: 2021PLoSO..1653589R. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253589. ISSN  1932-6203. PMC  8294496. PMID  34288911. ("Cisgenderism (sometimes referred to as cisnormativity) is a form of stigma that denies, ignores, and marginalizes genders other than those that adhere to a fixed gender binary" citing Ansara YG, Hegarty P. Methodologies of misgendering: Recommendations for reducing cisgenderism in psychological research. Fem Psychol. 2014;24(2):259–70.) Overall, this seems to be a broad concept article, and based on available sources, keep seems supported at this time. Beccaynr ( talk) 00:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply

"Cisgenderism (sometimes referred to as cisnormativity) ..."

"I also think the cisgenderism and cisnormativity articles can account (according to WP:NPOV) for research literature that indicates the terminology may be used synonymously"

You say cisgenderism has the same definition as cisnormativity, which already has an article. Why wouldn't it be considered a WP:REDUNDANTFORK then? बिनोद थारू ( talk) 00:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • To clarify, in my comment above, I pointed to what appears to be medical research literature (stating cisgenderism is "sometimes referred to as cisnormativity") that according to WP:NPOV, does not seem to have the same WP:WEIGHT as the sociological and psychological literature that appears to be available. This is why I think an application of this core content policy to both articles, along with further review of sources and discussion, can help develop the broad concepts.
Additional sources
Beccaynr ( talk) 01:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply
If you say they mean the same thing, then the consensus is to keep them on one page (delete, merge, or redirect this one).
This is a standard case of WP:REDUNDANTFORK. बिनोद थारू ( talk) 01:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply
As an additional clarification, I did not say cisgenderism has the same definition as cisnormativity; I added sources to my first comment above that discuss both concepts, and in my second comment above I added more sources, including a source that appears to use cisgenderism in its title as a broader concept that includes cisnormativity. As to WP:REDUNDANTFORK, that section of the guideline includes, If you suspect a redundant article fork, check with people who watch the respective articles and participate in talk page discussions to see if the fork was justified. If the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged into the main article. For now, cisgenderism seems to be a distinct sociological/psychological concept that has gained traction in the research literature, so alternatives to deletion seem to be available. Beccaynr ( talk) 01:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply

"As to WP:REDUNDANTFORK, that section of the guideline includes, If you suspect a redundant article fork, check with people who watch the respective articles"

I am nominating for deletion since I noticed everything has already been merged to the other article. बिनोद थारू ( talk) 02:02, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Reluctant Keep -- At what point does a neologism become just a logism? This was clearly a neologism, but one that has started to appear in RS as shown both in the article and in the sources mentioned in the collapsed section above. As such, I feel that sources just barely establish WP:GNG beyond the neologistic nature of the word. As for the other point WP:BLUDGEONed above, I do not feel that it is a fork from cisnormativity. That term refers to the belief that cis is "the only normal", where this one refers to discriminatory behaviours based on that belief. I don't like the term (or the article), but it appears to just cross the line into an encyclopaedic subject. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 13:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I thought that "cisgenderism" would refer to the status of being cisgender, just like "transgenderism" can refer to being transgender. I realize that the article clarifies this but I was confused reading the deletion discussion. ( t · c) buidhe 02:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The article currently reads "Cisgenderism relies on the assumption that there are only two sex and gender categories, that gender is unchanging through life". The definition of "sex" says there are only two sexes. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sex Sex explains that classification also. I clicked the reliable sources search at the top of the AFD, and don't see any reliable sources appearing. This article was made entirely by one user, who identifies as queer, non-binary, and trans. It reads like a personal essay. Dream Focus 23:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    Sex and gender are different concepts, e.g. see gender binary. Reading like a personal essay is arguably a surmountable issue. Darcyisverycute ( talk) 05:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Dream Focus I ask you strike your comment about Maddy from Celeste's identity - it's irrelevant to the discussion and we are supposed to comment on content, not the contributor. Additionally, I'm a little confused how the reliable sources search didn't return anything for you - checking the link to google scholar there were over 3,500 results - so I'd appreciate a clarification of your methodology. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 22:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I am not familiar with the term cisgenderism, but I do happen to know the synonym term cissexism which currently redirects to cisgenderism. My understanding is that cisnormativity is the assumption that people are cisgender, whereas cissexism is defined as a type of systemic discrimination towards transgender people, perpetrated by societies and not individuals. It can also be thought of as the difference between "sexists" and "sexism"; in the former there are individuals argued to cause harm, and in the latter there are systemic forces such as wage discrimination which no single or even small group of individuals is responsible for. At least, that is the definition for these terms to my best understanding.
I believe the term cissexism entered popular usage due to the 2007 book Whipping Girl, and there is now vast feminist literature on the term. If I had tPages of the same type on the same subjecto give a top three for independent significant coverage of the term cissexism, noting all the sources are independent of each other: [24] [25] [26]
My personal impression is that the term cissexism is in wider circulation than the term cisgenderism, eg. see [27] and [28]. Since they define their own concept and the etymology doesn't seem notable on its own to me, I think one should redirect to the other, but perhaps the other way around to what it is currently (ie. I would support having cisgenderism redirect to cissexism and treat sources using the terms interchangeably as long as they establish equivalent definitions in-text). Note the curious discussion at Talk:Cissexism#Merge which established merging of cisgenderism to transphobia, not cisgenderism as it redirects to currently. And, not to invoke WP:WHATABOUTX, but sources from the more well-developed transmisogyny article could be useful additions this article as the two terms are frequently discussed together. I also concur with XOR'easter that WP:ROUTINE is only relevant for news reporting and not academic coverage. Darcyisverycute ( talk) 05:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment. Your answer does not cover:
  • WP:PRIMARY "academic" essays being unfit to write an article especially when no mainstream secondary source has picked it up.
  • Example of WP:DICDEF. Only mentions of cisgenderism are under multiple conflicting definitions. (half say "cisgenderism/transphobia" as in both are identical)
  • I referred to WP:MILL in my nom yet you stuck with WP:ROUTINE.
Finally you are suggesting WP:OR by changing the name from "Cisgenderism" to "cissexism", since the sources were all cherrypicked for their use of "cisgenderism", not based on an existing concept covered in secondary sources.
By the current logic, we would have to WP:TNT the article to create a different high school essay around CTRL+Fed "cissexism" sources. बिनोद थारू ( talk) 05:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Commentcisgenderism is distinct from cisnormativity, with the latter being a bias of perception and the former being a form of prejudice. While related, cisgenderism is not a subtopic of cisnormativity, but it is a subtopic of cisgender. So, if there is to be a merge, the latter is the article it should be merged into.

    That being said, the hurdle that needs to be overcome is meeting the inclusion criteria set forth by WP:NOTNEO:

    "To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term (see use–mention distinction). An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy."

    And...

    "Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic, or use the term within other articles."    — The Transhumanist   08:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep The relentless WP:BLUDGEONing and gish galloping on this subject led me to reexamine the sources. I have changed from a reluctant keep !vote (struck above) to a very solid Keep. Since the nominator apparently believes that every response must remove every objection, I'll try to do just that.
  1. Journal articles are not always WP:PRIMARY sources, so that argument is moot. Worse, it is disingenuous in the extreme. The vast majority of RS are published in journals. A subject matter expert writing journal articles investigating the topic at hand is the soul and centre of WP:SECONDARY sourcing. As examples, I'd pick Boe & Baldwin, who tackle cisgenderism in family therapy [29]; Dalton, et al, who dissects coaching and managing people to (in part) avoid cisgenderism [30]; and Rogers, who looks at cisgenderism and hate crimes with secondary analysis of primary sources [31]. If you really want books instead of journals, I'd start with these: Ross explicitly discusses cisgenderism in relationship to homelessness and rehousing [32], just as Knott-Fayle & Peel do regarding qualitative research [33] and Knott-Fayle does solo regarding sports [34]. I am not suggesting that this is the end of the sourcing list, nor that they are the best sources; this is not my area of expertise. They are, however, solid and reliable sources in accordance with Wikipedia policy.
  2. This is not a content or POV fork off any subject. Cisnormativity is about a belief that "cis is the only normal", whereas cisgenderism is discriminatory behaviour or attitudes based on that belief. Those are separate subjects. Erasure is a wholly different phenomenon related to attempts to remove trans people from the conversation, or to ignore their existence entirely. Misgendering is not remotely related to cisgenderism at all.
  3. The statement that there is only one secondary source in the article is false (see 1, above) and utterly irrelevant. The point of WP:BEFORE, which was obviously not done in this case, is that sources must exist, not that those sources must be in the article at the time of the AfD.
  4. WP:NOTNEO is a weak argument in any AfD as there is no clear rule on what constitutes a neologism. Regardless, there is a substantial body of work very specifically about both the term and the concept (again, see cites in 1, above). As for the amusing statement that the article relies on a very few psychology or gender journal articles (half of them having Ansara as a co-author), did anyone even try to do a BEFORE search? gScholar comes back with hundreds of viable sources not authored by or with the Ansara that are both secondary and explanatory, and gBooks has even more.
  5. WP:MILL is about run-of-the-mill news coverage. Trying to equate a discussion of cisgenderism to 'dog bites man' is just throwing every policy one can think of at the AfD wall and seeing if something sticks. If it were run of the mill, the individual events of cisgenderistic behaviour would be routine coverage and the concept, what this article is about, would be unquestionably encyclopaedic. This deletion argument literally makes the case for inclusion.

Overall, there is simply no good policy-based reason to delete this article, and it improves the encyclopaedia to include it. The article needs work, but WP:DINC. As it stands, though, the article more than meets GNG and is worthy of inclusion. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 14:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep; oppose renaming cissexism per Maddy from Celeste, Beccaynr, XOR'Easter, and Last1in. With regards to the relationship between cisgenderism, cisnormativity, and transphobia: it matches the relationship between heterosexism, heteronormativity, and homophobia - closely related but separate concepts. With regards to renaming as cissexism, Julie Serano has clarified that I also make a distinction between cissexism (i.e., the assumption that transsexual gender identities and sex embodiments are less legitimate than cissexual ones) and cisgenderism (i.e., the assumption that people who defy gender norms are less legitimate than people who conform to them), this distinction is noted in other sources [35] [36] so I think the article should clarify cissexism is a subset of cisgenderism rather than synonym (though often used that way). Additionally, this ngram search (admittedly an imperfect metric) shows that cisgenderism is a more common term than cissexism. [37]

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 22:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Ah, thanks for the clarification on the difference between cissexism and cigenderism. It's gonna take work, but in that case maybe it will be later worth turning back cissexism from a redirect to a proper article. Having confused definitions in feminism and gender studies is such a common issue, especially given half the papers don't bother defining the terms too. Darcyisverycute ( talk) 03:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply
No problem, thank you for noting the scholarly coverage of the terms! For the record my keep vote was also based on yours - I feel a little silly I left that out above considering it inspired a large part of my vote lol. I agree an independent article for cissexism might be a good idea, I've got it on my to-do list now! Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 16:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • KeepLast1in has shown irrefutably above that the article surpasses the thresholds for WP:NOTNEO and WP:GNG, that there is plenty more material out there to research on this topic, and that the arguments levied against it are invalid. The discussion above also shows that there is the will to research it, an indication that the article will improve further over time. I came here researching the uses of the shortcuts presented at Wikipedia:Content forks, and I've found that the claim that the article is a redundant fork is false, because it is about a distinct topic. Conclusion: it's a policy-backed bona fide Wikipedia article.    — The Transhumanist   13:08, 17 December 2023 (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 East Aceh Regency. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 20:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

PSKBS Kuta Binjai

PSKBS Kuta Binjai (  | 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)

AFD as PROD is likely to be contested. The club existed but sources didn't show that this club passes WP:GNG or WP:NSPORTS. Sources shown the games that the team played, but no in-depth coverage of this team. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:24, 10 December 2023 (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 14:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Mohammed Rashed Farazuddin

Mohammed Rashed Farazuddin (  | 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 a corporator of an Municipal Corporation, just fought the election and got only 7848 votes see [38]. Doesn’t passes the WP:NPOL. — Syed A. Hussain Quadri ( talk) 14:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

KEEP. Farazuddin has been a Councillor for more that 7 years(for two terms). In addition to that, he has been a member of GHMC standing community since 2021. [39] Thewikicolumnist ( talk) 20:42, 13 December 2023 (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 close‎. Superseded by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Coia (3rd nomination) which presents a deletion rationale (non-admin closure) Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Paul Coia

Paul Coia (  | 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)

Second attempt at non-notable deletion Funky Snack ( Talk | Contribs) 10:57, 10 December 2023 (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 12:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

All-Knighters

All-Knighters (  | 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 notable tag team, NO IN-DEEP coverage about them. Only worked on independent level. According to Cagematch, they only had 32 matches. HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 12:07, 10 December 2023 (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 12:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Andrew Marston

Andrew Marston (  | 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 big page of self-promotion. Nothing of note. Links are purely to interviews and programme links. Funky Snack ( Talk | Contribs) 11:31, 10 December 2023 (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 12:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Paul Miller (radio presenter)

Paul Miller (radio presenter) (  | 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 radio presenter Funky Snack ( Talk | Contribs) 11:19, 10 December 2023 (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. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 20:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

John Viega

John Viega (  | 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. Almost every reference is a paper co-authored by Viega himself. Out of the three that aren't, two don't mention his name at all, and one uses a single quote from him. benǝʇᴉɯ 07:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:44, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Hey, I don't have an account, though I am the subject of the article.
I've been lucky enough to be in a position to do work that had impact on the industry, even if I haven't gone around promoting myself heavily (I am pretty private generally). Certainly, it was mostly a combination of dumb luck (right places, right times) and privilege. I'm definitely grateful to those looking to keep, and whoever has put this up and kept updating it over the years.
But, if you're looking for notable mentions in third-party press, two things do come to mind:
1) a popular science article about me playing Defcon Capture the Flag the hear before we hosted it ( https://www.popsci.com/gear-gadgets/article/2005-04/i-attended-hacker-conference-and-all-i-got-was-all-data-your-hard-drive/).
2) A bit of the software security stuff, along with a mention of the sale of my first startup to Fortify was mentioned when I was quoted in the Economist in the March 2008 Technology Quarterly (page 14).
Also, GCM does have its own page, and I think does merit it. For GCM mode, simply being the default cipher mode for TLS 1.3 (plus having hardware support in Intel and ARM architectures) has made it ubiquitous. The 2021 F5 Labs data ( https://www.f5.com/labs/articles/threat-intelligence/the-2021-tls-telemetry-report) seems to indicate ~80% plus of all TLS connections globally were using it; I've anecdotally (from people at a major CDN) that it's above 90% now.
Also, NIST is looking to update the GCM standard. https://csrc.nist.gov/News/2023/proposal-to-revise-sp-800-38d
It's not going anywhere any time soon.
Either way, thanks for the consideration. It does feel good to be thought about, even if I don't make the cut! 68.129.210.33 ( talk) 17:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 11:15, 10 December 2023 (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 00:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Clare Thomas

Clare Thomas (  | 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)

Has been in notable shows, but she doesn't seem to be notable herself. Boleyn ( talk) 15:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further input on the source presented above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:36, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO, no sources showing this meets any SNG. Source eval:
Comments Source
Youtube channel 1. "Clare Lucy P - YouTube". www.youtube.com. Retrieved 27 July 2020.
Streaming site database page, nothing meets SIGCOV MUBI, retrieved 18 November 2023
Streaming site database page, nothing meets SIGCOV MUBI, retrieved 18 November 2023
TVGuide database page, nothing meets SIGCOV 4. ^ "The Railway Children". TVGuide.com. Retrieved 18 November 2023.
Cast list mention, nothing meets SIGCOV 5. ^ Miles, Tina (21 April 2011). "Young Dracula children's series to be filmed in Liverpool". Liverpool Echo. Retrieved 18 November 2023.
Cast list mention, nothing meets SIGCOV 6. ^ Tzvetkova, Juliana (12 October 2017). Pop Culture in Europe. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. ISBN 978-1-4408-4466-9.
Cast list mention, nothing meets SIGCOV 7. ^ Melton, J. Gordon (1 October 2021). The Vampire Almanac: The Complete History. Visible Ink Press. ISBN 978-1-57859-754-3.
Nothing above or in BEFORE shows WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from WP:IS WP:RS. WP:BLP require strong sourcing.  //  Timothy ::  talk  04:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to review Timothy's source analysis and for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 11:15, 10 December 2023 (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. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 20:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Mollie Green (broadcaster)

Mollie Green (broadcaster) (  | 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 local radio presenter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funky Snack ( talkcontribs) 11:11, 10 December 2023 (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. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 20:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Paul Coia

Paul Coia (  | 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)

Third attempt as page doesn't really give anything. Possible self-promotion Funky Snack ( Talk | Contribs) 11:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep, per the overwhelming view regarding the previous nomination. This clearly fulfils WP:BASIC, as it did before. Nothing has changed in that regard. Rationale "doesn't really give anything" vague and evidently baseless and if there is an indication of self-promotion, please elaborate. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 00:48, 11 December 2023 (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. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 20:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Alex Dyke

Alex Dyke (  | 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. Links and references are generic Funky Snack ( Talk | Contribs) 10:59, 10 December 2023 (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. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 20:36, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

The Seventh Veil (1927 film)

The Seventh Veil (1927 film) (  | 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 any single reliable source. Nexovia ( talk) 03:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 03:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus‎. No prejudice against merging. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 20:36, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Debate camp

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

The concept of a debate camp doesn't seem to be notable in-and-of itself, with this page basically being a collection of primary sources linking to different camps. WP:BEFORE was difficult due to the deluge of primary sources, but I was unable to find consistent + independent coverage. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him) Talk to Me! 11:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Education. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him) Talk to Me! 11:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- This is the edge of WP:DINC. This purports to be an article, but is effectively a list of debate camps which definitely does not belong in the encyclopaedia ( WP:NOTDB and WP:NOTDIRECTORY). However, it could become an actual article. I am seeing solid, secondary and tertiary references including [41], [42], and [43] (p38-40, 112-118). There are hundreds more, but this will be a monster to research digitally with the challenging signal-to-noise ratio noted by nominator. As for GNG, I think that this is a pretty mainstream concept with lots of supporting RS. Debate camps are a big deal for certain educational tracks, mainly for secondary schoolers but also for some adult learners. I can't find it any longer, but there was an excellent piece of MBA coursework a decade or two ago comparing the net impact of debate camps to programmes such as Toastmasters; its bibliography would have made a wonderful launchpad to sources. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 20:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    I am well aware of what debate camps are and the impact they can have on kids (My full-time job is as a speech and debate teacher). I am getting an "AccessDeniedAccess denied" error when I try to go to your first source and your third source is a self-published middle-grade textbook that definitely does not count for notability. The second source is solid, although it notes that research on debate camps is extremely limited. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him) Talk to Me! 22:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    I was able to find this from the Washington Post ( EBSCOhost  wapo.f73785f8-5f3d-11e6-8e45-477372e89d78) but mostly only found puff-piece and ROTM coverage of specific camps, not of camps as a category. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him) Talk to Me! 22:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eternal Shadow Talk 04:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 03:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:40, 10 December 2023 (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 Jiangnan. This is a difficult discussion to assess consensus in, but my reading is that there is a consensus below not to retain the article. On that basis, I have chosen the redirect as an ATD to preserve the history and as it was suggested within the discussion but not objected to by those !voting delete. Daniel ( talk) 22:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Jianghuai people

Jianghuai people (  | 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)

user:Newbamboo proposed to delete this article on the Chinese Wiki page, saying that it was "forcibly splicing irrelevant information together to conduct original research." And I did not see a direct introduction about Jianghuai People on Google Scholar, Google Books, and CNKI.The source given in the English article, the title seems to have little to do with Jianghuai People. 日期20220626 ( talk) 04:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • This is not an encyclopaedic topic. This is kinda like if we had an article Yorkshiremen or Manitoban or Adelaidean that was positioning residents of those geographical areas as separate ethnic groups (all three of the above are redirects). Whoever said "splicing together unrelated information" nailed it. There's no sources discussing "江淮人" as an ethnic group.
    It's extra weird because it feels like some irredentist Jianghuai local pushing for the recognition of their natal area's people as some distinct and separable subset of Han Chinese, right? But the citations to Chinese sources are so bungled I can't believe anyone with a familiarity with the language could have done this.
    Redirect to Jiangnan or delete. Folly Mox ( talk) 19:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    Jianghuai is the area north of the Yangtze River in Jiangsu Province and does not belong to Jiangnan. Redirecting is inappropriate. 日期20220626 ( talk) 01:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • As someone who edited similar pages in past IP adresses, strong disagree, nowhere in the page are the Jianghuai people stated as an "ethnic group", but as a regional subgroup of Han people, like the Sichuanese or Wuyue, speaking Jianghuai chinese and sharing some cultural aspects and history by simply being in the same region of China, so saying otherwise is disingenuous as this is not what the page says. Just because it has a problem of sources here for now, doesn't mean it doesn't warrant a page. It was good enough for Wikipedia in Mandarin so maybe we're missing something, nothing says there aren't any. My familiarity with such subjects indicate to me this is a quite recent and currently fringe phenomenon of national genesis, pioneered by a cultural theorist and historian named Liu Zhongjing, who had a master in history studies at Wuhan University. He is quite the active figure in chinese opposition spaces with his philosophy of auntology. Perhaps there are other figures who talked about this within this philosophy? Perhaps it could be reworked as a hub for siocultural particularities, culture specific to this region? Just food for thought -- 142.170.60.67 ( talk) 00:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    However, no source can be found that fully introduces the concept of Jianghuai people, and Liu Zhongjing does not seem to have invented the concept of JACs, and his own teachings are marginal. Wikipedia should not create its own concept. 日期20220626 ( talk) 11:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. There seems to be some merit to the idea that few if any sources treat "Jianghuai people" as a separate "ethnic group" compared to the clearly adequate coverage of Lower Yangtze Mandarin as a separate topolect, but the suggestion that Wikipedia shouldn't or doesn't, have articles on Han Chinese subgroups is just wrong. As many of the sources are in Chinese I don't feel confident balancing the different considerations myself, but wanted to clear up what seemed to be confusion above. Eluchil404 ( talk) 06:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. While I'm open to the argument put forward in the nomination, I think this subject and article could use more discussion to arrive at a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:37, 10 December 2023 (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. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 20:35, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

List of resorts in the Maldives

List of resorts in the Maldives (  | 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)

SImple case of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Any notable resorts or entries can be accommodated at List of hotels: Countries M. Ajf773 ( talk) 08:35, 10 December 2023 (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 Treaty of Hadiach. Daniel ( talk) 00:39, 18 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Polish–Lithuanian–Ruthenian Commonwealth

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

The article reproduces the Treaty of Hadiach. There is no information here that is not in that article, so I do not propose a merge. You should delete that article and create a redirect. Marcelus ( talk) 19:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Oppose The article is about a different topic from the treaty article and I think that an article about a possible commonwealth is worthwhile, considering that similar articles like Franco-British Union exist. Cukrakalnis ( talk) 20:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Can you explain how is it different if it literally describe the same events? Marcelus ( talk) 20:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Treaty =/= Commonwealth itself. The Maastricht Treaty is not the same as the European Union. Cukrakalnis ( talk) 12:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep - Jungleman's claim that this was proposed in a treaty but nowhere else is objectively false; it was a somewhat notable idea throughout the 1650s and was of later historical significance during the January Uprising. This is clearly more tha just a one off idea. — Knightof theswords 14:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 05:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Changed merge target per Renata3, Eluchil404 and nom. Owen× 12:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. There seems to be a rough consensus that some of the content in this article should be Merged but several options on what the target article should be.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:27, 10 December 2023 (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 07:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Gaynor Barnes

Gaynor Barnes (  | 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)

Exists, and did work for regional media mainly. Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 20:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep: Yes she was a regional broadcaster but she was a leading presenter on Yorkshire Television for three decades. This is more than enough to demonstrate notability. Also, the article has plenty of independent references. Rillington ( talk) 10:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 05:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. WP:BLP require strong sourcing, this has none with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indpeth from WP:IS WP:RS. Source eval:
Comments Source
Fails WP:IS, primary, "Barnes is a patron of Yorkshire Air Ambulance", fails WP:SIGCOV, does not address the subject directly and indepth, name mentioned in list and caption 1. "Yorkshire Air Ambulance Annual Report 2017" (PDF). Yorkshire Air Ambulance Annual Report. March 2018. Archived from the original (PDF) on 4 July 2019. Retrieved 4 July 2019.
Fails WP:IS, primary, interview "The Prince of Wales Hospice welcomes three new Patrons, ITV Calendar presenters Gaynor, Christine and Du" 2. ^ "Calendar Presenters Become Patrons". The Prince of Wales Hospice. 14 August 2020. Retrieved 20 October 2021.
Interview, fails WP:IS 3. ^ "TV Presenter Gaynor Barnes talks to Yorkshire Life". Yorkshire Life. 11 January 2010. Retrieved 31 January 2019.
Fails WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 4. ^ Berry, Chris (13 May 2005). "The Southern 'softie' with northern grit". The Yorkshire Post. Archived from the original on 1 February 2019. Retrieved 31 January 2019.
Primary, fails WP:IS, "Meet the team" promo 5. ^ "Meet the team". ITV Calendar. 31 January 2019.
Name mention, panelist, fails WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. 6. ^ Zientek, Henryk (19 November 2008). "Help for entrepreneurs". Huddersfield Examiner. Retrieved 10 August 2010.
Interview, fails WP:IS 7. ^ TV Presenter Gaynor Barnes talks to Yorkshire Life Yorkshire Life, 11 January 2010
Routine news about programming change. Fails primary, fails WP:SIGCOV addressing subject directly and indepth 8. ^ "John Shires and Gaynor Barnes to leave ITV News Calendar". ITV News. Retrieved 19 March 2021.
Name listed, fails SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. 9. ^ "RTS Yorkshire Programme Awards 2021". Royal Television Society. 15 January 2021. Retrieved 20 October 2021.
Above keep vote provides no sources or guidelines for eval. BLPs require strong sourcing.  //  Timothy ::  talk  11:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would help for those editors who want to Keep this article to respond to the source analysis or bring forward some additional sources that could help establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:21, 10 December 2023 (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 06:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Bill Jackson (photographer)

Bill Jackson (photographer) (  | 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)

Successful photographer, but I couldn't establish that he meets WP:N. Has been in CAT:NN for over 13 years. Boleyn ( talk) 21:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 05:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still ineligible for Soft Deletion. Some more participation here would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. The PROD nom and contention were from 2008 and the article has remained poorly sourced since then (and since its creation), due to a dearth of available coverage that a search confirms. Uhai ( talk) 06:21, 11 December 2023 (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 00:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Secretarias

Secretarias (  | 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)

Does not appear to be notable. Nothing found in a BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2018.

PROD removed with links to 2 sites with nothing more than blurbs about it, no indepth coverage. DonaldD23 talk to me 15:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, links in the deprod are not sufficient.
JoelleJay ( talk) 21:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:16, 10 December 2023 (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. No one is arguing for retention, and no indication any input is forthcoming. Star Mississippi 19:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Amir Válá Meshkin

Amir Válá Meshkin (  | 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)

Declined prod. Only 1 article links to this. Could not significant coverage of this individual in news and google books searches. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar ( talk) 11:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 11:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. plicit 00:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Vion Pharmaceuticals

Vion Pharmaceuticals (  | 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:MULTSOURCES - one source for its bankruptcy alone is not notable, nor did the experimental drugs ever leave trial stage. Cannot find any other sources. Darcyisverycute ( talk) 13:44, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:13, 10 December 2023 (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 Eliminative materialism. History remains under the redirect for a merge, if desired Star Mississippi 18:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Revisionary materialism

Revisionary materialism (  | 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 significant coverage at [44] and [45] (they mention the term twice and once respectively. Cannot find any other verbatim usage. Suggest merging/redirecting to eliminative materialism if anything can be salvaged. Darcyisverycute ( talk) 13:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Guyana women's international footballers. Star Mississippi 18:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Chantal Lynch

Chantal Lynch (  | 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)

Redirect to List of Guyana women's international footballers. I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. All I found in my searches were passing mentions ( 1, 2, 3, etc.) No indication of notability, either. JTtheOG ( talk) 06:33, 10 December 2023 (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 06:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Odaliana Gómez

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

The subject earned a couple of caps for the Dominican Republic women's national football team, but I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV I found in my searches was this; everything else was passing mentions. JTtheOG ( talk) 06:25, 10 December 2023 (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 06:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Sensorimotor psychotherapy

Sensorimotor psychotherapy (  | 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)

Classified as a complementary and alternative medicine [49], which sets a high bar for notability without undue weight. I cannot find reliable sources providing significant coverage independent of its main author, Pat Ogden. Note that Ogden frequently co-authors with Janina Fisher, ideally there would be review material or robust studies without either of them as listed authors. Sources need to meet WP:MEDRS also. The article history has had multiple attempted insertions of copyvio and advertising/promotional material since creation. Darcyisverycute ( talk) 06:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Santos FC seasons. plicit 06:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

1921 Santos FC season

1921 Santos FC season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article contains one sentence and no references. 1keyhole ( talk) 05:18, 10 December 2023 (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 Te Unuhanga-a-Rangitoto / Mercer Bay. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 20:34, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Mercer Bay

Mercer Bay (  | 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)

Per WP:ONEOTHER; this page should be deleted and redirected to Te Unuhanga-a-Rangitoto / Mercer Bay as the primary topic for this River.

The topic which this is competing with, a Mercer Bay in Cumberland West Bay, is an obscure location that doesn't even warrant an article. Further, a Google News search for the past year finds no results for the bay in Cumberland West Bay, but over a dozen for Unuhanga-a-Rangitoto / Mercer Bay. BilledMammal ( talk) 04:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Disambiguations. WCQuidditch 05:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • A redirect does not require deleting an edit history first, and could have been done with 13 the number of edits that an AFD nomination takes. This is not an appropriate use of Articles for deletion. Uncle G ( talk) 10:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    • To clarify, I intended to propose a redirect; I agree that the edit history doesn't need to be deleted.

      However, AfD can be used to propose redirects; I expected that if I made this boldly it would be reverted or otherwise objected to and so I wanted to get consensus for it, and this is the appropriate venue for that. BilledMammal ( talk) 11:11, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

      • No, that would be Talk:Mercer Bay. You are utterly wasting people's time, everyone who even looks at this, with a simple disambiguation fix that you could have just done. Uncle G ( talk)
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 05:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

The Cheap Seats (American TV series)

The Cheap Seats (American TV series) (  | 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)

Subject lacks the needed coverage from independent sources to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun ( talk) 04:00, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Agreed. The show is mentioned in the articles for Chris Rose, Brian Wilson, etc. This article doesn't really provide any additional information. Lack of reliable sources confirms it's not notable. Fnordware ( talk) 16:27, 10 December 2023 (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. Deletion is not being contemplated. Moves can be handled editorially. Star Mississippi 18:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Shag River

Shag River (  | 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)

Per WP:ONEOTHER; this page should be deleted and redirected to Waihemo / Shag River as the primary topic for this River.

Looking at pageviews, we see that Waihemo / Shag River receives over ten times the views of Shag River (Fiordland), demonstrating that it is primary by usage.

It also appears to be primary by long term significance; a search on Google News and Google Scholar shows that the vast majority of results are for the river in Otago. BilledMammal ( talk) 03:53, 10 December 2023 (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. Sourcing has been IDed that addresses both the nom and delete !votes. Star Mississippi 18:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

A Bride of the Plains

A Bride of the Plains (  | 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)

Article has been unsourced since at least 2020. I have done a quick Google search and Google Scholar search but have been unable to find more reliable sources. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk) 02:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete lack of sourcing that meets WP:RS, aka also fails WP:SIGCOV
Cray04 ( talk) 08:06, 10 December 2023 (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. Despite difficulty, sources with sufficient coverage to meet WP:NBOOK were eventually identified. signed, Rosguill talk 02:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC) reply

A Child of the Revolution

A Child of the Revolution (  | 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)

Article is reliant upon a single citation, which was added in September 2023 without adding additional content. I have done a quick Google search and Google Scholar search but have been unable to find more reliable sources. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk) 02:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch 05:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I'm a little surprised how little I'm finding. Two things so far:
    • Accordng to the index, Baroness Orczy's The Scarlet Pimpernel: A Publishing History mentions A Child of the Revolution on p. 146 and p. 248; it's possible there is significant coverage there but I can't access it.
    • This article mentions "A Child of the Revolution, seul opus non traduit de la série" ["the only work not translated in the series", presumably meaning not translated into French] as an example of a Pimpernel novel with an important love story, there's no significant coverage.
I want to look for reviews from 1932 but haven't found a good database yet. It's an unfortunate gap where things are copyrighted but not widely popular/accessible. The one source in the article is so good it feels like a WP:NBOOK pass should be possible...! ~ L 🌸 ( talk) 00:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
OK, checking ProQuest Historical Newspapers I found a surprising amount of "not much":
  • NYT "Book Notes" Dec 23, 1931, says only "Other works of fiction to be issued during February under the Doubleday, Doran imprint include ... "A Child of the Revolution" by Baroness Orczy." (fun historical coincidence, the first book in this list is A Brave New World!).
  • A half dozen lists of books available in China in the 30s, this one listed also
  • "Meet the Baronness Orczy", 1934 says only "I did ask what books she had written lately. 'Well, you see, so many of my readers wrote to me and implored me to write more about the same characters in The Scarlet Pimpernel series, so I wrote A Child of the Revolution to please them. You would not believe how many people write to me from all over the world.'"
  • The only actual review I can find traces off is one by Jerry Siegel (the creator of Superman) in his high school newspaper. I find this quite intriguing and it would certainly be sigcov but of course a high school paper is not an RS.
    • Men of Tomorrow: Geeks, Gangsters & the Birth of the Comic Book "He wrote occasional book reviews for The Torch, breathless advertisements for the most socially acceptable of the books he loved. “The Reign of Terror— the guillotine descending swiftly on innocent and guilty alike. The only hope lies in the aid of the ‘Scarlet Pimpernel,’ a mysterious Englishman who risks his life to save . . . the unjustly condemned.” Surely no one else on the wise-ass Torch staff would have gushed so over Baroness Orczy’s Child of the Revolution, but Jerry loved the Pimpernel and Zorro and all those secret heroes who masquerade as mild-mannered citizens." (65-6)
    • "Looking for Lois Lane": "It soon became clear Siegel was the mysterious author behind certain pieces that appeared in the Torch. One was a review of the Baroness Orczy's "A Child of the Revolution" (1932), the last in a series of novels about an English nobleman who dons mask and costume nights to fight for the oppressed . . . as the Scarlet Pimpernel."
I can't shake the feeling that this is the sort of book which ought to have gotten some reviews in 1931, but the evidence is really against me! ~ L 🌸 ( talk) 03:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge. Okay, after having done a bunch of digging and checking out some of the other Pimpernel novel articles, I'd like to propose that actually an appropriate outcome here would be the creation of List of Scarlet Pimpernel novels, structured as a prose list (with headings) which provides brief plot summaries of each novel. The series overall certainly gets all kind of coverage! There can be links out to 'main' articles for the subset of these novels which have more substantial independent coverage. If the consensus is to create this list article, I volunteer to make it (please ping me). ~ L 🌸 ( talk) 03:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep: I agree with @ LEvalyn that there seems to surprisingly little coverage, especially compared to the other books in this series, but after a bit of digging, I was able to find three reviews in The Liverpool Daily Post, The Charleston Daily Mail and The New York Times (final page, under the header "Paris and the Terror"), which is sufficient to meet WP:NBOOK. ARandomName123 ( talk)Ping me! 16:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Thank you for these finds!! I agree that this now an NBOOK keep, and frankly this raises my confidence that the other currently-unsourced Pimpernel novels will have enough coverage too. For my own personal improvement, would you mind sharing where/how you looked in order to find these? (Maybe on my talk page if it's too off topic here?) I tried the Wikipedia Library but I must not have been using the right queries or trying the right places, so I'd love to know what worked for you. ~ L 🌸 ( talk) 21:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    I've responded on your talk page. Thanks, ARandomName123 ( talk)Ping me! 00:25, 18 December 2023 (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. It would be great if some of the sources brought up in this discussion could be added to this article. Liz Read! Talk! 01:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Nael Eltoukhy

Nael Eltoukhy (  | 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:BLP of a writer, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for writers. As always, writers are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because their work exists, and have to show notability markers such as notable literary awards and/or the reception of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about them and their work in real reliable sources -- but the only notability claim being attempted here is that his work exists, and the only source being cited is his "staff" profile on the self-published website of his own publisher, which is not a notability-building source.
As I can't read Arabic, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with the necessary language skills and resource access can find enough improved sourcing to salvage it -- but nothing in this version of the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have better sourcing than this. Bearcat ( talk) 14:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This article needs additional review after article improvements.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Well AfD isn’t for cleanup. If there are sources to demonstrate notability it’s not a requirement to fix the article right away to save it from deletion. Mccapra ( talk) 00:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No one has performed an analysis of the sources added or presented. If I had to close right now, I would close as no consensus. But I'm relisting in hope for a more definitive answer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 01:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment ok I will start on this and add as I find more.
1. Review of his work in a chapter of a book on contemporary Egyptian literature here. Mccapra ( talk) 09:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
2. multiple references to his writing as a blogger in this scholarly work on contemporary Egyptian writers
3. independent in depth review of one of his novels in a major international newspaper
4. independent in depth review of another one of his novels in a major newspaper
5. another independent in depth review of the same novel
6. independent in depth review of a third novel
7. Independent in depth review of the same novel as no.6 above. I’ll stop here but if more is needed I’ll keep looking. Mccapra ( talk) 09:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
I’ve also managed to connect it to the ar.wiki article on wikidata. Mccapra ( talk) 09:50, 10 December 2023 (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.

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook