Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 14 December 16 >

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 merge‎ to Little emperor syndrome. Daniel ( talk) 00:59, 23 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Child's slave

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

This article seems to be about a flash-in-the-pan Chinese-language phraseology used mostly in 2013–14, related to a popular piece of media released around that time, and is not really a notable concept in itself then nor now. This is an issue I see to one degree or another with a lot of China-related articles, where a unique phrase is used to birth a new sociological concept not necessarily related to the wider world—of course, with the root of the issue being there aren't a lot of reliable sources that actually link such concepts in China to those elsewhere. So it's equally a 'greater world' issue as much as it is a wiki issue.

Regardless, there aren't really any results or sources that would lend this concept reification or notability since that time that I could find in either English or Chinese, the ones that are there are exceedingly paltry and do not constitute notability in itself imo. This isn't proof in itself, but the corresponding zhwiki article is three uncited sentences. Remsense 留 23:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment You raise some interesting points, but on the other hand the phrase 孩奴 and similar terms like 房奴 (housing slave) continue to be discussed as a matter of linguistics. For example this [1] uses it as an example of internet slang. I know that's a thesis, but it's not paywalled so it's handy. In this article [2] mentions are quite brief, but current, and it says most people recognize the term. Does this article have merit as a linguistic phenomenon even if it's not the hottest slang ATM? Oblivy ( talk) 01:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Oblivy, the use–mention distinction plays a role once again—is the term in itself notable, or does any article for it have to awkwardly describe both the term and the phenomenon, since the former may not be notable, as much slang isn't, and the latter may not justify its own article as a manifestation of a greater sociological phenomenon?
I hadn't found that article, thank you for linking it—I would really appreciate additional input from people that may have a local feel for whether these "things" are really "things" distinct from western analogues. This is definitely the realm of my personal opinion, but there are a lot of articles for "Chinese terms" that could use this kind of scrutiny, and reading them often feels icky, like they're reports from Victorian expeditions to far-off lands. Remsense 留 01:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply
The relevant excerpt from WP:NOTDICT says:

In other cases, a word or phrase is often used as a "lens" or concept through which another topic or closely related set of topics are grouped, seen or renamed. In such cases, coverage about a word, phrase or concept should treat it as such. The main coverage of the topics that were modified, grouped or renamed by the "lens" is typically elsewhere in Wikipedia. World music, Political correctness, Gay agenda and Truthiness illustrate this.

Remsense 留 02:13, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Another nomination with a lack of a valid rationale. So what if the topic is a "flash-in-the-pan"? Wikipedia:Notability is not temporary, and the concept does not have to have sources about it in every single part of the world for it to be notable. I also found this entire piece from Beijing Review on the concept and this, both published in 2010, indicating there was significant coverage out of the 2013-14 period. Admittedly, most of the sources that appeared in my search was about American slavery and not this concept, so there is not a whole lot about the topic. But there seems to be enough to make a small article out of it, and not being internationally known or currently covered is no excuse to not have an article on it. User:HumanxAnthro ( BanjoxKazooie) 20:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    • I am aware notability is not temporary, my point being that the 'flash' as it were did not generate enough coverage of the concept itself to constitute notability, and moreover that some false notion of notability may be generated simply by the term being in Chinese, and perhaps the material should be incorporated into a general article for the concept. Remsense 留 21:37, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    I believe the nom is referring to WP:SUSTAINED, which is a valid argument in a general sense. (I don't know enough about the subject to know if it's rightfully applied though.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    Meanwhile, I am voting Merge per BlackcurrantTea's reasoning. User:HumanxAnthro ( BanjoxKazooie) 15:43, 19 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -- I am firmly for deletion if the current cites the only WP:RS available. Without scholarly secondary analysis of the phrase, this should be deleted. As written, the article fails WP:GNG for WP:SUSTAINED and WP:DEPTH as well as WP:SIGCOV with a possible detour into WP:NOTNEO. I strongly disagree with HumanxAnthro's characterisation of WP:NTEMP in this instance. The question is whether this flash-in-the-pan ever had enough of a 'flash' to establish notability in the first place. Further, the lack of a valid rationale argument is simply false. Remsense discussed notability and sourcing, both of which are perfectly strong policy-based arguments. I also have a quibble with using general recognisability as a indicator of notability as Oblivy does above; flash-in-the-pan is familiar to nearly all English speakers, yet does not have a page in this encyclopaedia. However, I cannot !vote to delete at this time because I am unable to do proper WP:BEFORE research. All sources are in languages that I do not read and the cites in the article are all from a very, very narrow timeframe. If no one can provide solid RS with strong analysis and a wider range of dates, I will change to deletion before this AfD closes. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 14:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    Wuuuuuuuuutttt? I just brought up two articles from mainstream sources on the topic from 2010. Also, I have absolutely no idea what "strength" you saw. Remsense's only-cited policy page was NOTDICT, which does not even apply because the article IS about the concept and not just the phrase. His only notability complaints, to put it simply, were that there were not sources about this concept in other parts of the world. I would love to know what guideline prohibits a topic if it only exists or is covered within a specific nation state, because a lot of articles about animes are pretty much in trouble if that exists. Also, while WP:ACADEMIC coverage of the topic would help tremendously, it is not the end of the world if that does not exist. All that needs to happen for WP:GNG to be satisfied is a few independent sources (newspapers or magazines) to WP:SIGCOV the topic, and with the Beijing Review article and citations currently in the article, it seems to have satisfied that. User:HumanxAnthro ( BanjoxKazooie) 01:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    Keep although not enthusiastically so. The deletion rationales are pretty all over the place right now. Sustained isn't an issue. Notneo seems to give way to sustained. Sigcov is addressed with Chinese sources.
    @ HumanxAnthro Good catch on the Beijing Review and China Daily Articles. That means we have coverage in 2010, later in 2013-14 in analysis of internet usage, and then in 2019 or so in the PKU article. That's pretty sustained.
    There were two academic studies in Chinese in the 2010-2011 range:
  • 岳玉阁. “论‘孩奴’现象对幼儿生命成长的不良影响.” 教育与教学研究 25.10 (2011): 120–122
  • 徐安琪. “‘孩奴’炒作现象的负效应和辨正.” Dang dai qing nian yan jiu = Contemporary youth research 8 (2010)
And this 2023 article [3] gives it a passing footnote mention (bringing in the Beijing Review article) in the context of pressures on Chinese fertility.
I "quibble" with whether I actually advocated for using recognisability as an indicator of notability, BUT I do wonder whether the almost total lack of discussion of this concept in English sources means that it's really a Chinese-only phenomenon.
That all having been said, the China Daily article is 100% about this term, and there are multiple Chinese-language papers which use it as either a centerpiece or a significant example of online speech. I think that's enough.
Although not required by WP:NEXISTS it would be nice if some of this work could make it into the article... Oblivy ( talk) 02:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC) reply
I am increasingly ready to prefer merging or withdrawing entirely with the additional sources found during the discussion. I apologize if my initial arguments were presented confusingly, but my reasons for skepticism in articles like these are inherently multi-faceted, due to a number of contributing factors. Remsense 留 02:57, 19 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. Liz Read! Talk! 18:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Oumou Tangara

Oumou Tangara (  | 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, a Malian women's footballer, has not received enough coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions in squad lists and match reports ( 1, 2, 3, etc.) JTtheOG ( talk) 00:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:08, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

The Gracies and the Birth of Vale Tudo

The Gracies and the Birth of Vale Tudo (  | 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 to meet WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. I've tried looking for reliable sources, it's all just IMDb-style pages with a short synopsis and cast list. The article as it is now is just a clone of the IMDb page. There's been no media or critic engagement and no notable viewer engagement. The history of the article has just been obvious WP:PROMOTION, WP:COI, and some WP:CV. Spagooder ( talk) 22:19, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Mondera Chakroborty

Mondera Chakroborty (  | 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 film actress (yet). There is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are Independent of the subject. Most of sources are either passing mentions or primary (e.g. interview). Acted in two films but not yet released. Fails every criteria of WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR. আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk) 22:05, 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 delete‎. I noticed that many edits by the article creator Mateuka have been reverted. It might be wise to review other WWI articles on battles they have created if this is indeed a hoax article. Liz Read! Talk! 21:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

William Dadiani II

William Dadiani II (  | 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 hoax for which there are no sources at all. The creator has linked it to various existing battle articles already in the encyclopedia. Mccapra ( talk) 21:46, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

New Horizons (strategy)

New Horizons (strategy) (  | 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)

Completely non-notable campaign. Governments come up with many such schemes/"strategies"/campaigns all the time, does not make them automatically notable. Other than the publication of the strategy in 2009 here, I cannot find much external coverage. Search results include this unrelated charity.

Overall poor-quality article on non-notable topic. Elshad ( talk) 21:42, 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 delete‎. At 15+ years on Wikipedia, it looks like this article could be in the Top 10 of Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia if anyone wants to take the trouble to make an entry there. Liz Read! Talk! 21:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Sarah Powell

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

I can't find any information that suggests that this person existed. Google searches of her full name, the title of her best known work, and the title of the single reference for the page all return mirrors of the article and nothing else. Onorem ( talk) 21:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete agree that this appears to be a hoax.
Jahaza ( talk) 03:29, 16 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.

Thank you for deleting this article, it's a true mystery how it lasted 15 years Hila Livne ( talk) 18:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Yuantang (language game)

AfDs for this article:
Yuantang (language game) (  | 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 fails GNG. The prior AfD was withdrawn as clearly no sources were added and I don't care what zh-wiki says. Chris Troutman ( talk) 21:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Over at zh:苑塘话 there's another source listed, but I haven't found a link to it:
  • 罗建平. 举世无双的神秘罗氏族语:苑塘话. 客家风情, 2003.
This should be enough to demonstrate notability. — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs) 03:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep if I'm allowed to vote – I had withdrawn the original nomination after being convinced by the viability of the sources provided, but since then I haven't gotten around to improving the article, and didn't want to add the sources to it if they weren't being used yet. Remsense 留 06:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep "I don't care what zh-wiki says" is such a flippant attitude to take when it cites scholarly sources and is an affront to WP:BEFORE _dk ( talk) 06:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • keep: The first source given by Mx. Granger is from a journal started by a Chinese national museum which IMO is reliable. Based on the abstract, it should be considered as a secondary source as it provides an analysis/synthesis based on local chronicles and ethnographic materials. I don't have access to the full text, but based on the title and abstract, they should clearly have significant coverage. -- 94rain Talk 06:34, 22 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. Liz Read! Talk! 20:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

River Road Estates, California

River Road Estates, California (  | 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 housing development/subdivision fails GEOLAND Reywas92 Talk 21:02, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

San Joaquin River Estates, California

San Joaquin River Estates, California (  | 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 housing development/subdivision fails GEOLAND Reywas92 Talk 21:01, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Madera Country Club Estates, California

Madera Country Club Estates, California (  | 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 housing development/subdivision within Madera Acres, California fails GEOLAND Reywas92 Talk 20:59, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 18:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Embassy of the United States, Bamako

Embassy of the United States, Bamako (  | 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 articles say nothing about embassies, instead reduplicating extant articles about bilateral relations. Biruitorul Talk 20:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following related pages because [insert reason here]:

Embassy of the United States, Bogotá (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Embassy of the United States, Santo Domingo (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Embassy of the United States, Santiago (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Embassy of the United States, Muscat (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 High-speed rail in the United States. Liz Read! Talk! 18:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

North Atlantic Rail

North Atlantic Rail (  | 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)

While there was a brief flurry of press coverage at the initial announcement (mostly just regurgitating the press release), there is no indication of any enduring notability. There's been no coverage since 2021 - even their own website stops at July 2021. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 20:15, 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 merge‎ to List of Doomsday Clock characters. Liz Read! Talk! 19:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Rorschach (Reggie Long)

Rorschach (Reggie Long) (  | 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 version of the character is not independently notable. Some trade sourcing came out while the publication was ongoing (Polygon, CBR, IGN, a post-2013 WP:NEWSWEEK article), but no coverage in the five years since. Other citations are primary, like directly from the source material. If the article is not deleted, it should be merged and redirected into Rorschach (character). –  Muboshgu ( talk) 19:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment not voting yet but I felt it good to note that this article has been proposed for merging with Rorschach (character) since May of this year. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 23:20, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 19:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Gugak FM

AfDs for this article:
Gugak FM (  | 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 tagged uncited for over a decade. Previous deletion discussion said that ‘government-licensed broadcast radio stations have been held generally notable’ but that does not show this one is notable. Chidgk1 ( talk) 19:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and South Korea. Chidgk1 ( talk) 19:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: mentioned in [6] and in [7], but no significant coverage to establish notability. Owen× ☎ 21:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC) Changed to keep per sources found by Freedom4U. Owen× ☎ 03:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I'm really wary of deleting a national FM radio network like this. The kowiki article is little help, though it does cite a couple of articles on new transmitters for this service. There appear to be two articles in the Korea Herald from its launch in 2001, but I cannot access them. I also see it sometimes transliterated as "Kugak FM", and it gets mentioned in some of the academic literature—apparently this was an idea on the table going back to 1998. Someone with Korean language fluency and access to sources in the 1990s and 2000s could save this page. I don't have a !vote right now, but I'm skeptical of deletion. Sammi Brie (she/her •  t • c) 23:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Sammi Brie Your hunch was right—Google and Korean-language topics are often a terrible combo when looking for sources. I've left three SIGCOV sources in my vote below. I'd be interested in the Korea Herald article too, would it be possible to provide a link ot it? ~ F4U ( talk • they/it) 01:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment I'm also on the fence.
Looking on Google Books, there's a number of mentions of Gugak FM in English. This book [8] seems to have a reasonable discussion of it, although I can't access it beyond the preview.
I think maybe the article could be rescoped to cover the parent Gugak Broadcasting Foundation [ ko, which possibly has more notable coverage as it covers a wider number of stations, but I don't know who's willing to do that work (I'm not).
I'm not sure how much popularity the radio station or its parent have, although they are mildly important for Korean culture. I also doubt anyone is likely to come around in the near future and flesh out the article if we do keep it. Complicated; if it's deleted I'll be very slightly disappointed but I don't think it'll make much of an impact. toobigtokale ( talk) 12:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 19:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Btw I lean delete if nobody is willing to step up in near future to fix up and save it. So many more substantial Korea-related articles are in need of fixing, think it's unlikely anyone will ever fix this organically at this rate toobigtokale ( talk) 17:56, 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 keep‎. Discussion about a possible rename can occur on the article talk page or you can just BEBOLD. Liz Read! Talk! 19:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Renault Grand Prix

Renault Grand Prix (  | 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)

Blatant hoax. Speedy deletion was rejected for some reason, no idea why, as it's obviously a hoax. 91.82.169.36 ( talk) 18:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete appears to want to describe Renault's car in the 1906 French Grand Prix as OwenX indicates above, but that car doesn't pass WP:GNG. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 19:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

There is no notability guideline for topics related to the automotive industry. WP:NVEHICLE is exclusively for locomotives and ships, WP:NCAR redirects to North Carolina's Wikiproject, and WP:NCARS does not exist. - 91.82.169.36 ( talk) 06:20, 16 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 Inuit religion#Deities. Liz Read! Talk! 23:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Ignirtoq

Ignirtoq (  | 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 - the only mentions online are directly ripped from this article. There is one singular mention on one line with no source in a single not particularly notable book from 1907; aside from that I can find absolutely nothing else. CoconutOctopus talk 18:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk) 20:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 18:57, 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. Note OwenX's change of !vote due to new sourcing, this creates a consensus. Daniel ( talk) 19:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

First International Bank

First International Bank (  | 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)

Delete non notable organization, non encyclopedic content. microbiologyMarcus ( petri dish· growths) 18:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk) 20:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: would we keep an article based only on the subject's merit as being the largest bank in, say, McAllen, Texas? North Dakota has the same size population as McAllen. Other than an occasional small deal or lawsuit, I couldn't find any news coverage about this bank. Owen× ☎ 21:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC) Changed to Keep per Sammi Brie's thorough work on sourcing. Thank you! Owen× ☎ 19:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep I've given it a go to see if I can't improve this article. Seems to be just enough coverage. Sammi Brie (she/her •  t • c) 05:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Sammi Brie began adding sources. While we are at it we probably need to remove the Forbes (contributor) WP:FORBESCON article from references - it was in there before the AfD. Lightburst ( talk) 15:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 18:57, 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 , with no consensus to redirect at this time. This potential redirect can be explored via talk page discussion, potentially after some significant improvements are considered for the article as per comments in this debate. Daniel ( talk) 00:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Crime in St. Louis

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

This article is redundant with the crime section on the main St. Louis page. I think anything that could be included here should just be put on that page. Additionally, this article appears to be not nearly as kept up with as the main page (leading someone visiting this article to be misled with old information). This article is generally of low quality and not even really written in the right tone. Damiens the Regicide ( talk) 21:15, 1 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! 23:16, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 17:05, 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. Hey man im josh ( talk) 18:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Jim Powell (sportscaster)

Jim Powell (sportscaster) (  | 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 don't think Georgia Association of Broadcasters Hall of Fame is enough for N:BIO and am unable to find anything else of depth to establish notability for this broadcaster. With long tenures with the Brewers and Braves, I don't think there's an obvious redirect. Star Mississippi 23:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To analyse sources presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 17:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep, I've reviewed the sources presented above and they seem sufficient in affirming the subject's notability. Furthermore, searches for "Jim Powell Brewers" and "Jim Powell Braves" on Google Books yield results. Most notably, chapter 30 of this book is titled "Jim Powell and Chip Caray at Truist Park"; the chapter is about 10 pages long featuring extensive interviews and coverage of Powell. Left guide ( talk) 21:35, 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 no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Little Grill Collective

Little Grill Collective (  | 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:NCORP WP:ADVERT WP:TNT promotional, advertorial article based on hyper-local sources on a 48 seat hole in the wall run of the mill restaurant. Graywalls ( talk) 23:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Thrillist article is far from meeting the threshold of WP:ORGDEPTH. It is not a significant, independent, secondary source, but rather just one reflective opinion paragraph, so this would not be the source that can be used to meet the WP:AUD satisfying WP:NCORP source. Some of the other articles are just routine articles about the local happenings in the local press about local interest. NCORP not established. Graywalls ( talk) 01:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC) reply
A source does not need to meet ORGDEPTH to contribute to notability (and the coverage in that source is not just "trivial or incidental"). These are just the sources I found in spending a few minutes to search; I am sure there are more that would be harder to dig up. Your assertions that this is just a "run of the mill" restaurant have been demonstrated to be false. Elli ( talk | contribs) 02:19, 5 December 2023 (UTC) reply
SIGCOV, ORGDEPTH, ORGIND expects at least (at the absolute minimum) one source meeting regional, national or intertional coverage that is independent of the article subject company/group, in-depth, and secondary and multiple coverage by the same publisher or same journalist counts as one. What's really expected is a nice big slab of solid wood of the highest standards. In its absence, bringing in sawdust by the truck load is not a substitute. In general, the proliferation of local restaurant and bar articles has been an ongoing issue on Wikipedia and this article is no exception. Graywalls ( talk) 08:48, 5 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! 23:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • It's true every source doesn't have to be significant coverage; however a paragraph in a relatively routine coverage in which it lists places to check out do not amount to something that is sufficient to support WP:ORGDEPTH. We have a 1/3 of a steak and a bucket of ground meat. A full steak that's expected is not found. Graywalls ( talk) 01:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    Yes, I've already seen your arguments both in your nom statement and in response above. They don't get any more convincing through repetition. It's bad form to reply to every !voter unless you have something genuinely new to say. Central and Adams ( talk) 01:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 17:04, 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 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. Hey man im josh ( talk) 18:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Government performance management

Government performance management (  | 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 a non-notable concept. It appears to be a term used by consultants and in low-quality sources. If there is any content worth keeping, it can be merged with articles on "good governance" or "public administration". Thenightaway ( talk) 16:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:00, 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 delete‎. Hey man im josh ( talk) 18:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Gautam Kapur

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

Not yet notable per WP:BIO, WP:NMODEL, or WP:ACTOR. In a WP:BEFORE search I couldn't find any significant, independent, secondary coverage of him, just interviews in obscure news blogs like "Hindustan Metro", passing mentions in film notices, and WP:NEWSORGINDIA paid placement. His acting has all been minor roles so far. According to this reference, the short film he produced was an official selection at the Golden Door Film Festival, but the actual awards he's won so far are all from minor festivals of unknown notability. Zero secondary coverage of his vitamin business. Other editors interested in searching for coverage that I missed should note that there's an unrelated basketball player with the same name, and that this person's surname is sometimes transliterated as "Kapoor". Wikishovel ( talk) 16:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Considering this was only created recently, do not believe a soft-deletion here will 'stick', so relisting to establish a consensus either way.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 16:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete. For Linked-In. Not Wikipedia. MisterWizzy ( talk) 03:05, 16 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. Hey man im josh ( talk) 18:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Črnuče Bridge

AfDs for this article:
Črnuče Bridge (  | 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 not been much improved since it was last kept because it was only 4 days old. Chidgk1 ( talk) 16:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Source here saying it reopened in 2014 after restoration..♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I have added that information to the article. -- TadejM my talk 17:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

@ TadejM: On the revert. The lead is supposed to summarise the article though. Your version has information not in the body! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi, Dr. Blofeld. As stated, feel free to edit the article as you see fit, but the bolded names should be written in the lead and please take care to preserve the article factually correct. Only the railway bridge was destroyed in World War II, but the road bridge was not as it was used as a checkpoint. -- TadejM my talk 17:38, 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 keep‎. Former AfD was nominated; please move discussion to the actual nom. Non-admin closure. (non-admin closure) Nate • ( chatter) 17:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Črnuče Bridge

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Črnuče Bridge (  | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Črnuče Bridge|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)

In 2008 it was kept as the article was only 4 days old and it was hoped it would be improved. But still now nothing shows it is notable Chidgk1 ( talk) 16:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. I don't think this article should be deleted. It may be in a poor state at the moment, but otherwise the Črnuče Bridge (or its predecessor) has a long history starting in Roman times and was also prominent in World War II. [29] [30] -- TadejM my talk 17:05, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 20:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Ukiah area

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

This article was created in 2021 as a catch-all target for redirects. What happened was this: several information-less stubs on nonexistent "unincorporated communities" such as Largo, California and El Roble, California were proposed for deletion, and it was suggested they all be redirected here rather than deleted outright, since documentation exists that these were actual stops on the Northwestern Pacific Railroad. But in most cases that's all they were, non-notable sidings or flag stops, not "communities", and as a result this article on the "Ukiah area" is essentially just a list of non-notable railroad points; i.e. a WP:COATRACK (and an off-topic one at that). We already have a good article on Ukiah, California and Ukiah Valley; I don't see this as a sufficiently distinct topic to merit an article (the hand-drawn map does not impress me). The original stubs should have just been deleted, and so should this article. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 16:33, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 20:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Digital world

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

This article seems more appropriate as a dictionary entry per WP:NOTDICT. There doesn't appear to be much coverage of the term in a way that would support an encyclopedia article, such as for its history of usage.

The second paragraph of WP:NEO applies to this article: while there's plenty of evidence of use of the term, there's little coverage about the term itself. As an example, the reference for a statement in the article about the term predating the World Wide Web is misattributed, firstly, and links to an unrelated paper from 1958 that uses the term once. Said statement is WP:OR. Uhai ( talk) 15:16, 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 delete‎. Hey man im josh ( talk) 18:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Alan Jilka

Alan Jilka (  | 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)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and politician-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, United States of America, and Kansas. UtherSRG (talk) 14:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Mayor of Salinas wouldn't be notable without a ton of RS, which there isn't, beyond routine reporting of stuff going on in town where the mayor was involved. Congressional candidate isn't notable. Delete for not meeting notability requirements. Oaktree b ( talk) 21:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Salina KS is nowhere close to large enough that its mayors would get an automatic presumption of notability just for existing as mayors — the notability test for a mayor isn't passed just by minimally verifying that he exists, and requires writing and sourcing substantial content about his political impact: specific things he did, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects his mayoralty had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But there's nothing like that here, and not nearly enough sourcing to claim that he would pass WP:GNG instead of having to meet the requirements of WP:NPOL #2. Bearcat ( talk) 18:16, 22 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. Hey man im josh ( talk) 14:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Albert Hinrich Hussmann

Albert Hinrich Hussmann (  | 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)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and artist-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and Germany. UtherSRG (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep; and expand with the German WP article for example, as a start. His notability and legacy are discussed by reliable sources quoted there. Does meet WP:NARTIST as sources show: noted as a Symbolist animalier sculptor, see: this,or this to verify that assertion with some English sources available online....- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Mushy Yank's research. Randy Kryn ( talk) 08:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I have added some new citations to the article, specifically Benezit Dictionary of Artists and RKD Research. This artist's career spanned two world wars. I took a look at the German WP article. It is not well cited. The citations to the web are all 404 or dead. I do not have access to the print articles and books cited. I can't bring anything over from the German version. The most interesting fact from that article (uncited) is that Hussmann exhibited at the Große Deutsche Kunstausstellung and was a member of the Reichskammer der Bildenden Künste (Reich Chamber of Visual Art). After looking into this for awhile, I still cannot figure out if the artist was an important animalier sculptor. I also don't understand the importance to history of the artist joining Reichskammer der Bildenden Künste. Does this affect his place in history (has he been cancelled)? Are his porcelain figures collectible or is it just auctioneer hype? I hope someone with more understanding of the subject chimes in. I lean towards Keep with the new citations and the coverage in Wiki Commons.-- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 02:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep The source Mushy Yank pointed to, "The Animaliers: A Collector's Guide to the Animal Sculptors of the 19th & 20th Centuries" by James A Mackay from Jan 1, 1973 just says "Little is known of Albert Hinrich-Hussmann, beyond the bare facts of his birth in 1874 and that he exhibited three works in Berlin in 1909, but he sculpted a Young Stag which turned up at the sale-rooms in 1970." That type of brief mention isn't the best thing to base an encyclopedia article on, but an artist being written about in a book published in another country 60 years after an exhibition and 30 years after their death is far better coverage than most of the "contemporary artists" with Wikipedia articles who are covered only by their own website and maybe some random local news. Best of luck to those working on expanding the article and I'll also see if I can find anything else to expand the article with. Elspea756 ( talk) 17:39, 19 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 The Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers. Star Mississippi 14:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Fat Freddy's Cat

Fat Freddy's Cat (  | 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 seeing how this meets WP:GNG. No reception/analysis, weak 'in popular culture' section that has only a few minor examples, poorly rererenced and significantly overlapping with reception related to its parent work ( The Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers) where this should probably be redirected per WP:ATD-R. My BEFORE shows nothing else that meets SIGCOV and RS requirements. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:28, 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. after article improvements. Liz Read! Talk! 20:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Celina, Minnesota

Celina, Minnesota (  | 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 crossroads with a house and outbuildings at the corner. Maybe it was once a store, maybe not. Searching turned up a passing reference to a "Ladies Aid of Bear River, Silverdale, and Celina Minnesota" in a discussion on the making of lefse, which I would submit is a very weak peg to hang belief in an actual town on. Other than that I got juxtapositions and gazetteers. Mangoe ( talk) 13:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Minnesota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Unfortunately, the St Louis County plat search yields nothing for this, and it is broken anyway. But this is in the Northwest St. Louis, Minnesota unorganized territory, and — by definition — there are no towns in an unorganized territory. "Town" is not what you think in Minnesota. There might be cities, though. Welcome to the mid-West! The Minnesota Natural Resource Atlas has no charter cities at all in this unorganized territory, so this would be a statutory city, if it actually were a city. The 2001 revised Upham book says "village", which is problematic (as they don't appear to have caught up with 1974), with 2 post offices. Uncle G ( talk) 19:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Even though this place no longer exists, it did in that past, and that makes it notable. -- rogerd ( talk) 00:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I can see why the article was nominated; most of the sources on Celina, Minnesota, are in Norwegian. Dozens of them, actually. But there are indeed sources. Celina was a Norwegian-American village in the early 20th century with a church, post office, stores, cemetery, and a fire lookout tower. It was still regarded as a community as late as 1974, when the Minneapolis Star ran a story about the damage on the bridge between Celina and Greaney. I'm also seeing many English-language news articles about Celina, but most of them are humdrum announcements of farm auctions, cattle sales, people visiting each other, and weekly articles about services at the Celina Ltheran Evangelical Church. Still, there is significant coverage of Celina in Norwegian-language publications in both Minnesota and Iowa. This was a notable place. While the community has eroded since those early days, the 1940 census gave Celina a population of 5, and the Minnesota Department of Transportation estimates that Celina still has 10 residents. There is no need to delete an article about a community which has historical significance. I've expanded the article. More work could be done. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:17, 20 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. Star Mississippi 14:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Email deliverability index

Email deliverability index (  | 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)

"Email deliverability index" is not a concept covered in reliable sources. Notability is not established at all. While I could not check all the cited sources, it's likely they do not mention the concept at all (that seems to be the case for The Complete Guide to E-mail Marketing How to Create Successful, Spam-Free Campaigns to Reach Your Target Audience and Increase Sales), and probably the others too judging Google Books search. MarioGom ( talk) 10:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep and rename Email deliverability (currently redirected to cold email) which is a notable topic though the index, if it exists, isn’t. Mccapra ( talk) 21:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete the article if it contains original research or unverified content, which violates Wikipedia's no original research policy. Wikipedia requires all information to be verifiable and sourced from reliable, published sources. -- Loewstisch ( talk) 15:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete — I disagree with the keep & redirect !vote in that doing so implies that the term is a potentially notable one. Certainly, you can create such an index, but it isn't among the more established email metrics which are alluded to but not well fleshed out in the 1st and 2nd editions of Chad White's work which is the first citation. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 19:03, 19 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. Star Mississippi 14:52, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

KumoMTA

KumoMTA (  | 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 does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. MarioGom ( talk) 11:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Not sure how /info/en/?search=Halon_(software) and /info/en/?search=Halon_(software) are fine, but this is nominated for Deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhillyer ( talk • contribs) 13:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply

See WP:WHATABOUTX. There are many articles in Wikipedia that might need to be deleted, but this discussion is about KumoMTA, and it will be discussed based on its own merits, regardless of any other examples you find. MarioGom ( talk) 17:16, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply
They don't appear much better, thank you for signaling them, I'll review for possible deletion as well. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Being hosted on GitHub isn't notable, anyone can throw anything up on the site. Sources found are the GitHub repository, their own website and Reddit thread. Nothing we can use for sourcing. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:21, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Voronoi manifold

Voronoi manifold (  | 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 does not seem to pass WP:GNG, and contains a large amount of unsourced content that cannot be verified. MarioGom ( talk) 11:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:20, 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 Draftify‎. with a side warning that if you re-create this again, Manvith Manu, you will be sanctioned for disruptive editing. The prior draft with the AfC history is now at Draft:Varthur Santhosh (old draft). Star Mississippi 14:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Varthur Santhosh

Varthur Santhosh (  | 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 page has been speedied and recreated several times. There is a claim in the article to redirect to Bigg Boss Kannada (season 10) which stops me from deleting it per WP:A7 / WP:G11, but I think a discussion is warranted. If the article is deleted, I recommend salting to avoid re-creation (which would then be able to be done simply using WP:G4 anyway). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Why you are deleting those information Manvith Manu ( talk) 11:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
The biographies of living persons policy is long-standing. Effectively, you cannot write about living people without immediately giving high-quality sources of where you got the information from. Without this, it is far too easy to accidentally libel someone without realising, so it is prohibited by policy. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:43, 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. Star Mississippi 14:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Bridge 9 Records

Bridge 9 Records (  | 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)

Lacks sufficient completely intellectually independent, significant, secondary coverage on the company and after a quick WP:BEFORE, I deemed that it lacks sufficient WP:ORGDEPTH coverage to satisfy NCORP. Graywalls ( talk) 11:19, 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 delete‎. While the rewrite solved to the copy paste, there is still no sourcing which means no article. Star Mississippi 14:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

2023–24 Desborough Town Football Club season

2023–24 Desborough Town Football Club 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)

Article is a copy and paste of the Brighton one. There is info on Desborough Town but it fails GNG. Dougal18 ( talk) 10:54, 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 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. Star Mississippi 14:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Afghan Scene

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

unsourced article about a magazine, written like an ad copy. fails general notability guideline. ltb d l ( talk) 10:34, 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. The Wordsmith Talk to me 20:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Lucario

AfDs for this article:
Lucario (  | 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)

Regretfully, I am forced to nominate Lucario for deletion, as there's no evidence that the concerns of the previous AfD this year were addressed in recreating the article. I went into the article legitimately hoping that new solid sources were found to back up the notability of Lucario but ultimately found nothing - it's largely sourced to listicles that often discuss numerous other Pokemon besides Lucario.

Ultimately what the previous AfD this year found remains exactly the same, Lucario simply isn't notable at all. Again, it would be great to be proven wrong, but what I see here does not cut the mustard or merit a recreation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 09:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • We have tangible results illustrating the character's recognizability and popularity, through a poll by the company, a monthly average of search engine results across multiple companies, and one regarding...er..."fan works".
  • Analysis of why the character is popular and that impact
  • Analysis of it's design, both positive and negative, and more importantly an example of the shortcomings of "Gen 4"'s design as a whole
Now while I get this isn't the strongest of articles, I will contend after the sources presented the article demonstrates real world notability in the same way Snorlax was argued to during its AfD: that it's a recognizable icon, and unlike Snorlax, I can at least cite some discussion here. While I'd personally agree the article is on the weaker end, what's cited here I feel demonstrates that in the manner it was presented. Thank you.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 12:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
There is no article you can pick out from the article's sources of any significant length that is specifically about Lucario. That already makes it far weaker in coverage than Snorlax. I don't think the two are comparable. If I asked for the WP:THREE they'd all be clickbait top-10 lists and that is a bad sign.
I am also not particularly enthused about your wholesale reversion of my edits to the article in an attempt to at least remedy some of its problems. I do not see a reason for doing so besides "I don't like these edits", which is going dangerously into WP:OWN territory. Editors do not unilaterally control articles, please open a discussion instead of simply deleting anything you do not like. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 13:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
I felt the additions came across as trivial and were why I avoided those from the original article (i.e. the Sly Cooper comparison is...odd), and that the recurring comment about its possible origin isn't dev info. Additionally the articles cited discuss him in some degree of depth, and WP:THREE is an essay, not a strict guideline: it's purpose is to help one argue for an article's existence. In this case, I feel the print source (which in turn cited Official Nintendo Magazine's Thomas Elliot calling it "the best designed Pokemon" in its universe, but I felt that may have been non-independent quote given who produced ONM so I opted not to cite that), TechRaptor, and The Gamer's own analysis which go into depth and devoted several paragraphs to discussing the subject). I am confused too at your assertion of "clickbait"; they are, again, discussing the subject at hand not tricking the reader, so that was...weird to bring up?
The point of notability is to establish that a subject is discussed and there's significant enough discussion on a subject to warrant an encyclopedic look at it. There are sources that I could have cited that you've argued for before, like articles like this that you felt were strong enough for Felyne, or content like this that you argued worked as WP:SIGCOV for Sagat (Street Fighter). But I felt those didn't provide notability due to a lack of discussing the work as a fictional character.
The article is organized the way it is on purpose. While I spoke in anger, it isn't a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It's intended to give a proper flow to the reception section.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 13:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Yes, WP:THREE is an essay, but WP:GNG is the policy. Thus far no sources have been raised that show this subject meets the notability guidelines. We are looking for significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources that discuss Lucario as a subject. What do we have? Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 14:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Sirfurboy🏄 The TechRaptor article devotes four paragraphs of discussion to the character. The Gamer, while it can be argued shouldn't count towards notability per WP:VG/S, devoted 3 paragraphs in their own discusison. IGN had one author devote a paragraph each to discussing the character across two articles. The Centennial article devoted several paragraphs discussing the subject but admittedly some were for gameplay and intended to be cited for there if the article was further developed. Outside of this article there is also this paper published in Scandia that discusses it in the context of the film and relation to medieval imagery as a familiar, but I wasn't sure the best way to work that in or if it was more for the film. It could be bolstered by additional sources from The Gamer but I didn't want to work more valnet into this.
While I'll admit this article is weaker, I feel the assertions in the AfD argument are trying to paint it as strictly relying on UGO.com or Complex style lists that aren't saying anything, when there are tangible thoughts at least being cited. The assertion of "clickbait" is, at the very least, unfounded.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 15:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Thank you. I have some reading to do then. I'll take a look at these. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 15:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Given the current reliable references demonstrating notability from both a critical and audience perspective as well as the arguments presented by Kung Fu Man, I don't exactly see a reasonable cause for why this article should be deleted given how this article generally falls in line with notability presented in other similar articles. The Scandia article is especially of note given how it's a direct analysis into the influence that would later inspire Lucario's role in his dedicated film. SuperSkaterDude45 ( talk) 03:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep Despite my previous afd on Lucario (2nd nomination), I feel like it might be barely passing WP:GNG after the improvement of reception section (furry fandom and stuff). GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 08:39, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Pokémon: Lucario and the Mystery of Mew - The best source presented is clearly the Scandia paper, which is a goood source, clearly meeting GNG. However, the paper discusses the character within the context of the film, as Kung Fu Man said. So we have a page on the film, that could be expanded on the subject of the introduction of Lucario. There is mergeable content here regardless of whether this page is kept or not. But then, should this page exist in its own right? There is no real case at this point for a spin out of the Lucario character from the film article. We aren't even close to size arguments for that. The question is whether there is significant coverage that treats the character apart from the film. The problems with TheGamer were admitted but WP:VG/S also raises issues with Techraptor. In both cases, arguments could be made that the articles in these can be reliable and independent, but from where I am coming from, I don't see articles listing characters as being good examples of secondary sources. This, I think, is what the nom. means by listicles. It is the Pokemon franchise that is notable, and because it's notable, we get lists of the characters, but these don't really speak to significance of the character outside of the franchise, and notability is not inherited. So at this point I feel that we have to cover Lucario per the Scandia article, but the place to cover that is in the film article. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 09:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment Sort of torn on this one. Still thinking about whether it is sound to base notability from self-evident cultural significance inferred from very broad but shallow coverage, even if few sources really cover or analyse the subject matter in detail. I am mindful that the character articles deletion trend is a little mired in a difference of philosophy over notability, and I think it would help to have better guidance or more discussions over what approach is best as there's been a lot of these sort of articles deleted recently. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk) 11:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply
The issue here is whether an article is notable if literally all coverage of any significance comes from blatant content farm articles, which listicles are.
I'd say the answer is "absolutely not", because content farming is literally an attempt to flood the internet with minor and trivial content in order to game the search results. Its the antithesis of the reason the significant coverage criteria exists. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 13:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply
I blatantly disagree with that assertion that they're "content farm articles". Tangible thoughts are being cited here on the character and why it's important. It's not "10 THINGS YOU DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THIS CHARACTER" or "What reddit thinks about THIS!" It's thought out statements that are discussing what it is and either critiquing its design or importance, and to a smaller extent its recognizability, which many articles on here are built around to the same degree. Including a few I'll note by you or works you've argued for in the past.
You can argue it's on the weaker end of notability, I'd argue bigger sources would indeed be nice. But it discusses the character significantly in an encyclopedic tone for reception and establishes importance to those not familiar with the media. That's what notability is for.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 15:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Weak keep There is some sustained coverage on Lucario. It is significant coverage, but also not very deep. In some cases, that coverage is described in excessive detail to emphasize the coverage is indeed significant coverage in a way that gives it undue weight. But at the end of the day it's there, and its scarcely enough. That the commentary is fixated on comparing Lucario to Mewtwo, Anubis or Digimon still belies the fact that these are independent and analytical ideas, just shallow ones. Depth of ideas in significant coverage is secondary to whether it provides enough of a perspective to inform an article without inference, which it does. That said, I think the practice of stuffing nominated articles with unnecessary detail to 'protect' notability is not really necessary and clutters the article. But there's also been a lot of good work done too. That said, I guess the next step for this article is a bit of a cleanup. But that's not a notability issue. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk) 20:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep per above. It's certainly weaker than some other articles but it definitely has enough to stand on its own for now. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 17:43, 20 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. Star Mississippi 14:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Karen L. Parker

Karen L. Parker (  | 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)

Lack of clear notability Revirvlkodlaku ( talk) 09:38, 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 redirect‎ to Jasper O'Farrell. As a viable ATD since a case has been made for why the prior one resulting from the prior AfD didn't work. Editors are welcome to discuss alternate targets, but there is a clear consensus this shouldn't exist as an article. Star Mississippi 14:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

O'Farrell Street

AfDs for this article:
O'Farrell Street (  | 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 list of districts is not a Wikipedia page. Xx236 ( talk) 09:36, 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 redirect‎ to List of machinima works. Liz Read! Talk! 07:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Zinwrath

AfDs for this article:
Zinwrath (  | 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 doesn't seem like there has been much written about this machinima film; I haven't been able to find significant coverage. The sources I've found consist of:

  1. A 2011 paper by Stanford's Henry Lowood titled "Perfect capture: Three takes on replay, machinima and the history of virtual worlds" where Zinwrath is merely mentioned in a list of examples. (This segment can also be found in Lowood's 2010 book The Machinima Reader)
  2. Lowood's 2009 "Warcraft Adventures: Texts, Replay, and Machinima in a Game-Based Storyworld" where it's, again, just mentioned.
  3. A 2007 hundred-word article on Engadget
  4. A 2009 Engadget interview with one of the people who worked on it, where less than a hundred words are dedicated to Zinwrath in general (there was a previous video also containing Zinwrath in the title).
  5. A 2008 igromania.ru article, with a paragraph about Zinwrath and Illegal Danish: Super Snacks

Thus, I'd propose a redirect to List of machinima works, where it already has an entry. toweli ( talk) 09:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Redirect Great work on doing a WP:BEFORE. I was also able to find a passing mention in World of WarCraft Magazine. Regardless, passing mentions fall short of significant coverage needed for notability. The coverage is too short to evidence even basic things like what the film is, what happens in it, and how it was received. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk) 11:28, 16 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. The Wordsmith Talk to me 04:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Government Mamit College

Government Mamit College (  | 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 refernces outside of press release Sohom ( talk) 10:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted by WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 12:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Sohom I will update with more source

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting. We still need some more opinions here. There hasn't been much participation in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:54, 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 redirect‎ to Doctor Who: The Monthly Adventures. The history is there if independent coverage is eventually found for these to convert to merges Star Mississippi 14:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

The Harvest (audio drama)

The Harvest (audio drama) (  | 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 independently notable, does not pass GNG. Best redirected to Doctor Who: The Monthly Adventures. I am also nominating the following related pages because they exhibit the same characteristics. They do not meet the GNG, and they ought to be redirected to the same target:

The Axis of Insanity (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Arrangements for War (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Roof of the World (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Medicinal Purposes (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Scherzo (audio drama) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Wormery (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Game (audio drama) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dreamtime (audio drama) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Catch-1782 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Heavy Grasshopper ( talk) 11:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No responses, please do not add more articles to this bundled nomination that will likely close as No consensus if this continues. I hope you notified each article creator of this AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect/Delete all Lacks significant independent coverage. Reywas92 Talk 20:47, 9 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    Keep Scherzo, which has independent notability as the direct inspiration for The Message (podcast) as documented in Slate here. [43] I’d also note that all of these will have at least one independent source in Doctor Who Magazine, which will have reviewed all of them, and which is published independently of the BBC. But with Scherzo I can confirm two are available. El Sandifer ( talk) 05:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    That Slate reference to Scherzo provided above is not significant coverage, it's a clear passing mention, stating that one element of Scherzo inspired one element of The Message. Also, the statement that Doctor Who magazine has reviewed them all feels a bit like WP:SOURCESEXIST. We need evidence of that- citations-, so we may check if the reviews were significant, reliable, independent, etc etc. Heavy Grasshopper ( talk) 09:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    It’s certainly enough of a reference to create a “cultural impact” section out of it, if only a sentence or two long. That’s hardly fleeting—it’s significant information about the story. As for DWM, I’m hardly speculating on the source existing. I guarantee you every one of these has a review. But to stick with Scherzo, looks like it got a review in issue 341, on top of a preview in 338, both of which will be a solid couple of paragraphs. And DWM, though it has a license from the BBC and scads of access to people on the show for interviews (not that there was a show to have access to at the time of these audios) is independent—it’s published by Panini, not the BBC, has its own editor, and is given leeway to publish negative reviews, which it often did. So I’m not speculating here—all of these have at least one viable source, Scherzo has two. El Sandifer ( talk) 15:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    Great, thanks for the information about the magazine. It's a shame none of the Dr Who audiodrama articles I've seen seem to cite it, perhaps that can be done. I don't think the Slate source helps for AFD purposes for Scherzo. Sure you could create a one-line cultural impact section from it, but it doesn't contribute to Scherzo meeting the GNG. Heavy Grasshopper ( talk) 19:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    I strongly disagree that “is the direct inspiration for a clearly independently notable work” is a trivial mention. That’s clearly significant, to my mind. So I stand by my strong keep for Scherzo, and a more moderate keep for everything else given that it’s all sure to have one source—-I’d at least want to confirm that neither Dreamwatch nor SFX were regularly running reviews as well. Ooh, and the Celestial Toyroom would also be an obvious source to check. But with three separate magazines that are all reasonably likely to have been covering the Big Finish releases and one that definitely was I think the odds that these meet the GNG are strong. El Sandifer ( talk) 23:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    Thanks for giving your views. Let me know if you do find reviews in those other magazines. Heavy Grasshopper ( talk) 08:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    Will do, but none of those magazines have the sorts of thorough indexes that Doctor Who Magazine does, so it’s trickier. Glancing at a random 2015 issue of SFX I can find online, I see that they are running Big Finish reviews at that point, but I couldn’t tell you when they started doing that. Still, only increases the odds that all of these are sourceable. El Sandifer ( talk) 20:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, right now we have no consensus. But if there are sources out there, it would help if at least a few could be located and brought into this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:50, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Hatim El Otmani

Hatim El Otmani (  | 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. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep Talk 09:37, 1 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! 07:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Otherwise, this would be a Soft Deletion and I'm guessing would be instantly restored.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:48, 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 delete‎. The Wordsmith Talk to me 04:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Instigator Ph

Instigator Ph (  | 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 fails WP: INDEPENDENT. Doesn't merit an article as no publication has been made. Fails WP: BUSINESS Mastashat ( talk) 07:06, 8 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! 07:44, 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 redirect‎ to Technology in Star Trek. History remains if consensus forms for content to be merged Star Mississippi 14:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Medicine in Star Trek

AfDs for this article:
Medicine in Star Trek (  | 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 a fun topic but the article is in terrible shape that may merit WP:TNT-treatment, particularly as it is after all trying to tackle medical topics, and it is far from anything related to quality sourcing ( WP:MEDRS) required. Much of it is unreferenced, and the first part is arguably ORish, with footnotes to Star Trek episodes. No academic source is cited (GScholar suggests something on this could be found, although it is not clear to me whether an overview of 'medicine in Star Trek' is possible). Subtopics like Hypospray can be independently notable (and that article exists and has some academic refs), but whether this can be salvaged, I am unsure (since the articles I see concern specific subtopic, like Nursing in Star Trek of genetic engineering in ST, etc.; ditto for sources identified in the AfD 10 years ago which haven't been even added to the article but suffer from the same limited focus). For now I suggest, per WP:ATD-R, to redirect this mess to Technology in Star Trek, with perhaps some short merge. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:40, 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. after article improvements. Liz Read! Talk! 04:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Callum Stone

Callum Stone (  | 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 entire article consists of mostly plot summaries, with nothing to suggest the character's notability. Sources in the article are either primary (episodes and interviews), news more about the actor, or episode recaps. A quick Google search does not give any sources that prove individual notability. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to List of The Bill characters#Sergeants. Spinixster (chat!) 06:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Shooterwalker: More sources/coverage have now been found by another user😊 DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk) 16:00, 20 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! 07:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep, I agree that the article does need work but the 11 sources do show notability. I disagree that the article is plot only as the development section shows real world info as it reveals behind the scenes information. He is notable and was one of the last original characters. An actor's appearance on the show does have to do with the character (e.g. an actor playing a shopkeeper and an actor playing a policeman will have very different experiences due to different storylines, stunts, reception, research etc). If it not kept, it should be merged as recommended, not just redirected as otherwise the information will be lost. DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk) 07:52, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    I said mostly plot summaries, not purely. But either way, it's not enough to prove notability (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D.B. Russell for a similar instance). Just because an actor is known for playing a character does not mean that the character is independent notable (again, per above, notability is not inherited). Notability is based on whether or not sources that talk about the character significantly from a real-world perspective exists. Also see WP:FICT. If you need me to elaborate I'll gladly do so. Spinixster (chat!) 08:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I contributed to this article years ago. Looking at it now it needs a lot of work to get it to an acceptable standard. I will see if there are additional sources and try to improve the article. Rain the 1 18:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Update:Strong Keep – The article has had huge improvements done by mostly Raintheone, with the new sources showing clear notability. The plot only sections have been removed and it is now all sourced development showing out of universe information. Per WP:HEY and notability guidelines, I strongly recommend that this article is kept. DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk) 16:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I think there is enough information about the character from independent sources and significant coverage of the character. I removed all the episode summary style sources which were originally in place. I deleted the entire storyline section, it smacked fancruft. I will also continue to improve it. Rain the 1 23:56, 20 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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

SAFE Credit Union

SAFE Credit Union (  | 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 a bank that lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. The current references do not contribute to notability. A Google search didn't turn up anything. Citrivescence ( talk) 03:40, 1 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! 03:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete: Appears this does not meet the WP:NCORP due to a lack of secondary sources. Let'srun ( talk) 04:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Other than the four newspaper articles? RecycledPixels ( talk) 16:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply
RecycledPixels, I haven't examined the sources in this article but my experience closing AFDs has demonstrated to me that WP:NCORP is a very tough standard to meet. Liz Read! Talk! 03:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 07:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment already stated keep above. I'm reluctant to personally invest a significant effort into improving this article due to some potentially-perceived COI conflicts. But mainly because I'm not interested in writing articles about companies. But since I am very familiar with the company, I have spent a relatively small amount of time sorting through newspapers.com archives to add some reliable, independent references that I think should meet notability concerns. Since this company has invested in a sponsorship deal with the city's premiere concert venue, most of the top pages of search results will turn up trivial mentions of the company in the context of various performances. So you have to use your Google-Fu to exclude mentions of the performing arts center in order to fairly evaluate the notability of the article subject. But you'll still have to wade through a whole lot of articles about various branches being robbed, ATM thefts, and so-and-so just got promoted in the company, and other trivial, non-significant mentions. The company is not well-suited to the typical AFD thirty-second google search to glance at whether it's a notable company. It's the second-largest credit union in the city, by assets (I recently added that reference to the article). This isn't an article about some garage band, or an "up-and-coming" business trying to generate enough buzz to survive its next round of funding. Hope that helps. RecycledPixels ( talk) 08:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, as seen here, there are about 50+ instances of independent coverage just within the past two years alone. In addition to the vast expansive local coverage, there's a quote in the New York Times and a paragraph in the Associated Press. Left guide ( talk) 16:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, there is significant coverage in newspapers. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝) 23:32, 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 no consensus‎. The sourcing table has not been responded to or refuted and hence consensus can't exist here given the relatively low participation. No prejudice to an immediate relist if so desired. Daniel ( talk) 01:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Art Whizin

Art Whizin (  | 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 business person. Fails WP:GNG. Mikeblas ( talk) 03:29, 22 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! 05:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Source assessment table: prepared by User:siroxo
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Harvey, 2009, LA Times [51] Yes please keep in mind this article was published more than 10 years after subject's death Yes Yes example quote

The way Art Whizin told the story, he was sitting at the counter of a downtown burger joint called Ptomaine Tommy's, trying to visualize the restaurant he wanted to build.
Then a truck-driver friend next to him slid over a chili bowl and said, "Here, Whizin, do something with this."
And that's how Whizin, the one-time amateur boxer, decided in 1931 to construct an eatery in the shape of a chili bowl. Why not? Merchants were putting up businesses that resembled ice cream cones, tamales, coffee kettles and sundry other objects -- all trying to catch the eye of passing motorists.
The 25-year-old entrepreneur opened his first Chili Bowl on Crenshaw Boulevard near Jefferson Boulevard after raising $1,200 by selling, among other things, his wife's wedding ring and his roadster. The couple moved into a house nearby.
"Because he sold his car, he had to have his business within walking distance," explained Jim Heimann, author of "California Crazy & Beyond," a study of offbeat roadside architecture.
Whizin told Heimann in a 1978 interview that he sketched the design of the restaurant on the corduroy pants he seemed to always be wearing. Perhaps he didn't want anyone else to get their hands on the plans.
Or perhaps "he was embellishing the story," Heimann said with a laugh. "He was an interesting character."
The Chili Bowl had no tables, just a 26-stool circular counter, and Whizin bragged that his young workers, most of them college boys, could "flip a pat of butter from the center of the counter to the edge of any of the 26 plates."
The place was an immediate success with its specialty dish called the chili size, an open-faced hamburger smothered with the homemade goodness.

 ✔ Yes
Pascal, 2013, Arcadia Publishing [52] Yes Yes Yes (p. 79)

Art Whizin became known throughout Los Angeles for having established the Chili Bowl restaurant chain in Los Angeles in 1931. After purchasing land in Agoura for development, his decisions often clashed with city planners and environmentalists. Some of the businesses he attracted to the area included the Bear Cabaret (a topless bar), a go-cart raceway, low-income housing, and a mobile home park. Though he received a humanitarian award in 1988 for "40 years of continuous dedication, service and unselfish contributions to the City of Agoura Hills," he often stated that he was the most hated man in Agoura although he did not understand why. Below is a photograph of his restaurant menu. Today, Whizin Market Square is a popular community and tourist destination.

... (p. 105)

The first water was delivered to residents in 1963, thanks to the efforts of residents like Art Whizin. When Whizin came to Agoura in 1949, there was no water and no sewers. The Agoura community at large (500 residents at that time) wanted to preserve the rural flavor of the life style in the area. Whizin was one of 11 that bypassed Agoura residents and used their property as collateral to finance bonds to bring water and eventually sewers to Agoura.

 ✔ Yes


Sherry, 1998, Daily News Yes Yes ~ quotes:

On Wednesday, Moran again stood and watched workers attend to the sign, outlawed by an Agoura Hills sign ordinance, passed by a city that didn't even exist when Whizin's was built.
Moran said he always wanted to play by the rules, so he promised the city that he would remove the sign a "reasonable amount of time" after the death of Art Whizin, his business partner. He gave the city no more assurance than his word, and that was good enough, Adams said.... Whizin died two years ago, and on Wednesday Moran kept his word.

 ~ Partial
Barker, 1988, LA Times [53] Yes Yes ~ quotes

...fair sponsors had agreed in a rental agreement with owner Art Whizin to remove the structures by June 30
...
The foundation was formed earlier this year to fight the proposed development, a 160-home gated community planned by Heller and Whizin.

 ~ Partial
Wilcox, 2006, Daily News [54] ~ There are quotes from family, but also many facts stated in the voice of the paper. Yes Yes quotes

His father had recently bought 320 acres that was part of Paramount Ranch...They ate at a little 12-stool, three-table hamburger stand with a couple of Mobile Oil Co. gasoline pumps out front. Art Whizin bought that, too, and began renovating the property....
By Mother's Day 1954 all that remained was a slab, but customers came anyway, so many that Art Whizin set out some tables and chairs....
It evolved into its present form over the years and the Whizin name became familiar to travelers along Highway 101.
...
Between 1930 and 1941, Art Whizin opened 21 Chili Bowl restaurants around Los Angeles, buying each lot for between $300 to $500. In the late 1940s he closed the business and began selling the lots.

 ~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:00, 7 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) 07:22, 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 Speedy delete‎. WP:G5. (non-admin closure) Usedtobecool  ☎️ 14:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Nabin luhagun

Nabin luhagun (  | 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 fails WP:NACTOR. Has three roles, all of which were minor. There is also nothing in-depth that would show how he meets WP:GNG. CNMall41 ( talk) 07:01, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Appin (company)

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

This article appears to go against WP:Libel policy. The subject of the article is in legal litigation with Reuters the publisher of the major source cited in the article. Reuters has taken down the report from its website in compliance with an Indian court order. See Reuters editor’s note here [ [55]]. Other sources cited all quoted the Reuters report that is no longer in public domain. In this [ [56]], SentinelLab quoted the Reuters report as its own source: “After an extensive review of this data, brought to our attention by Reuters investigative journalists”, then this [ [57]] quoted SentinelLab as its own source all linking back to the Reuters report. These sources can no longer be relied upon as the original source of information has been taken down by a court order. The remaining sources in the article only reported the court order forcing Reuters to take down the article. Metroick ( talk) 05:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep This company is detailed in this earlier Reuters report [58] which was not taken down. Further, the court order and the impugned report are discussed here [59] and here [60]. The litigation is publicly acknowledged by Reuters. And, as noted in the 404 Media article the article is still on Internet Archive. That should be enough for notability.
There may be some basis to say the facts in the impugned article aren't verifiable, because the article is no longer truly published pending court scrutiny, but that's a pretty slender reed.
As to the issue of libel, although I can not find the Indian court order it was a preliminary order. That likely means substantive determinations on the Reuters article (again, only the one report which was taken down, not the still-live one linked above) are yet-to-come. So it's highly unlikely, and certainly not reported anywhere I can see, the report has been found to be libelous. If libel is found by the court at some later date, this article could be reconsidered on that basis. Oblivy ( talk) 05:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Courts aren't arbiters of truth. However, since the company primarily seems to be notable for the article and the subsequent lawsuit, and 95% of the sources I can find online are about that, the article should be moved to Appin hacking allegation lawsuit. Or something more elegant than that. Cortador ( talk) 09:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    It seems there's still a fair amount of reports on the hacking. I'll change my vote to keep. Cortador ( talk) 14:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I'll set aside arguments about GNG and NCORP (both are met) since they're not brought up in the nom. I don't think it can meet WP:LIBEL if it's verifiable and cited to reliable sources, and Reuters is a pretty top-tier RS, whose report is based not on one or two anonymous sources but on an investigation by three reporters who have a history of covering this subject area (one of whom has won an award for it). Reuters says it stands by its reporting, and RS that have covered the company after Reuters's removal (like 404media) do not treat the reporting as suspect, rather they blame lack of press freedom in India. It reminds me of Pierre-sur-Haute military radio station, where we kept the article despite legal threats (against a Wikipedian, not just a news outlet). I would also oppose a move since the "main" story is the revelations, not the Reuters lawsuit about the revelations. DFlhb ( talk) 13:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: The New Yorker reported on the issue, article is more than adequately sourced. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - As author. Meets WP:GNG. My personal take on this is that India is trying to scrub a report into the darker side of its intelligence aparatus. I don't know why we'd want to help them with that. The irony here is that in trying to scrub the report, the company becomes more notable for trying to scrub the report. Streisand effect? NickCT ( talk) 16:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Notable company. Article title change is not needed. Capitals00 ( talk) 05:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is libelous, the main source of the article has been deleted which was Reuters. Most of the publications from the websites were gotten from Reuters and since the reuters source is down, this should be considered no longer credible. Chaosbrigader64 ( talk) 09:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Have not evaluated notability as of yet, but as LIBEL is handled by WP:OFFICE, leaning speedy keep as AfD is not competent to decide on such an issue. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 10:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    Speedy/snow keep. I'm standing by my assessment that there is nothing for the community to do here. Offline sources are still sources. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 03:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for the meantime pending the final determination of the lawsuit against Reuters article that has now been taken down. It can be recreated after the final verdict if it goes in favour of Reuters which is confident in its journalists and their reporting by stating that it stands by its reporting. The issue here is not about the notability of the company but the lawsuit. It will not be surprising if the company sue the other sources cited in the article as some of them quoted Reuters reporting as their source and if that happens it may lead to the taking down of such press articles thereby stripping this article of its major sources. Lagdo22 ( talk) 12:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The accusations were provided by Reuters, which is one of the highest regarded RS, and they continue to stand by their reporting. Since the article was pulled down by only a prima facie court order, Reuters has not had an opportunity to defend their reporting. If it turns out the content was falsified Reuters would retract the article and the article can be reconsidered then. The sources currently not being available due to court order is not an issue because WP:LINKROT is a known, very common, and already solved problem on Wikipedia. Jumpytoo Talk 20:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment I have added four additional citations, two extensively discussing the company and two about the controversy. If (a big if) there was any serious question about whether the court-ordered suppression of the Reuters story somehow defeats notability, this should put an end to it. Oblivy ( talk) 01:56, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Daniele Filippi

Daniele Filippi (  | 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 Joeykai ( talk) 04:41, 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 delete‎. ✗ plicit 00:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Caravaggio to Canaletto

Caravaggio to Canaletto (  | 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 temporary art exhibit may be notable if it has a lasting impact. This is not evident from the text. Furthermore, the article gives no independent, substantive coverage. I think therefore that the topic fails wp:gng Ruud Buitelaar ( talk) 03:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 04:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, as a routine temporary exhibition such as every gallery and museum holds, all the time. All such exhibitions get press mentions at the time (otherwise no one would know to go to them!) and some get passing mentions in other contexts from time to time afterwards, but for a stand-alone article we need some in depth sourcing. Elemimele ( talk) 07:03, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Donald Trump's rhetoric

Donald Trump's rhetoric (  | 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 scope of this article is undefined and could include anything the man has ever said about anything in his lifetime soibangla ( talk) 03:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Changing to Keep per WP:HEY. The changes made to the article following my initial comments (in favor of draftifying) and arguments made by others (particularly SPECIFICO) in favor of keeping the page have convinced me to reconsider. It clearly needs more work, and renaming to Rhetoric of Donald Trump is strongly advised, but I now believe there is sufficient sourcing and enough encyclopedic content to justify keeping in mainspace. A. Randomdude0000 ( talk) 04:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Draftifying, would be my second choice. GoodDay ( talk) 03:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Trump's rhetoric in-and-of-itself is notable and has been analysed scholars. I'll link to a few papers and books dedicated to it: [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70], though somehow I can't find the couple of papers I remember reading that were on-point. Per my comment on the talk page I recommend treating this as separate from the planned article on authoritarianism. I also oppose draftifying because it no longer meets the WP:DRAFTIFY criteria since it was expanded after the comments above; it now has merit and contains a reasonable amount of verifiable information. DFlhb ( talk) 06:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    I don't recall there was the planned article on authoritarianism. Rather, creation of this article seems to be a broad and undefined invitation to include everything the man has ever said about anything, since the 1970s. Imagine the possibilities. Even renaming the article to Trump authoritarian rhetoric should not be used as a compromise to deflect any reference to it in the BLP. I am increasingly concerned that relegating this to ancillary articles is a deliberate effort to exclude any mention of his authoritarian rhetoric in the BLP, despite it being abundantly sourced for years as a distinctive characteristic of the man. soibangla ( talk) 07:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    should not be used as a compromise to deflect any reference to it in the BLP Categorically yes.
    I am increasingly concerned that[...] So am I. The way I see it is that I've presented enough sources for it that non-inclusion in the main BLP would be counter to policy, and there's recourse for that.
    There's also recourse against people who would try to include irrelevant material from sources that don't analyse aspects of his rhetoric directly and in depth. DFlhb ( talk) 08:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The article needs work, but AfD isn't cleanup, and the topic is notable since Trump's rhetoric has received a lot of attention and has been analysed by a number of people. Cortador ( talk) 09:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for now. Needs lots of work and attention, which I hope will be sparked by this AfD. There are many secondary and tertiary RS publications to support relevant content. It's possible the page title will be tweaked, and it should not be viewed as a fork of the main Trump page, where there's obstinate, insupportable, opposition to even a brief mention of his most significant recent themes and preparations for his second term. SPECIFICO talk 12:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify Half the article is just an excerpt of False or misleading statements by Donald Trump and the page needs more work before it's ready for mainspace. Reywas92 Talk 16:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    Well, that suggests that at least half the article is at least properly sourced. Draft will get less attention and less of a chance to develop. SPECIFICO talk 18:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - WP:NOTPROMO "Wikipedia articles about a person, company, or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts." Campaign rhetoric and character assassinations, leading up to a presidential election. And-or for daily postings in his legal issues/comments. It gives his supporters a cut and paste quickie for their social network postings. This would amount to a forum in the guise of a Wikipedia article. We really shouldn't be giving any candidate this. — Maile ( talk) 00:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    Such content would not remain in any article for long, per NPOV weight, NOTNEWS, etc. The same concern could be raised with respect to any article about a political campaign, a performing artist, et al. There is a substantial literature that presents expert and, increasingly, shcolarly summary and analysis of the themes and narratives of his public speech. SPECIFICO talk 01:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Initially my position was that this topic was too poorly defined to merit an article, but upon doing some research, it turns out there are a fair number of scholarly works on this exact topic (i.e. Trump's methods of persuasion and modes of communication) including a scholarly book by this very name : https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv1rr6dh8. (We should likewise rename this page Rhetoric of Donald Trump, I think.) The extent of the literature leads me to think the topic is indeed notable and has drawn significant scholarly and media attention. This, however, is not the topic that was being proposed on Donald Trump's Authoritarianism, nor should an article on either of these topics be taken as an excuse to continue omitting discussion of the scholarly literature and extremely extensive media coverage of Trump's authoritarian inclinations or statements from the main article. That omission of one of the most widely written about aspects of the man continues to be scandalous. 67.82.74.5 ( talk) 01:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I think this can be a good article that other aspects of Donald Trump's rhetoric can be linked to. For instance, False or misleading statements by Donald Trump which can be considered part of his "rhetoric" can be mentioned in a section here, along with List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump and Social media use by Donald Trump. This page can also serve as a place to put recent concerns about his authoritarian and violent rhetoric by the media until there is enough content and coverage that its own page could be warranted. BootsED ( talk) 02:26, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This article is taking shape and can be a good thing. Well worth keeping, and certainly passes WP:GNG. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 04:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep there's a significant amount of coverage discussing his rhetoric, especially after he started talking about "poisoning the nation's blood" and everything a couple weeks ago. AryKun ( talk) 14:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for the reasons given above. Jack Upland ( talk) 23:24, 19 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) 01:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Baran (singer)

Baran (singer) (  | 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)

nn, tagged unaddressed since October 2022 - Altenmann >talk 02:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Editors can't just say "Sources exist", you must share specific links or citations so others can investigate whether they demonstrate notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:41, 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 redirect‎ to The Coddling of the American Mind. I found the nominator's statement and evaluation of sources to be very persuasive and reflects not only Wikipedia policy but also the rough consensus of participants. Liz Read! Talk! 01:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Safetyism

Safetyism (  | 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:NOTNEO. "Safetyism" is a term coined by the authors of a 2018 book The Coddling of the American Mind by two free speech advocates ( Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt) and their co-researcher Pamela Paresky. It is a social hypothesis that a certain mindset is the cause of then-recent American student campus behaviour that the authors find unsatisfactory. That this is actually the primary motivator of this behaviour, that this behaviour is in any way recent, or that the behaviour is universally regarded as unsatisfactory is disputed by some.

No dictionaries contain a definition. Onelook, Merriam-webster, Macmillan, Oxford Learners Dictionaries, The American Heritage Dictionary, Vocabulary.com, Cambridge. I see that Collins Dictionary noted that the word was proposed to them in 2020 but remains under review. A google search of the BBC "safetyism site:bbc.co.uk" also finds nothing.

Having the term as an article has two consequences. As WP:NOTNEO notes, it can "increase usage of the term" by giving it a validity undeserved by sources. As currently written, the article is entirely uncritical, writing about this proposed explanation of student behaviour as though it is an established concept in social psychology. And we comment on this concept as though this is a universal and timeless failing of human behaviour rather than a recent concept proposed and promoted by two free speech advocates complaining that and how their students keep protesting about stuff. Currently the article on this term is longer than our article on the whole book, and its main source is an academic paper that itself promotes a neologism (ideacide) and only briefly mentions safetyism among three "dynamics". Most of the relatively small number of sources using the word are political opinion pieces that are themselves promoting free speech, citing the book or its authors, or using the word as a weapon against whatever kind of activism they dislike.

Compared with Truthiness, which is a similar social neologism but swiftly became word-of-the-year and is highly used and discussed. Within social science, this "safetyism" is a fringe concept lacking WP:WEIGHT. Even within the book, The Coddling of the American Mind, "safetyism" is a minority of the work. Another comparator would be " Autistic enterocolitis" a term coined by Andrew Wakefield as a proposed explanation of autism. We do not have an article on that because it is also a fringe (and discredited) concept in medical science, though we do have Lancet MMR autism fraud that discusses it.

That it is disputed that this word "safetyism" is even a "thing" and whether it has any significant currency outside of American university politics c2018 means it is best discussed briefly in the context of our article on this book on American university politics c2018. I suggest that "Safetyism" be discussed with appropriate, relatively brief, weight in the book article, and safetyism be turned into a redirect. -- Colin° Talk 14:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Draftify while we look for better sources. Owen× ☎ 12:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • User:OwenX, I'm not nearly as familiar with AfD as you. But there can't be any sources "from over a decade ago" because it was only coined in 2018, five, nearly six years ago.
    When I read WP:NOTNEO it tells me to watch out for the difference between sources using a term than ones that are actually about the term. We have some opinion-piece advocacy sources where people have picked up that word and used it. We have some sources commenting on the book and its fallout. But the two sources about the term Safetyism Was Never Real and Safetyism Isn’t the Problem both actually argue that it isn't really a thing and that anyone using the term is wrongheaded or trying to fool their readers, not that you'd learn that from the article text.
    As a tertiary encyclopaedic source and for a subject worthy of its own article, what I'd expect is for us to be citing some secondary sources explicitly on "Safetyism" as a concept in modern social psychology. That after five, nearly six years, we'd find dictionary definitions, book chapters, books even, all explaining to students what this accepted academic term is and means. We can't. Because it isn't an accepted academic term. It is a fringe idea by two guys who wrote a book. That this neologism is used by some free speech advocates doesn't seem to meet the requirement at WP:NOTNEO. -- Colin° Talk 10:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    My mistake! Google Scholar incorrectly reports the term as being used in J.S. Beck's 2011 Clinical textbook of addictive disorders. Thanks for prompting me to dig deeper. Changing to Draftify while we look for better sources. Owen× ☎ 12:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- This is being discussed in journals and the sourcing seems adequate. 'With the advent of smartphones, parents' surveillance adds to the “culture of safetyism” that predominates on college campuses...' [71], 'Lukianoff and Haidt contend that an atmosphere of “safetyism” threatens the university’s ability to serve as an arena for free speech and academic freedom. In this paper, we examine their thinking...' [72], '...a “national wave of adolescent anxiety and depression”; overprotective parents caught up in “safetyism”; campus officials who encourage dependency...' [73] etc. I am NOT implying that all of these results are independently RS, but they do indicate adoption in limited but persistent use and support the sourcing already in the article. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 15:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    I'm not disagreeing that some sources use the term but the sources you give aren't using it as a real word outside of scare quotes, or using it independently from the book as though this was a concept with wide acceptance.
    1. The first article only once mentions “the culture of safetyism” and they do so in scare quotes while citing the "The Coddling of the American Mind". That's not evidence they think this is a term in modern social psychology, only that they wish to quote some other author's work.
    2. The second source also uses the word in scare quotes: 'In The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas are Setting Up a Generation for Failure, Lukianoff and Haidt contend that an atmosphere of “safetyism” threatens the university’s ability to serve as an arena for free speech and academic freedom. In this paper, we examine their thinking...' Again they are effectively quoting the book, and their article examines its claims with comments from their own experiences. They only use the word twice in their article, both times they are in-text referencing the book/authors and the claims the book/authors made. They are not using the word for themselves as though it was a real word.
    3. The third source is simply a book review of "The Coddling of the American Mind". They use the word "safetyism" in scare quotes, because they also don't actually regard it (yet) as a real word, and are merely stating what the book itself claims in order to pass judgement on the book. -- Colin° Talk 16:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Per analysis of sources by Colin, most of the coverage of the term seems to be related to The Coddling of the American Mind. So a redirect to The Coddling of the American Mind seems most appropriate, unless better sources which discuss it more independently or more in depth can be found. Shapeyness ( talk) 20:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 13:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - A robust critical section should be written using sources to provide balance. Political opportunists will certainly use the concept irresponsibly, even using mean or hateful rhetoric. Haidt & Lukianoff use it rather responsibly, but are transparent about the political dimension of related discussions. -- skak E L 14:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    Skakkle I see you made some edits to "provide balance" and I certainly felt that as previously written the article was uncritical (see talk page comments). But I'm concerned your changes to the lead are not sourced (nor do they appear to summarise the body). Do you have some sources for the remarks about Safetyism that you added. Without those, it is possible to see that your changes might simply be undone per WP:V. -- Colin° Talk 08:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    In voting "Keep", I recommended to the community and anyone interested that robust critical section should be written. I'm sure the community and anyone interested can achieve that.
    My contributions were intended more narrowly. My edits sought "de-nature" the inflammatory frame of the term safetyism and help discover a less controversialized frame to talk about the substance of the topic and the subject matter at hand (university policy, how students really feel, how academics & authors talk about these things, the issues that spark the most trouble in these university contexts, etc). My contributions might not be perfect or complete but I made them in good faith & I am hoping the community and anyone interested can continue to work on this productively together. skak E L 13:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    Skakkle, I don't doubt your good faith and intentions and I'm not suggesting you are required to personally fix the article. I generally agree with your additions, but that doesn't mean I've been able to source them. My research suggests the limited sources available on this topic hinder the ability to write an appropriate "robust critical section" with appropriate sources (there is some criticism in sources but they are either dealing with politics or in response to the book). I think this diminishes the weight of a "keep" vote that assumes something is possible that may not be. High quality sources have "better things to do" that attack ideas that never widely took off in the first place, which had a short-lived significance in American politics in 2018, and aren't established concepts. -- Colin° Talk 14:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to The Coddling of the American Mind per the nomination. Evidence is lacking that this is, you know, a thing. That is, it so far appears not to be a concept that has grown to be bigger than the book while maintaining a coherent definition. We don't need to provide a studiously balanced, critical overview of a topic that isn't encyclopedic to begin with, and keeping such an article around invites synthesis of remarks from everybody who has written something that vaguely sounds like the same idea. The reception of a book can be covered in the article about the book. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: seeing as additional sources might be hard to find, I'd also be happy with a Redirect to the book, as suggested by others. Owen× ☎ 14:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment. Here are additional independent secondary sources where Safetyism is discussed, that collectively validate WP:GNG. I have quoted passages which demonstrate WP:SIGCOV of Safetyism as a standalone topic. All of the articles are called Safetyism is ___, not Review of The Coddling of the American Mind, demonstrating that the topic is discussed independently of the other article. Lastly, arguing against the merit of a single source does not discredit the merit of the others, as WP:GNG only requires two or more sources, which demonstrate significant coverage, and that are independent (COI-free) of the subject.

  • "Safetyism Was Never Real". Insight Higher Ed. June 4, 2020.
The article states: Launched into the world by Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff in their book, The Coddling of the American Mind, “Safetyism refers to a culture or belief system in which safety has become a sacred value, which means that people are unwilling to make trade-offs demanded by other practical and moral concerns.According to the authors, safetyism, along with other factors such as “screen time,” were causing observable increases in anxiety and depression among young people, as well as leading to protests such as the one over Halloween costumes at Yale, which the authors see as an illiberal assault on the values of the institution. Coddling was published in 2018. I am trying to recognize the description of a generation which is so apparently fragile that they cannot even bear a challenging thought with the one that has been the greatest number of those facing pepper spray, tear gas, beatings and rubber bullets on the streets as they protest systemic injustices in the wake of the recent killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and Ahmaud Arbery.
The article states: During the second half of the twentieth century, concentrated efforts were made to make the world safer for children, drivers, and vulnerable people. All fifty states passed safety belt laws. Sharp objects were removed from homes and day care facilities. Toys and playgrounds became softer. It worked. Death rates for children declined steadily. Over the first two decades of the twenty-first century, however, “safety” has broadened to include emotional safety and this broader understanding of safety has become a fundamental value and ideal. Especially on university campuses, young people protest triggers – co
The article states: With the steady decline in organised religion among the British, other beliefs have stepped in to fill the vacuum, guiding us and providing a framework with which to live our lives. The decline of organised religion hasn’t ushered in a world that is rational, logical and rooted in empirical scepticism; our modern materialistic secular world is full of new superstitions, rituals and faith. One of the most visible of these new doctrines, after gaining traction for many decades, blossomed in 2020 - that of safetyism.
The article states: Something is going badly wrong for American teenagers, as we can see in the statistics on depression, anxiety, and suicide. Something is going very wrong on many college campuses, as we can see in the rise in efforts to disinvite or shout down visiting speakers, and in changing norms about speech, including a recent tendency to evaluate speech in terms of safety and danger. This new culture of “safetyism” is bad for students and bad for universities.
The article states: As America debates when and how to reopen, those concerned about the side effects of the lockdown have begun to use the word “safetyism” to characterize what they consider extreme social-distancing measures.
The article was locked to me. It is titled "The rise of Safetyism has entered the courtroom". It is as unrelated as it gets to a book.
The article states: In recent years behaviours on university campuses have created widespread unease. Safe spaces, trigger warnings, and speech codes. Demands for speakers to be disinvited. Words construed asviolence and liberalism described as ‘white supremacy’. Students walking on eggshells, too scared to speak their minds. Controversial speakers violently rebuked – from conservative provocateurs such as Milo Yiannopoulos to serious sociologists such as Charles Murray, to left-leaning academics such as Bret Weinstein.
The article states: The outcome of Tuesday’s presidential election will reveal whether the feminized, therapeutic culture of the university has become the dominant force in the American psyche. During the last eight months of coronavirus panic, a remarkable number of Americans have deliberately — one might even say, ecstatically — embraced fear over fact. They have shut their ears to the data, available since March, showing how demographically circumscribed the lethal threat from coronavirus infection is: concentrated among the very elderly and those with multiple and serious preexisting health conditions.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Safetyism to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". बिनोद थारू ( talk) 03:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks for listing the sources you believe matter. The rule for an article on a novel word for a proposed concept is WP:NEO which requires more than usage of the word in some blogs. The NYU Stern source is actually written by Haidt and Lukianoff so isn't really independent of the book. Many of the other sources are culturally conservative blogs. Theopolis is a evangelical church blog, Manhattan Institute is a conservative think tank, Institute of Public Affairs is another conservative think tank. Movementum Magazine is a self published blog. The Insight Higher Ed source is a blog on that site and is actually claiming the concept doesn't exist that writers/speakers are just abusing that neologism for political games. The New York Times is an opinion column about covid lockdown commenting that people are misusing the term to justify their position on that matter.
None of these are reliable sources for anything more than the author's opinion, should that have any weight. What none of these are are journal articles in sociology or linguistics or undergrad or postgrad textbooks or even political books devoted to this topic. Instead some hot headed opinionist has picked up a neologism they recently read in Haidt & Lukianoff's book (which they loved because it is so critical of these lefty social justice warrior students that they hate) and used it to rant about coronavirus lockdowns or about how parents these day are not like when I was growing up and had to go to church each Sunday with polished shoes and a suit and a respectable haircut. It's a bit like you found a bunch of right wing blogs ranting about how wokeism has infected our schools but not the scholarly work on what the term " woke" is and how that term is used and misused today. -- Colin° Talk 10:08, 21 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 comments since the last relisting so I'm closing this as No consensus. It would be nice to see more of these sources added to the article but at least it is no longer unreferenced. Liz Read! Talk! 01:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Akasya Durağı

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

This article on a Turkish television series has no references and so does not satisfy either verifiability or notability. It consists of a one-paragraph overview, and a long cast list in an infobox, in which a majority of the entries are red links. There is nothing about what third parties have said about the show. (Maybe it has been reviewed, and maybe it hasn't.) It has been tagged as having no sources since 2015, and still has no sources eight years later. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply

--->changing to Keep in the light of the sources presented by Kadı below, and that prove the series was important nationally.- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the notification.- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply
No sorry I don't think I am competant to do so as I am not a native speaker. You could use them to cite the Turkish article and see whether anyone there objects. If they are accepted there I withdraw my delete vote. Chidgk1 ( talk) 17:49, 2 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! 23:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:21, 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. I hope some of these newly found foreign language sources find their way into the article. Liz Read! Talk! 01:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Bruno Holzträger

Bruno Holzträger (  | 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 do not believe this person is notable enough to have a wikipedia page, though there is enough correctly cited information to possibly warrant the page staying FA Myn J ( talk) 02:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Arcanum (a Hungarian - not Romanian - newspaper archive) seems to have some coverage of him, including what appears to be a feature story on him from Hermannstädter Zeitung in 1970 (decades after his Olympic participation) - it includes this image which was uploaded to Commons - I can only see a small picture of what the newspaper looks like though before I get a paywall notice so it's hard to tell - @ Nenea hartia: Seems to have uploaded the image: do you have access to this source and can you determine whether this coverage on Holztrager is significant? BeanieFan11 ( talk) 16:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • @ BeanieFan11: I don't know what to say. I think he is definitely notable for ro.wiki: he was an Olympic handball player, a handball referee and coach of Karres Mediaș (later renamed Record Mediaș), with which he won the Romanian women's handball championship 3 times.
As for Arcanum, yes, it is a Hungarian newspaper archive, but it also contains hundreds, if not thousands, of Romanian newspapers. Yes, I have access to that source and a search for 'Bruno Holzträger' returned 28 results. His name is mentioned especially in German-language Romanian newspapers. At that time, there was a significant German minority in Romania (about 400,000 people), and handball was introduced to the country by them. In the beginning, there were handball teams only in Romanian cities with a significant German population. Holzträger's name is mentioned in Neuer Weg (the main German-language newspaper), in Sportul Popular (the main Romanian-language sports newspaper), in Curentul, and other national or local newspapers, from 1948 to 1996. If you wish, you can download from here the newspaper pages from which I cropped the photos uploaded to Commons (the link only works for 6 days). 28 references might not seem like much, but the communist press, especially in the 50s, was very strictly controlled and the only 'stars' that could be written about in abundance were the communist dignitaries.
Bruno Holzträger is also mentioned many times in this book about Romanian handball players and coaches of German origin. As you can see, there are enough reliable sources from Romania, but too few international sources. However, I would like the article to be kept if possible. -- Nenea hartia ( talk) 19:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
@ BeanieFan11: There are a couple. Please use the same link, I have added two more files. For example an article from March 1996 called Ein Mann namens Bruno Holzträger (A man named Bruno Holzträger) or a short obituary from 1978: Bruno Holzträger gestorben (Bruno Holzträger died). Most of the others are generally mentions of him as a handball player, coach, or referee.
There could be other references to him, for example in this big Romanian newspaper archive. Unfortunately, although every scanned pdf has OCR, there is no search engine for the whole database, so a search by Holzträger's name is not possible. -- Nenea hartia ( talk) 20:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
The obit is okay, but the other one is really good. That with the book is enough for notability in my opinion. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 22:15, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Egyptian conquest of Tunisia and Tripoli

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

This article is a POVFORK and a work of fiction. it is already established in our article Abd al-Wahid Zakariya ibn al-Lihyani that this caliph took power with Egyptian support. This is not controversial. However I can find exactly zero sources discussing a non existent “Egyptian invasion of Tunisia and Tripoli.” That is a piece of authorial invention. Mccapra ( talk) 02:05, 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 no consensus‎. Merge !votes clearly outnumber Keep. As this is not a vote, the arguments must be weighted according to their strength. Keep supporters presented a number of additional sources, as well as analysis of them. They demonstrated that the article does meet WP:GNG, which was not refuted by the Merge !votes.

Merge supporters had a number of !votes that were WP:PERX with no actual arguments. A few were even "Per X", where X was just "per Y". Some other !votes had invalid rationales, including one that incorrectly claimed there were no secondary sources. Generally, merge supporters did not adequately address the sources presented or analyzed in the discussion. However, they did make a compelling argument that the article failed WP:EVENT. This was partially addressed by Keep supporters, but not fully refuted.

As far as weighing the strength of arguments, on one hand the article passes GNG. WP:EVENT gives additional tests on top of GNG, so it must meet both. As the author of WP:EVENT, I think it probably does barely pass but the arguments that it may fail on lasting effect and persistence of coverage are compelling and were not refuted.

This AFD has been open for nearly a month, though there were issues due to the malformed listing. Another relist seems unlikely to make a consensus materialize. The best way forward is to incorporate the new sources into the article, and a future AFD (if necessary) can determine whether it meets WP:EVENT.

Disclaimer: I had my whole rationale typed up but XFDcloser ate it, so my rewrite might not be as polished. The Wordsmith Talk to me 04:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Beit Rima massacre

Beit Rima massacre (  | 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 fails notability per WP:NOTNEWS (three sources date for the day of the event or the day after), as well as being grossly miscategorized - categories mark it as 1991 while 4 news sources say October 2001. One sentence mention in the Second Intifada article could be sufficient. GreyShark ( dibra) 09:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep: It is extremely unlikely that the nominator performed an adequate WP: BEFORE, since this event is a long-term case study used in sources such as this 2014 Springer-published journal on psychological warfare: "The first major use of this theme came after an IDF raid on the village of Beit Rima north of Jerusalem in October 2001...", in this Brill source, in this 2003 report by HaMoked, etc. The WP:NOTNEWS claim is wholly untenable. Iskandar323 ( talk) 11:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Justanotherguy54 ( talk) 19:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment: The merger votes being provided here are thin on policy. For starters, the proposed merger target already has 74kB of readable prose, so per WP:TOOBIG is itself a candidate for trimming/splitting, not expansion. On top of this, not a single WP:MERGEREASON has been provided. There were some early merge votes that cast doubt on notability, and subsequent merge votes seem to have merely echoed that despite ample additional sourcing being provided. The latter in turn raises another point: that of the clear WP:NOTMERGE argument that is available based on the additional sourcing - that the material has plenty of room to grow as a standalone topic. So: no particular reason to merge + good reason not to merge. Iskandar323 ( talk) 21:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Am I missing something? This seems to clearly pass GNG and the reports after the attack show a strong case for WP:LASTING. I don't think a merge is a good solution, this is not significant enough as an event in itself for a section in the proposed target, but it does have sources for content and meets GNG so a link in the proposed target to this article seems like the best way to present the material SUMMARYSTYLE.
Source eval from article:
Comments Source
A full article from the Washington Post, clearly WP:IS, WP:RS, article unquestionably has WP:SIGCOV (16 full properly written paragraphs) 1. Hockstader, Lee; Williams, Daniel (25 October 2001). "Israelis Kill 6 in Raid on Village". Washington Post.
I have doubts about the NPOV of this source, but it is an WP:IS with WP:SIGCOV, it also is years after the event, showing LASTING. Defending Human rights in Palestine since 1979.
A full article from the Guardian, clearly WP:IS, WP:RS, article unquestionably has WP:SIGCOV (19 full properly written paragraphs) 3. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Goldenberg, Suzanne (October 25, 2001). "Israel defies US with bloody raid for killers". The Guardian.
A full article from the New York Times, clearly WP:IS, WP:RS, article unquestionably has WP:SIGCOV (30 full properly written paragraphs) 4. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h Bennet, James (October 26, 2001). "Israeli Raid Made Village a War Zone". The New York Times – via NYTimes.com.
Didn't bother to look due to the above sources, but this is a RS. 5. ^ Jump up to:a b c Human Rights Watch. Israel, the Occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip, and the Palestinian Authority Territories. 14:2. April 2002. pp. 9-10.
A full article from the New York Times, same author as above but they are different articles (they contain much of the same info), clearly WP:IS, WP:RS, article unquestionably has WP:SIGCOV (28 full properly written paragraphs), the information that is in this article that is not in #4 above would be considered SIGCOV on its own. 6. ^ Bennet, James (October 25, 2001). "Israelis Storm Village in the West Bank". The New York Times – via NYTimes.com.
  • Because of the above, I just gave a cursory look at the sources Nableezy presented and they also seem to be WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth even if there are some NPOV questions. The report seems to show LASTING.
  • We all know NOTNEWS is interpreted and applied very subjectively, editors often disagree in gf, In this case I think the event rises above routine news.
  • I didn't do a BEFORE because this seems to be a keep based on the above.
  • I do agree the article should have a better name, the massacre was part of a larger event. I would suggest something along the lines of 2001 raid on Beit Rima, not wedded to any particular phrase, but to meet WP:PRECISE this should be named differently.
Again if I'm missing something, ping me.  //  Timothy ::  talk  06:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Although this AFD was opened in November, apparently, it wasn't added to the daily AFD log page so this is the first relisting. Right now, opinion is divided. I'd like to see those advocating Merge respond to the source evaluation and latest arguments in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep per @ TimothyBlue Homerethegreat ( talk) 17:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Upon second revision, perhaps it is actually due and better to merge and therefore I change my vote to merge per arguments above. Homerethegreat ( talk) 08:49, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Kiribati–Spain relations

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

This article is largely based on 1 primary source. The relations are not subject to third party coverage. Most of the interactions are in multilateral contexts eg with other Pacific Island and the EU. Fails GNG. LibStar ( talk) 00:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:46, 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. At AFD, we have discussions about deleting articles based on Wikipedia policies. It sounds like the nominator is actually arguing for a Merge which can happen outside of AFD back on the article talk page. There is no support here for the deletion of this article. Liz Read! Talk! 00:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

List of The Book of Boba Fett characters

List of The Book of Boba Fett characters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD |

Per User:TNstingray at Talk:List of The Book of Boba Fett characters#Existence, I am wondering if there should be a List of The Book of Boba Fett characters page? Like obviously it has more than enough sources, but I don't see why that information could not just be included at The Book of Boba Fett itself and the character pages for the characters featured, since most of the character information here is for characters that already existed. As User:TNstingray noted, it feels really pretty much totally redundant considering we have a standard List of Star Wars characters, plus the more specific List of The Mandalorian characters, and there were no original characters from this series notable enough to receive Wikipedia pages. Boba Fett has existed for decades, Black Krrsantan and Cobb Vanth were book characters first-and-foremost (the latter mainly appearing in The Mandalorian afterward), and the Mandalorian and Fennec Shand also appeared first in The Mandalorian. The entire main and co-starring character section consists solely of characters who appeared first and primarily in other Star Wars films and shows, and told in more relevant detail on those pages, and then what is left is "Featured guest characters" and "Minor guest characters". Also this was a single-season miniseries. I don't know of any other single-season miniseries on Wikipedia to have its own list of characters page. ICOTEYE ( talk) 00:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy keep. The article is very well sourced, as the nom admits, and both it and the proposed merge target are already beyond the optimal size for an article. I don't see a coherent reason for proposing deletion or merge. Owen× ☎ 00:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    Comment That is the thing. Removing the information already repeated much better on other pages, we are left only with the "Featured guest characters" and "Minor guest characters" sections, which are small enough to easily see merging with List of Star Wars characters. Like there are characters whose total screen time amounts to less than four minutes (I counted) who have three paragraphs-worth of content; that can easily be cut down. It is a very WP:FANCRUFT-ridden page, even for Star Wars character pages. ICOTEYE ( talk) 01:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I think this is a very clear WP:DINC situation. A merge may be worth discussing, but it's not necessary as ATD or NOPAGE. — siro χ o 03:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Character lists are common and I find it hard to believe that characters from any major Star Wars production would somehow not be notable. Maybe improvement is more merited than trying to trash it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 10:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Just because information is notable for inclusion on the encyclopedia, does not meant it immediately warrants its own article. I'm not quite sure what benefit this article provides that is not already covered, or could be covered, at The Book of Boba Fett#Cast and characters, List of The Mandalorian characters, or List of Star Wars characters, to name a few. Is the Book of Boba Fett so notable for its characters that it warrants a separate article on Wikipedia? I don't think so. The sourcing reflects the general buzz about a new project in a popular IP, and yet we don't have unique character articles for any other Star Wars projects (besides Mando). Yes, I am aware that WP:OTHERSTUFF is an argument to avoid. However, as someone who has tirelessly attempted to revitalize character lists for numerous franchises on the encyclopedia, I have become increasingly convinced that Wikipedia is not the place for these at all due to their tendency to accumulate cruft, and their incredible inconsistency. Instead, the subpages at Fandom (website) are the better location for these dives into minor, unimportant characters. My vote does not lean strongly in any particular direction. I just feel that the current list system has a lot of problems. TNstingray ( talk) 19:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    Considering this from a Wikipedia-centric point of view, keeping a narrow scope like this is a good way to keep a "real world" focus and a higher article quality, so a merge into a list with a broader scope might backfire with respect to your stated goals.
    I do think there's a fair argument to merge it into The Book of Boba Fett#Cast and characters, but I don't see it as necessary as an alternative to deletion. Given that the list is more than double the length of the main article, keeping them separate may still be the right approach.
    All in all, AfD is rarely the right place to have this manner of discussion, I think the talk page discussion you started—which later prompted the AfD—was indeed the right place to start. While I can't promise I'll be available, do feel free to ping me on any talk page discussions you start in these "fictional elements" topic areas, as I would like to participate and have some general ideas as to how massive franchises could be handled. — siro χ o 03:51, 16 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_December_15&oldid=1191353685"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 14 December 16 >

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 merge‎ to Little emperor syndrome. Daniel ( talk) 00:59, 23 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Child's slave

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

This article seems to be about a flash-in-the-pan Chinese-language phraseology used mostly in 2013–14, related to a popular piece of media released around that time, and is not really a notable concept in itself then nor now. This is an issue I see to one degree or another with a lot of China-related articles, where a unique phrase is used to birth a new sociological concept not necessarily related to the wider world—of course, with the root of the issue being there aren't a lot of reliable sources that actually link such concepts in China to those elsewhere. So it's equally a 'greater world' issue as much as it is a wiki issue.

Regardless, there aren't really any results or sources that would lend this concept reification or notability since that time that I could find in either English or Chinese, the ones that are there are exceedingly paltry and do not constitute notability in itself imo. This isn't proof in itself, but the corresponding zhwiki article is three uncited sentences. Remsense 留 23:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment You raise some interesting points, but on the other hand the phrase 孩奴 and similar terms like 房奴 (housing slave) continue to be discussed as a matter of linguistics. For example this [1] uses it as an example of internet slang. I know that's a thesis, but it's not paywalled so it's handy. In this article [2] mentions are quite brief, but current, and it says most people recognize the term. Does this article have merit as a linguistic phenomenon even if it's not the hottest slang ATM? Oblivy ( talk) 01:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Oblivy, the use–mention distinction plays a role once again—is the term in itself notable, or does any article for it have to awkwardly describe both the term and the phenomenon, since the former may not be notable, as much slang isn't, and the latter may not justify its own article as a manifestation of a greater sociological phenomenon?
I hadn't found that article, thank you for linking it—I would really appreciate additional input from people that may have a local feel for whether these "things" are really "things" distinct from western analogues. This is definitely the realm of my personal opinion, but there are a lot of articles for "Chinese terms" that could use this kind of scrutiny, and reading them often feels icky, like they're reports from Victorian expeditions to far-off lands. Remsense 留 01:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply
The relevant excerpt from WP:NOTDICT says:

In other cases, a word or phrase is often used as a "lens" or concept through which another topic or closely related set of topics are grouped, seen or renamed. In such cases, coverage about a word, phrase or concept should treat it as such. The main coverage of the topics that were modified, grouped or renamed by the "lens" is typically elsewhere in Wikipedia. World music, Political correctness, Gay agenda and Truthiness illustrate this.

Remsense 留 02:13, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Another nomination with a lack of a valid rationale. So what if the topic is a "flash-in-the-pan"? Wikipedia:Notability is not temporary, and the concept does not have to have sources about it in every single part of the world for it to be notable. I also found this entire piece from Beijing Review on the concept and this, both published in 2010, indicating there was significant coverage out of the 2013-14 period. Admittedly, most of the sources that appeared in my search was about American slavery and not this concept, so there is not a whole lot about the topic. But there seems to be enough to make a small article out of it, and not being internationally known or currently covered is no excuse to not have an article on it. User:HumanxAnthro ( BanjoxKazooie) 20:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    • I am aware notability is not temporary, my point being that the 'flash' as it were did not generate enough coverage of the concept itself to constitute notability, and moreover that some false notion of notability may be generated simply by the term being in Chinese, and perhaps the material should be incorporated into a general article for the concept. Remsense 留 21:37, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    I believe the nom is referring to WP:SUSTAINED, which is a valid argument in a general sense. (I don't know enough about the subject to know if it's rightfully applied though.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    Meanwhile, I am voting Merge per BlackcurrantTea's reasoning. User:HumanxAnthro ( BanjoxKazooie) 15:43, 19 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -- I am firmly for deletion if the current cites the only WP:RS available. Without scholarly secondary analysis of the phrase, this should be deleted. As written, the article fails WP:GNG for WP:SUSTAINED and WP:DEPTH as well as WP:SIGCOV with a possible detour into WP:NOTNEO. I strongly disagree with HumanxAnthro's characterisation of WP:NTEMP in this instance. The question is whether this flash-in-the-pan ever had enough of a 'flash' to establish notability in the first place. Further, the lack of a valid rationale argument is simply false. Remsense discussed notability and sourcing, both of which are perfectly strong policy-based arguments. I also have a quibble with using general recognisability as a indicator of notability as Oblivy does above; flash-in-the-pan is familiar to nearly all English speakers, yet does not have a page in this encyclopaedia. However, I cannot !vote to delete at this time because I am unable to do proper WP:BEFORE research. All sources are in languages that I do not read and the cites in the article are all from a very, very narrow timeframe. If no one can provide solid RS with strong analysis and a wider range of dates, I will change to deletion before this AfD closes. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 14:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    Wuuuuuuuuutttt? I just brought up two articles from mainstream sources on the topic from 2010. Also, I have absolutely no idea what "strength" you saw. Remsense's only-cited policy page was NOTDICT, which does not even apply because the article IS about the concept and not just the phrase. His only notability complaints, to put it simply, were that there were not sources about this concept in other parts of the world. I would love to know what guideline prohibits a topic if it only exists or is covered within a specific nation state, because a lot of articles about animes are pretty much in trouble if that exists. Also, while WP:ACADEMIC coverage of the topic would help tremendously, it is not the end of the world if that does not exist. All that needs to happen for WP:GNG to be satisfied is a few independent sources (newspapers or magazines) to WP:SIGCOV the topic, and with the Beijing Review article and citations currently in the article, it seems to have satisfied that. User:HumanxAnthro ( BanjoxKazooie) 01:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    Keep although not enthusiastically so. The deletion rationales are pretty all over the place right now. Sustained isn't an issue. Notneo seems to give way to sustained. Sigcov is addressed with Chinese sources.
    @ HumanxAnthro Good catch on the Beijing Review and China Daily Articles. That means we have coverage in 2010, later in 2013-14 in analysis of internet usage, and then in 2019 or so in the PKU article. That's pretty sustained.
    There were two academic studies in Chinese in the 2010-2011 range:
  • 岳玉阁. “论‘孩奴’现象对幼儿生命成长的不良影响.” 教育与教学研究 25.10 (2011): 120–122
  • 徐安琪. “‘孩奴’炒作现象的负效应和辨正.” Dang dai qing nian yan jiu = Contemporary youth research 8 (2010)
And this 2023 article [3] gives it a passing footnote mention (bringing in the Beijing Review article) in the context of pressures on Chinese fertility.
I "quibble" with whether I actually advocated for using recognisability as an indicator of notability, BUT I do wonder whether the almost total lack of discussion of this concept in English sources means that it's really a Chinese-only phenomenon.
That all having been said, the China Daily article is 100% about this term, and there are multiple Chinese-language papers which use it as either a centerpiece or a significant example of online speech. I think that's enough.
Although not required by WP:NEXISTS it would be nice if some of this work could make it into the article... Oblivy ( talk) 02:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC) reply
I am increasingly ready to prefer merging or withdrawing entirely with the additional sources found during the discussion. I apologize if my initial arguments were presented confusingly, but my reasons for skepticism in articles like these are inherently multi-faceted, due to a number of contributing factors. Remsense 留 02:57, 19 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. Liz Read! Talk! 18:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Oumou Tangara

Oumou Tangara (  | 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, a Malian women's footballer, has not received enough coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions in squad lists and match reports ( 1, 2, 3, etc.) JTtheOG ( talk) 00:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:08, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

The Gracies and the Birth of Vale Tudo

The Gracies and the Birth of Vale Tudo (  | 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 to meet WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. I've tried looking for reliable sources, it's all just IMDb-style pages with a short synopsis and cast list. The article as it is now is just a clone of the IMDb page. There's been no media or critic engagement and no notable viewer engagement. The history of the article has just been obvious WP:PROMOTION, WP:COI, and some WP:CV. Spagooder ( talk) 22:19, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Mondera Chakroborty

Mondera Chakroborty (  | 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 film actress (yet). There is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are Independent of the subject. Most of sources are either passing mentions or primary (e.g. interview). Acted in two films but not yet released. Fails every criteria of WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR. আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk) 22:05, 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 delete‎. I noticed that many edits by the article creator Mateuka have been reverted. It might be wise to review other WWI articles on battles they have created if this is indeed a hoax article. Liz Read! Talk! 21:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

William Dadiani II

William Dadiani II (  | 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 hoax for which there are no sources at all. The creator has linked it to various existing battle articles already in the encyclopedia. Mccapra ( talk) 21:46, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

New Horizons (strategy)

New Horizons (strategy) (  | 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)

Completely non-notable campaign. Governments come up with many such schemes/"strategies"/campaigns all the time, does not make them automatically notable. Other than the publication of the strategy in 2009 here, I cannot find much external coverage. Search results include this unrelated charity.

Overall poor-quality article on non-notable topic. Elshad ( talk) 21:42, 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 delete‎. At 15+ years on Wikipedia, it looks like this article could be in the Top 10 of Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia if anyone wants to take the trouble to make an entry there. Liz Read! Talk! 21:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Sarah Powell

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

I can't find any information that suggests that this person existed. Google searches of her full name, the title of her best known work, and the title of the single reference for the page all return mirrors of the article and nothing else. Onorem ( talk) 21:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete agree that this appears to be a hoax.
Jahaza ( talk) 03:29, 16 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.

Thank you for deleting this article, it's a true mystery how it lasted 15 years Hila Livne ( talk) 18:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Yuantang (language game)

AfDs for this article:
Yuantang (language game) (  | 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 fails GNG. The prior AfD was withdrawn as clearly no sources were added and I don't care what zh-wiki says. Chris Troutman ( talk) 21:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Over at zh:苑塘话 there's another source listed, but I haven't found a link to it:
  • 罗建平. 举世无双的神秘罗氏族语:苑塘话. 客家风情, 2003.
This should be enough to demonstrate notability. — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs) 03:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep if I'm allowed to vote – I had withdrawn the original nomination after being convinced by the viability of the sources provided, but since then I haven't gotten around to improving the article, and didn't want to add the sources to it if they weren't being used yet. Remsense 留 06:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep "I don't care what zh-wiki says" is such a flippant attitude to take when it cites scholarly sources and is an affront to WP:BEFORE _dk ( talk) 06:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • keep: The first source given by Mx. Granger is from a journal started by a Chinese national museum which IMO is reliable. Based on the abstract, it should be considered as a secondary source as it provides an analysis/synthesis based on local chronicles and ethnographic materials. I don't have access to the full text, but based on the title and abstract, they should clearly have significant coverage. -- 94rain Talk 06:34, 22 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. Liz Read! Talk! 20:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

River Road Estates, California

River Road Estates, California (  | 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 housing development/subdivision fails GEOLAND Reywas92 Talk 21:02, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

San Joaquin River Estates, California

San Joaquin River Estates, California (  | 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 housing development/subdivision fails GEOLAND Reywas92 Talk 21:01, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Madera Country Club Estates, California

Madera Country Club Estates, California (  | 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 housing development/subdivision within Madera Acres, California fails GEOLAND Reywas92 Talk 20:59, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 18:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Embassy of the United States, Bamako

Embassy of the United States, Bamako (  | 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 articles say nothing about embassies, instead reduplicating extant articles about bilateral relations. Biruitorul Talk 20:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following related pages because [insert reason here]:

Embassy of the United States, Bogotá (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Embassy of the United States, Santo Domingo (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Embassy of the United States, Santiago (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Embassy of the United States, Muscat (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 High-speed rail in the United States. Liz Read! Talk! 18:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

North Atlantic Rail

North Atlantic Rail (  | 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)

While there was a brief flurry of press coverage at the initial announcement (mostly just regurgitating the press release), there is no indication of any enduring notability. There's been no coverage since 2021 - even their own website stops at July 2021. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 20:15, 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 merge‎ to List of Doomsday Clock characters. Liz Read! Talk! 19:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Rorschach (Reggie Long)

Rorschach (Reggie Long) (  | 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 version of the character is not independently notable. Some trade sourcing came out while the publication was ongoing (Polygon, CBR, IGN, a post-2013 WP:NEWSWEEK article), but no coverage in the five years since. Other citations are primary, like directly from the source material. If the article is not deleted, it should be merged and redirected into Rorschach (character). –  Muboshgu ( talk) 19:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment not voting yet but I felt it good to note that this article has been proposed for merging with Rorschach (character) since May of this year. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 23:20, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 19:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Gugak FM

AfDs for this article:
Gugak FM (  | 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 tagged uncited for over a decade. Previous deletion discussion said that ‘government-licensed broadcast radio stations have been held generally notable’ but that does not show this one is notable. Chidgk1 ( talk) 19:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and South Korea. Chidgk1 ( talk) 19:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: mentioned in [6] and in [7], but no significant coverage to establish notability. Owen× ☎ 21:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC) Changed to keep per sources found by Freedom4U. Owen× ☎ 03:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I'm really wary of deleting a national FM radio network like this. The kowiki article is little help, though it does cite a couple of articles on new transmitters for this service. There appear to be two articles in the Korea Herald from its launch in 2001, but I cannot access them. I also see it sometimes transliterated as "Kugak FM", and it gets mentioned in some of the academic literature—apparently this was an idea on the table going back to 1998. Someone with Korean language fluency and access to sources in the 1990s and 2000s could save this page. I don't have a !vote right now, but I'm skeptical of deletion. Sammi Brie (she/her •  t • c) 23:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Sammi Brie Your hunch was right—Google and Korean-language topics are often a terrible combo when looking for sources. I've left three SIGCOV sources in my vote below. I'd be interested in the Korea Herald article too, would it be possible to provide a link ot it? ~ F4U ( talk • they/it) 01:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment I'm also on the fence.
Looking on Google Books, there's a number of mentions of Gugak FM in English. This book [8] seems to have a reasonable discussion of it, although I can't access it beyond the preview.
I think maybe the article could be rescoped to cover the parent Gugak Broadcasting Foundation [ ko, which possibly has more notable coverage as it covers a wider number of stations, but I don't know who's willing to do that work (I'm not).
I'm not sure how much popularity the radio station or its parent have, although they are mildly important for Korean culture. I also doubt anyone is likely to come around in the near future and flesh out the article if we do keep it. Complicated; if it's deleted I'll be very slightly disappointed but I don't think it'll make much of an impact. toobigtokale ( talk) 12:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 19:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Btw I lean delete if nobody is willing to step up in near future to fix up and save it. So many more substantial Korea-related articles are in need of fixing, think it's unlikely anyone will ever fix this organically at this rate toobigtokale ( talk) 17:56, 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 keep‎. Discussion about a possible rename can occur on the article talk page or you can just BEBOLD. Liz Read! Talk! 19:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Renault Grand Prix

Renault Grand Prix (  | 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)

Blatant hoax. Speedy deletion was rejected for some reason, no idea why, as it's obviously a hoax. 91.82.169.36 ( talk) 18:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete appears to want to describe Renault's car in the 1906 French Grand Prix as OwenX indicates above, but that car doesn't pass WP:GNG. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 19:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

There is no notability guideline for topics related to the automotive industry. WP:NVEHICLE is exclusively for locomotives and ships, WP:NCAR redirects to North Carolina's Wikiproject, and WP:NCARS does not exist. - 91.82.169.36 ( talk) 06:20, 16 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 Inuit religion#Deities. Liz Read! Talk! 23:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Ignirtoq

Ignirtoq (  | 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 - the only mentions online are directly ripped from this article. There is one singular mention on one line with no source in a single not particularly notable book from 1907; aside from that I can find absolutely nothing else. CoconutOctopus talk 18:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk) 20:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 18:57, 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. Note OwenX's change of !vote due to new sourcing, this creates a consensus. Daniel ( talk) 19:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

First International Bank

First International Bank (  | 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)

Delete non notable organization, non encyclopedic content. microbiologyMarcus ( petri dish· growths) 18:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk) 20:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: would we keep an article based only on the subject's merit as being the largest bank in, say, McAllen, Texas? North Dakota has the same size population as McAllen. Other than an occasional small deal or lawsuit, I couldn't find any news coverage about this bank. Owen× ☎ 21:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC) Changed to Keep per Sammi Brie's thorough work on sourcing. Thank you! Owen× ☎ 19:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep I've given it a go to see if I can't improve this article. Seems to be just enough coverage. Sammi Brie (she/her •  t • c) 05:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Sammi Brie began adding sources. While we are at it we probably need to remove the Forbes (contributor) WP:FORBESCON article from references - it was in there before the AfD. Lightburst ( talk) 15:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 18:57, 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 , with no consensus to redirect at this time. This potential redirect can be explored via talk page discussion, potentially after some significant improvements are considered for the article as per comments in this debate. Daniel ( talk) 00:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Crime in St. Louis

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

This article is redundant with the crime section on the main St. Louis page. I think anything that could be included here should just be put on that page. Additionally, this article appears to be not nearly as kept up with as the main page (leading someone visiting this article to be misled with old information). This article is generally of low quality and not even really written in the right tone. Damiens the Regicide ( talk) 21:15, 1 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! 23:16, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 17:05, 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. Hey man im josh ( talk) 18:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Jim Powell (sportscaster)

Jim Powell (sportscaster) (  | 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 don't think Georgia Association of Broadcasters Hall of Fame is enough for N:BIO and am unable to find anything else of depth to establish notability for this broadcaster. With long tenures with the Brewers and Braves, I don't think there's an obvious redirect. Star Mississippi 23:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To analyse sources presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 17:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep, I've reviewed the sources presented above and they seem sufficient in affirming the subject's notability. Furthermore, searches for "Jim Powell Brewers" and "Jim Powell Braves" on Google Books yield results. Most notably, chapter 30 of this book is titled "Jim Powell and Chip Caray at Truist Park"; the chapter is about 10 pages long featuring extensive interviews and coverage of Powell. Left guide ( talk) 21:35, 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 no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Little Grill Collective

Little Grill Collective (  | 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:NCORP WP:ADVERT WP:TNT promotional, advertorial article based on hyper-local sources on a 48 seat hole in the wall run of the mill restaurant. Graywalls ( talk) 23:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Thrillist article is far from meeting the threshold of WP:ORGDEPTH. It is not a significant, independent, secondary source, but rather just one reflective opinion paragraph, so this would not be the source that can be used to meet the WP:AUD satisfying WP:NCORP source. Some of the other articles are just routine articles about the local happenings in the local press about local interest. NCORP not established. Graywalls ( talk) 01:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC) reply
A source does not need to meet ORGDEPTH to contribute to notability (and the coverage in that source is not just "trivial or incidental"). These are just the sources I found in spending a few minutes to search; I am sure there are more that would be harder to dig up. Your assertions that this is just a "run of the mill" restaurant have been demonstrated to be false. Elli ( talk | contribs) 02:19, 5 December 2023 (UTC) reply
SIGCOV, ORGDEPTH, ORGIND expects at least (at the absolute minimum) one source meeting regional, national or intertional coverage that is independent of the article subject company/group, in-depth, and secondary and multiple coverage by the same publisher or same journalist counts as one. What's really expected is a nice big slab of solid wood of the highest standards. In its absence, bringing in sawdust by the truck load is not a substitute. In general, the proliferation of local restaurant and bar articles has been an ongoing issue on Wikipedia and this article is no exception. Graywalls ( talk) 08:48, 5 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! 23:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • It's true every source doesn't have to be significant coverage; however a paragraph in a relatively routine coverage in which it lists places to check out do not amount to something that is sufficient to support WP:ORGDEPTH. We have a 1/3 of a steak and a bucket of ground meat. A full steak that's expected is not found. Graywalls ( talk) 01:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    Yes, I've already seen your arguments both in your nom statement and in response above. They don't get any more convincing through repetition. It's bad form to reply to every !voter unless you have something genuinely new to say. Central and Adams ( talk) 01:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 17:04, 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 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. Hey man im josh ( talk) 18:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Government performance management

Government performance management (  | 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 a non-notable concept. It appears to be a term used by consultants and in low-quality sources. If there is any content worth keeping, it can be merged with articles on "good governance" or "public administration". Thenightaway ( talk) 16:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:00, 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 delete‎. Hey man im josh ( talk) 18:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Gautam Kapur

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

Not yet notable per WP:BIO, WP:NMODEL, or WP:ACTOR. In a WP:BEFORE search I couldn't find any significant, independent, secondary coverage of him, just interviews in obscure news blogs like "Hindustan Metro", passing mentions in film notices, and WP:NEWSORGINDIA paid placement. His acting has all been minor roles so far. According to this reference, the short film he produced was an official selection at the Golden Door Film Festival, but the actual awards he's won so far are all from minor festivals of unknown notability. Zero secondary coverage of his vitamin business. Other editors interested in searching for coverage that I missed should note that there's an unrelated basketball player with the same name, and that this person's surname is sometimes transliterated as "Kapoor". Wikishovel ( talk) 16:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Considering this was only created recently, do not believe a soft-deletion here will 'stick', so relisting to establish a consensus either way.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 16:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete. For Linked-In. Not Wikipedia. MisterWizzy ( talk) 03:05, 16 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. Hey man im josh ( talk) 18:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Črnuče Bridge

AfDs for this article:
Črnuče Bridge (  | 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 not been much improved since it was last kept because it was only 4 days old. Chidgk1 ( talk) 16:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Source here saying it reopened in 2014 after restoration..♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I have added that information to the article. -- TadejM my talk 17:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

@ TadejM: On the revert. The lead is supposed to summarise the article though. Your version has information not in the body! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi, Dr. Blofeld. As stated, feel free to edit the article as you see fit, but the bolded names should be written in the lead and please take care to preserve the article factually correct. Only the railway bridge was destroyed in World War II, but the road bridge was not as it was used as a checkpoint. -- TadejM my talk 17:38, 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 keep‎. Former AfD was nominated; please move discussion to the actual nom. Non-admin closure. (non-admin closure) Nate • ( chatter) 17:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Črnuče Bridge

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Črnuče Bridge (  | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Črnuče Bridge|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)

In 2008 it was kept as the article was only 4 days old and it was hoped it would be improved. But still now nothing shows it is notable Chidgk1 ( talk) 16:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. I don't think this article should be deleted. It may be in a poor state at the moment, but otherwise the Črnuče Bridge (or its predecessor) has a long history starting in Roman times and was also prominent in World War II. [29] [30] -- TadejM my talk 17:05, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 20:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Ukiah area

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

This article was created in 2021 as a catch-all target for redirects. What happened was this: several information-less stubs on nonexistent "unincorporated communities" such as Largo, California and El Roble, California were proposed for deletion, and it was suggested they all be redirected here rather than deleted outright, since documentation exists that these were actual stops on the Northwestern Pacific Railroad. But in most cases that's all they were, non-notable sidings or flag stops, not "communities", and as a result this article on the "Ukiah area" is essentially just a list of non-notable railroad points; i.e. a WP:COATRACK (and an off-topic one at that). We already have a good article on Ukiah, California and Ukiah Valley; I don't see this as a sufficiently distinct topic to merit an article (the hand-drawn map does not impress me). The original stubs should have just been deleted, and so should this article. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 16:33, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 20:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Digital world

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

This article seems more appropriate as a dictionary entry per WP:NOTDICT. There doesn't appear to be much coverage of the term in a way that would support an encyclopedia article, such as for its history of usage.

The second paragraph of WP:NEO applies to this article: while there's plenty of evidence of use of the term, there's little coverage about the term itself. As an example, the reference for a statement in the article about the term predating the World Wide Web is misattributed, firstly, and links to an unrelated paper from 1958 that uses the term once. Said statement is WP:OR. Uhai ( talk) 15:16, 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 delete‎. Hey man im josh ( talk) 18:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Alan Jilka

Alan Jilka (  | 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)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and politician-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, United States of America, and Kansas. UtherSRG (talk) 14:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Mayor of Salinas wouldn't be notable without a ton of RS, which there isn't, beyond routine reporting of stuff going on in town where the mayor was involved. Congressional candidate isn't notable. Delete for not meeting notability requirements. Oaktree b ( talk) 21:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Salina KS is nowhere close to large enough that its mayors would get an automatic presumption of notability just for existing as mayors — the notability test for a mayor isn't passed just by minimally verifying that he exists, and requires writing and sourcing substantial content about his political impact: specific things he did, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects his mayoralty had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But there's nothing like that here, and not nearly enough sourcing to claim that he would pass WP:GNG instead of having to meet the requirements of WP:NPOL #2. Bearcat ( talk) 18:16, 22 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. Hey man im josh ( talk) 14:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Albert Hinrich Hussmann

Albert Hinrich Hussmann (  | 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)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and artist-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and Germany. UtherSRG (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep; and expand with the German WP article for example, as a start. His notability and legacy are discussed by reliable sources quoted there. Does meet WP:NARTIST as sources show: noted as a Symbolist animalier sculptor, see: this,or this to verify that assertion with some English sources available online....- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Mushy Yank's research. Randy Kryn ( talk) 08:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I have added some new citations to the article, specifically Benezit Dictionary of Artists and RKD Research. This artist's career spanned two world wars. I took a look at the German WP article. It is not well cited. The citations to the web are all 404 or dead. I do not have access to the print articles and books cited. I can't bring anything over from the German version. The most interesting fact from that article (uncited) is that Hussmann exhibited at the Große Deutsche Kunstausstellung and was a member of the Reichskammer der Bildenden Künste (Reich Chamber of Visual Art). After looking into this for awhile, I still cannot figure out if the artist was an important animalier sculptor. I also don't understand the importance to history of the artist joining Reichskammer der Bildenden Künste. Does this affect his place in history (has he been cancelled)? Are his porcelain figures collectible or is it just auctioneer hype? I hope someone with more understanding of the subject chimes in. I lean towards Keep with the new citations and the coverage in Wiki Commons.-- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 02:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep The source Mushy Yank pointed to, "The Animaliers: A Collector's Guide to the Animal Sculptors of the 19th & 20th Centuries" by James A Mackay from Jan 1, 1973 just says "Little is known of Albert Hinrich-Hussmann, beyond the bare facts of his birth in 1874 and that he exhibited three works in Berlin in 1909, but he sculpted a Young Stag which turned up at the sale-rooms in 1970." That type of brief mention isn't the best thing to base an encyclopedia article on, but an artist being written about in a book published in another country 60 years after an exhibition and 30 years after their death is far better coverage than most of the "contemporary artists" with Wikipedia articles who are covered only by their own website and maybe some random local news. Best of luck to those working on expanding the article and I'll also see if I can find anything else to expand the article with. Elspea756 ( talk) 17:39, 19 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 The Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers. Star Mississippi 14:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Fat Freddy's Cat

Fat Freddy's Cat (  | 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 seeing how this meets WP:GNG. No reception/analysis, weak 'in popular culture' section that has only a few minor examples, poorly rererenced and significantly overlapping with reception related to its parent work ( The Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers) where this should probably be redirected per WP:ATD-R. My BEFORE shows nothing else that meets SIGCOV and RS requirements. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:28, 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. after article improvements. Liz Read! Talk! 20:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Celina, Minnesota

Celina, Minnesota (  | 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 crossroads with a house and outbuildings at the corner. Maybe it was once a store, maybe not. Searching turned up a passing reference to a "Ladies Aid of Bear River, Silverdale, and Celina Minnesota" in a discussion on the making of lefse, which I would submit is a very weak peg to hang belief in an actual town on. Other than that I got juxtapositions and gazetteers. Mangoe ( talk) 13:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Minnesota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Unfortunately, the St Louis County plat search yields nothing for this, and it is broken anyway. But this is in the Northwest St. Louis, Minnesota unorganized territory, and — by definition — there are no towns in an unorganized territory. "Town" is not what you think in Minnesota. There might be cities, though. Welcome to the mid-West! The Minnesota Natural Resource Atlas has no charter cities at all in this unorganized territory, so this would be a statutory city, if it actually were a city. The 2001 revised Upham book says "village", which is problematic (as they don't appear to have caught up with 1974), with 2 post offices. Uncle G ( talk) 19:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Even though this place no longer exists, it did in that past, and that makes it notable. -- rogerd ( talk) 00:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I can see why the article was nominated; most of the sources on Celina, Minnesota, are in Norwegian. Dozens of them, actually. But there are indeed sources. Celina was a Norwegian-American village in the early 20th century with a church, post office, stores, cemetery, and a fire lookout tower. It was still regarded as a community as late as 1974, when the Minneapolis Star ran a story about the damage on the bridge between Celina and Greaney. I'm also seeing many English-language news articles about Celina, but most of them are humdrum announcements of farm auctions, cattle sales, people visiting each other, and weekly articles about services at the Celina Ltheran Evangelical Church. Still, there is significant coverage of Celina in Norwegian-language publications in both Minnesota and Iowa. This was a notable place. While the community has eroded since those early days, the 1940 census gave Celina a population of 5, and the Minnesota Department of Transportation estimates that Celina still has 10 residents. There is no need to delete an article about a community which has historical significance. I've expanded the article. More work could be done. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:17, 20 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. Star Mississippi 14:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Email deliverability index

Email deliverability index (  | 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)

"Email deliverability index" is not a concept covered in reliable sources. Notability is not established at all. While I could not check all the cited sources, it's likely they do not mention the concept at all (that seems to be the case for The Complete Guide to E-mail Marketing How to Create Successful, Spam-Free Campaigns to Reach Your Target Audience and Increase Sales), and probably the others too judging Google Books search. MarioGom ( talk) 10:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep and rename Email deliverability (currently redirected to cold email) which is a notable topic though the index, if it exists, isn’t. Mccapra ( talk) 21:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete the article if it contains original research or unverified content, which violates Wikipedia's no original research policy. Wikipedia requires all information to be verifiable and sourced from reliable, published sources. -- Loewstisch ( talk) 15:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete — I disagree with the keep & redirect !vote in that doing so implies that the term is a potentially notable one. Certainly, you can create such an index, but it isn't among the more established email metrics which are alluded to but not well fleshed out in the 1st and 2nd editions of Chad White's work which is the first citation. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 19:03, 19 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. Star Mississippi 14:52, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

KumoMTA

KumoMTA (  | 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 does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. MarioGom ( talk) 11:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Not sure how /info/en/?search=Halon_(software) and /info/en/?search=Halon_(software) are fine, but this is nominated for Deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhillyer ( talk • contribs) 13:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply

See WP:WHATABOUTX. There are many articles in Wikipedia that might need to be deleted, but this discussion is about KumoMTA, and it will be discussed based on its own merits, regardless of any other examples you find. MarioGom ( talk) 17:16, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply
They don't appear much better, thank you for signaling them, I'll review for possible deletion as well. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Being hosted on GitHub isn't notable, anyone can throw anything up on the site. Sources found are the GitHub repository, their own website and Reddit thread. Nothing we can use for sourcing. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:21, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Voronoi manifold

Voronoi manifold (  | 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 does not seem to pass WP:GNG, and contains a large amount of unsourced content that cannot be verified. MarioGom ( talk) 11:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:20, 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 Draftify‎. with a side warning that if you re-create this again, Manvith Manu, you will be sanctioned for disruptive editing. The prior draft with the AfC history is now at Draft:Varthur Santhosh (old draft). Star Mississippi 14:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Varthur Santhosh

Varthur Santhosh (  | 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 page has been speedied and recreated several times. There is a claim in the article to redirect to Bigg Boss Kannada (season 10) which stops me from deleting it per WP:A7 / WP:G11, but I think a discussion is warranted. If the article is deleted, I recommend salting to avoid re-creation (which would then be able to be done simply using WP:G4 anyway). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Why you are deleting those information Manvith Manu ( talk) 11:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
The biographies of living persons policy is long-standing. Effectively, you cannot write about living people without immediately giving high-quality sources of where you got the information from. Without this, it is far too easy to accidentally libel someone without realising, so it is prohibited by policy. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:43, 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. Star Mississippi 14:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Bridge 9 Records

Bridge 9 Records (  | 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)

Lacks sufficient completely intellectually independent, significant, secondary coverage on the company and after a quick WP:BEFORE, I deemed that it lacks sufficient WP:ORGDEPTH coverage to satisfy NCORP. Graywalls ( talk) 11:19, 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 delete‎. While the rewrite solved to the copy paste, there is still no sourcing which means no article. Star Mississippi 14:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

2023–24 Desborough Town Football Club season

2023–24 Desborough Town Football Club 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)

Article is a copy and paste of the Brighton one. There is info on Desborough Town but it fails GNG. Dougal18 ( talk) 10:54, 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 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. Star Mississippi 14:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Afghan Scene

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

unsourced article about a magazine, written like an ad copy. fails general notability guideline. ltb d l ( talk) 10:34, 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. The Wordsmith Talk to me 20:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Lucario

AfDs for this article:
Lucario (  | 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)

Regretfully, I am forced to nominate Lucario for deletion, as there's no evidence that the concerns of the previous AfD this year were addressed in recreating the article. I went into the article legitimately hoping that new solid sources were found to back up the notability of Lucario but ultimately found nothing - it's largely sourced to listicles that often discuss numerous other Pokemon besides Lucario.

Ultimately what the previous AfD this year found remains exactly the same, Lucario simply isn't notable at all. Again, it would be great to be proven wrong, but what I see here does not cut the mustard or merit a recreation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 09:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • We have tangible results illustrating the character's recognizability and popularity, through a poll by the company, a monthly average of search engine results across multiple companies, and one regarding...er..."fan works".
  • Analysis of why the character is popular and that impact
  • Analysis of it's design, both positive and negative, and more importantly an example of the shortcomings of "Gen 4"'s design as a whole
Now while I get this isn't the strongest of articles, I will contend after the sources presented the article demonstrates real world notability in the same way Snorlax was argued to during its AfD: that it's a recognizable icon, and unlike Snorlax, I can at least cite some discussion here. While I'd personally agree the article is on the weaker end, what's cited here I feel demonstrates that in the manner it was presented. Thank you.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 12:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
There is no article you can pick out from the article's sources of any significant length that is specifically about Lucario. That already makes it far weaker in coverage than Snorlax. I don't think the two are comparable. If I asked for the WP:THREE they'd all be clickbait top-10 lists and that is a bad sign.
I am also not particularly enthused about your wholesale reversion of my edits to the article in an attempt to at least remedy some of its problems. I do not see a reason for doing so besides "I don't like these edits", which is going dangerously into WP:OWN territory. Editors do not unilaterally control articles, please open a discussion instead of simply deleting anything you do not like. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 13:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
I felt the additions came across as trivial and were why I avoided those from the original article (i.e. the Sly Cooper comparison is...odd), and that the recurring comment about its possible origin isn't dev info. Additionally the articles cited discuss him in some degree of depth, and WP:THREE is an essay, not a strict guideline: it's purpose is to help one argue for an article's existence. In this case, I feel the print source (which in turn cited Official Nintendo Magazine's Thomas Elliot calling it "the best designed Pokemon" in its universe, but I felt that may have been non-independent quote given who produced ONM so I opted not to cite that), TechRaptor, and The Gamer's own analysis which go into depth and devoted several paragraphs to discussing the subject). I am confused too at your assertion of "clickbait"; they are, again, discussing the subject at hand not tricking the reader, so that was...weird to bring up?
The point of notability is to establish that a subject is discussed and there's significant enough discussion on a subject to warrant an encyclopedic look at it. There are sources that I could have cited that you've argued for before, like articles like this that you felt were strong enough for Felyne, or content like this that you argued worked as WP:SIGCOV for Sagat (Street Fighter). But I felt those didn't provide notability due to a lack of discussing the work as a fictional character.
The article is organized the way it is on purpose. While I spoke in anger, it isn't a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It's intended to give a proper flow to the reception section.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 13:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Yes, WP:THREE is an essay, but WP:GNG is the policy. Thus far no sources have been raised that show this subject meets the notability guidelines. We are looking for significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources that discuss Lucario as a subject. What do we have? Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 14:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Sirfurboy🏄 The TechRaptor article devotes four paragraphs of discussion to the character. The Gamer, while it can be argued shouldn't count towards notability per WP:VG/S, devoted 3 paragraphs in their own discusison. IGN had one author devote a paragraph each to discussing the character across two articles. The Centennial article devoted several paragraphs discussing the subject but admittedly some were for gameplay and intended to be cited for there if the article was further developed. Outside of this article there is also this paper published in Scandia that discusses it in the context of the film and relation to medieval imagery as a familiar, but I wasn't sure the best way to work that in or if it was more for the film. It could be bolstered by additional sources from The Gamer but I didn't want to work more valnet into this.
While I'll admit this article is weaker, I feel the assertions in the AfD argument are trying to paint it as strictly relying on UGO.com or Complex style lists that aren't saying anything, when there are tangible thoughts at least being cited. The assertion of "clickbait" is, at the very least, unfounded.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 15:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Thank you. I have some reading to do then. I'll take a look at these. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 15:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Given the current reliable references demonstrating notability from both a critical and audience perspective as well as the arguments presented by Kung Fu Man, I don't exactly see a reasonable cause for why this article should be deleted given how this article generally falls in line with notability presented in other similar articles. The Scandia article is especially of note given how it's a direct analysis into the influence that would later inspire Lucario's role in his dedicated film. SuperSkaterDude45 ( talk) 03:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep Despite my previous afd on Lucario (2nd nomination), I feel like it might be barely passing WP:GNG after the improvement of reception section (furry fandom and stuff). GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 08:39, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Pokémon: Lucario and the Mystery of Mew - The best source presented is clearly the Scandia paper, which is a goood source, clearly meeting GNG. However, the paper discusses the character within the context of the film, as Kung Fu Man said. So we have a page on the film, that could be expanded on the subject of the introduction of Lucario. There is mergeable content here regardless of whether this page is kept or not. But then, should this page exist in its own right? There is no real case at this point for a spin out of the Lucario character from the film article. We aren't even close to size arguments for that. The question is whether there is significant coverage that treats the character apart from the film. The problems with TheGamer were admitted but WP:VG/S also raises issues with Techraptor. In both cases, arguments could be made that the articles in these can be reliable and independent, but from where I am coming from, I don't see articles listing characters as being good examples of secondary sources. This, I think, is what the nom. means by listicles. It is the Pokemon franchise that is notable, and because it's notable, we get lists of the characters, but these don't really speak to significance of the character outside of the franchise, and notability is not inherited. So at this point I feel that we have to cover Lucario per the Scandia article, but the place to cover that is in the film article. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 09:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment Sort of torn on this one. Still thinking about whether it is sound to base notability from self-evident cultural significance inferred from very broad but shallow coverage, even if few sources really cover or analyse the subject matter in detail. I am mindful that the character articles deletion trend is a little mired in a difference of philosophy over notability, and I think it would help to have better guidance or more discussions over what approach is best as there's been a lot of these sort of articles deleted recently. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk) 11:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply
The issue here is whether an article is notable if literally all coverage of any significance comes from blatant content farm articles, which listicles are.
I'd say the answer is "absolutely not", because content farming is literally an attempt to flood the internet with minor and trivial content in order to game the search results. Its the antithesis of the reason the significant coverage criteria exists. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 13:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply
I blatantly disagree with that assertion that they're "content farm articles". Tangible thoughts are being cited here on the character and why it's important. It's not "10 THINGS YOU DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THIS CHARACTER" or "What reddit thinks about THIS!" It's thought out statements that are discussing what it is and either critiquing its design or importance, and to a smaller extent its recognizability, which many articles on here are built around to the same degree. Including a few I'll note by you or works you've argued for in the past.
You can argue it's on the weaker end of notability, I'd argue bigger sources would indeed be nice. But it discusses the character significantly in an encyclopedic tone for reception and establishes importance to those not familiar with the media. That's what notability is for.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 15:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Weak keep There is some sustained coverage on Lucario. It is significant coverage, but also not very deep. In some cases, that coverage is described in excessive detail to emphasize the coverage is indeed significant coverage in a way that gives it undue weight. But at the end of the day it's there, and its scarcely enough. That the commentary is fixated on comparing Lucario to Mewtwo, Anubis or Digimon still belies the fact that these are independent and analytical ideas, just shallow ones. Depth of ideas in significant coverage is secondary to whether it provides enough of a perspective to inform an article without inference, which it does. That said, I think the practice of stuffing nominated articles with unnecessary detail to 'protect' notability is not really necessary and clutters the article. But there's also been a lot of good work done too. That said, I guess the next step for this article is a bit of a cleanup. But that's not a notability issue. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk) 20:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep per above. It's certainly weaker than some other articles but it definitely has enough to stand on its own for now. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 17:43, 20 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. Star Mississippi 14:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Karen L. Parker

Karen L. Parker (  | 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)

Lack of clear notability Revirvlkodlaku ( talk) 09:38, 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 redirect‎ to Jasper O'Farrell. As a viable ATD since a case has been made for why the prior one resulting from the prior AfD didn't work. Editors are welcome to discuss alternate targets, but there is a clear consensus this shouldn't exist as an article. Star Mississippi 14:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

O'Farrell Street

AfDs for this article:
O'Farrell Street (  | 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 list of districts is not a Wikipedia page. Xx236 ( talk) 09:36, 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 redirect‎ to List of machinima works. Liz Read! Talk! 07:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Zinwrath

AfDs for this article:
Zinwrath (  | 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 doesn't seem like there has been much written about this machinima film; I haven't been able to find significant coverage. The sources I've found consist of:

  1. A 2011 paper by Stanford's Henry Lowood titled "Perfect capture: Three takes on replay, machinima and the history of virtual worlds" where Zinwrath is merely mentioned in a list of examples. (This segment can also be found in Lowood's 2010 book The Machinima Reader)
  2. Lowood's 2009 "Warcraft Adventures: Texts, Replay, and Machinima in a Game-Based Storyworld" where it's, again, just mentioned.
  3. A 2007 hundred-word article on Engadget
  4. A 2009 Engadget interview with one of the people who worked on it, where less than a hundred words are dedicated to Zinwrath in general (there was a previous video also containing Zinwrath in the title).
  5. A 2008 igromania.ru article, with a paragraph about Zinwrath and Illegal Danish: Super Snacks

Thus, I'd propose a redirect to List of machinima works, where it already has an entry. toweli ( talk) 09:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Redirect Great work on doing a WP:BEFORE. I was also able to find a passing mention in World of WarCraft Magazine. Regardless, passing mentions fall short of significant coverage needed for notability. The coverage is too short to evidence even basic things like what the film is, what happens in it, and how it was received. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk) 11:28, 16 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. The Wordsmith Talk to me 04:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Government Mamit College

Government Mamit College (  | 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 refernces outside of press release Sohom ( talk) 10:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted by WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 12:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Sohom I will update with more source

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting. We still need some more opinions here. There hasn't been much participation in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:54, 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 redirect‎ to Doctor Who: The Monthly Adventures. The history is there if independent coverage is eventually found for these to convert to merges Star Mississippi 14:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

The Harvest (audio drama)

The Harvest (audio drama) (  | 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 independently notable, does not pass GNG. Best redirected to Doctor Who: The Monthly Adventures. I am also nominating the following related pages because they exhibit the same characteristics. They do not meet the GNG, and they ought to be redirected to the same target:

The Axis of Insanity (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Arrangements for War (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Roof of the World (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Medicinal Purposes (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Scherzo (audio drama) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Wormery (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Game (audio drama) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dreamtime (audio drama) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Catch-1782 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Heavy Grasshopper ( talk) 11:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No responses, please do not add more articles to this bundled nomination that will likely close as No consensus if this continues. I hope you notified each article creator of this AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect/Delete all Lacks significant independent coverage. Reywas92 Talk 20:47, 9 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    Keep Scherzo, which has independent notability as the direct inspiration for The Message (podcast) as documented in Slate here. [43] I’d also note that all of these will have at least one independent source in Doctor Who Magazine, which will have reviewed all of them, and which is published independently of the BBC. But with Scherzo I can confirm two are available. El Sandifer ( talk) 05:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    That Slate reference to Scherzo provided above is not significant coverage, it's a clear passing mention, stating that one element of Scherzo inspired one element of The Message. Also, the statement that Doctor Who magazine has reviewed them all feels a bit like WP:SOURCESEXIST. We need evidence of that- citations-, so we may check if the reviews were significant, reliable, independent, etc etc. Heavy Grasshopper ( talk) 09:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    It’s certainly enough of a reference to create a “cultural impact” section out of it, if only a sentence or two long. That’s hardly fleeting—it’s significant information about the story. As for DWM, I’m hardly speculating on the source existing. I guarantee you every one of these has a review. But to stick with Scherzo, looks like it got a review in issue 341, on top of a preview in 338, both of which will be a solid couple of paragraphs. And DWM, though it has a license from the BBC and scads of access to people on the show for interviews (not that there was a show to have access to at the time of these audios) is independent—it’s published by Panini, not the BBC, has its own editor, and is given leeway to publish negative reviews, which it often did. So I’m not speculating here—all of these have at least one viable source, Scherzo has two. El Sandifer ( talk) 15:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    Great, thanks for the information about the magazine. It's a shame none of the Dr Who audiodrama articles I've seen seem to cite it, perhaps that can be done. I don't think the Slate source helps for AFD purposes for Scherzo. Sure you could create a one-line cultural impact section from it, but it doesn't contribute to Scherzo meeting the GNG. Heavy Grasshopper ( talk) 19:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    I strongly disagree that “is the direct inspiration for a clearly independently notable work” is a trivial mention. That’s clearly significant, to my mind. So I stand by my strong keep for Scherzo, and a more moderate keep for everything else given that it’s all sure to have one source—-I’d at least want to confirm that neither Dreamwatch nor SFX were regularly running reviews as well. Ooh, and the Celestial Toyroom would also be an obvious source to check. But with three separate magazines that are all reasonably likely to have been covering the Big Finish releases and one that definitely was I think the odds that these meet the GNG are strong. El Sandifer ( talk) 23:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    Thanks for giving your views. Let me know if you do find reviews in those other magazines. Heavy Grasshopper ( talk) 08:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    Will do, but none of those magazines have the sorts of thorough indexes that Doctor Who Magazine does, so it’s trickier. Glancing at a random 2015 issue of SFX I can find online, I see that they are running Big Finish reviews at that point, but I couldn’t tell you when they started doing that. Still, only increases the odds that all of these are sourceable. El Sandifer ( talk) 20:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, right now we have no consensus. But if there are sources out there, it would help if at least a few could be located and brought into this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:50, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Hatim El Otmani

Hatim El Otmani (  | 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. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep Talk 09:37, 1 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! 07:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Otherwise, this would be a Soft Deletion and I'm guessing would be instantly restored.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:48, 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 delete‎. The Wordsmith Talk to me 04:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Instigator Ph

Instigator Ph (  | 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 fails WP: INDEPENDENT. Doesn't merit an article as no publication has been made. Fails WP: BUSINESS Mastashat ( talk) 07:06, 8 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! 07:44, 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 redirect‎ to Technology in Star Trek. History remains if consensus forms for content to be merged Star Mississippi 14:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Medicine in Star Trek

AfDs for this article:
Medicine in Star Trek (  | 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 a fun topic but the article is in terrible shape that may merit WP:TNT-treatment, particularly as it is after all trying to tackle medical topics, and it is far from anything related to quality sourcing ( WP:MEDRS) required. Much of it is unreferenced, and the first part is arguably ORish, with footnotes to Star Trek episodes. No academic source is cited (GScholar suggests something on this could be found, although it is not clear to me whether an overview of 'medicine in Star Trek' is possible). Subtopics like Hypospray can be independently notable (and that article exists and has some academic refs), but whether this can be salvaged, I am unsure (since the articles I see concern specific subtopic, like Nursing in Star Trek of genetic engineering in ST, etc.; ditto for sources identified in the AfD 10 years ago which haven't been even added to the article but suffer from the same limited focus). For now I suggest, per WP:ATD-R, to redirect this mess to Technology in Star Trek, with perhaps some short merge. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:40, 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. after article improvements. Liz Read! Talk! 04:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Callum Stone

Callum Stone (  | 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 entire article consists of mostly plot summaries, with nothing to suggest the character's notability. Sources in the article are either primary (episodes and interviews), news more about the actor, or episode recaps. A quick Google search does not give any sources that prove individual notability. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to List of The Bill characters#Sergeants. Spinixster (chat!) 06:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Shooterwalker: More sources/coverage have now been found by another user😊 DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk) 16:00, 20 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! 07:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep, I agree that the article does need work but the 11 sources do show notability. I disagree that the article is plot only as the development section shows real world info as it reveals behind the scenes information. He is notable and was one of the last original characters. An actor's appearance on the show does have to do with the character (e.g. an actor playing a shopkeeper and an actor playing a policeman will have very different experiences due to different storylines, stunts, reception, research etc). If it not kept, it should be merged as recommended, not just redirected as otherwise the information will be lost. DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk) 07:52, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    I said mostly plot summaries, not purely. But either way, it's not enough to prove notability (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D.B. Russell for a similar instance). Just because an actor is known for playing a character does not mean that the character is independent notable (again, per above, notability is not inherited). Notability is based on whether or not sources that talk about the character significantly from a real-world perspective exists. Also see WP:FICT. If you need me to elaborate I'll gladly do so. Spinixster (chat!) 08:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I contributed to this article years ago. Looking at it now it needs a lot of work to get it to an acceptable standard. I will see if there are additional sources and try to improve the article. Rain the 1 18:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Update:Strong Keep – The article has had huge improvements done by mostly Raintheone, with the new sources showing clear notability. The plot only sections have been removed and it is now all sourced development showing out of universe information. Per WP:HEY and notability guidelines, I strongly recommend that this article is kept. DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk) 16:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I think there is enough information about the character from independent sources and significant coverage of the character. I removed all the episode summary style sources which were originally in place. I deleted the entire storyline section, it smacked fancruft. I will also continue to improve it. Rain the 1 23:56, 20 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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

SAFE Credit Union

SAFE Credit Union (  | 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 a bank that lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. The current references do not contribute to notability. A Google search didn't turn up anything. Citrivescence ( talk) 03:40, 1 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! 03:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete: Appears this does not meet the WP:NCORP due to a lack of secondary sources. Let'srun ( talk) 04:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Other than the four newspaper articles? RecycledPixels ( talk) 16:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply
RecycledPixels, I haven't examined the sources in this article but my experience closing AFDs has demonstrated to me that WP:NCORP is a very tough standard to meet. Liz Read! Talk! 03:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 07:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment already stated keep above. I'm reluctant to personally invest a significant effort into improving this article due to some potentially-perceived COI conflicts. But mainly because I'm not interested in writing articles about companies. But since I am very familiar with the company, I have spent a relatively small amount of time sorting through newspapers.com archives to add some reliable, independent references that I think should meet notability concerns. Since this company has invested in a sponsorship deal with the city's premiere concert venue, most of the top pages of search results will turn up trivial mentions of the company in the context of various performances. So you have to use your Google-Fu to exclude mentions of the performing arts center in order to fairly evaluate the notability of the article subject. But you'll still have to wade through a whole lot of articles about various branches being robbed, ATM thefts, and so-and-so just got promoted in the company, and other trivial, non-significant mentions. The company is not well-suited to the typical AFD thirty-second google search to glance at whether it's a notable company. It's the second-largest credit union in the city, by assets (I recently added that reference to the article). This isn't an article about some garage band, or an "up-and-coming" business trying to generate enough buzz to survive its next round of funding. Hope that helps. RecycledPixels ( talk) 08:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, as seen here, there are about 50+ instances of independent coverage just within the past two years alone. In addition to the vast expansive local coverage, there's a quote in the New York Times and a paragraph in the Associated Press. Left guide ( talk) 16:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, there is significant coverage in newspapers. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝) 23:32, 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 no consensus‎. The sourcing table has not been responded to or refuted and hence consensus can't exist here given the relatively low participation. No prejudice to an immediate relist if so desired. Daniel ( talk) 01:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Art Whizin

Art Whizin (  | 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 business person. Fails WP:GNG. Mikeblas ( talk) 03:29, 22 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! 05:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Source assessment table: prepared by User:siroxo
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Harvey, 2009, LA Times [51] Yes please keep in mind this article was published more than 10 years after subject's death Yes Yes example quote

The way Art Whizin told the story, he was sitting at the counter of a downtown burger joint called Ptomaine Tommy's, trying to visualize the restaurant he wanted to build.
Then a truck-driver friend next to him slid over a chili bowl and said, "Here, Whizin, do something with this."
And that's how Whizin, the one-time amateur boxer, decided in 1931 to construct an eatery in the shape of a chili bowl. Why not? Merchants were putting up businesses that resembled ice cream cones, tamales, coffee kettles and sundry other objects -- all trying to catch the eye of passing motorists.
The 25-year-old entrepreneur opened his first Chili Bowl on Crenshaw Boulevard near Jefferson Boulevard after raising $1,200 by selling, among other things, his wife's wedding ring and his roadster. The couple moved into a house nearby.
"Because he sold his car, he had to have his business within walking distance," explained Jim Heimann, author of "California Crazy & Beyond," a study of offbeat roadside architecture.
Whizin told Heimann in a 1978 interview that he sketched the design of the restaurant on the corduroy pants he seemed to always be wearing. Perhaps he didn't want anyone else to get their hands on the plans.
Or perhaps "he was embellishing the story," Heimann said with a laugh. "He was an interesting character."
The Chili Bowl had no tables, just a 26-stool circular counter, and Whizin bragged that his young workers, most of them college boys, could "flip a pat of butter from the center of the counter to the edge of any of the 26 plates."
The place was an immediate success with its specialty dish called the chili size, an open-faced hamburger smothered with the homemade goodness.

 ✔ Yes
Pascal, 2013, Arcadia Publishing [52] Yes Yes Yes (p. 79)

Art Whizin became known throughout Los Angeles for having established the Chili Bowl restaurant chain in Los Angeles in 1931. After purchasing land in Agoura for development, his decisions often clashed with city planners and environmentalists. Some of the businesses he attracted to the area included the Bear Cabaret (a topless bar), a go-cart raceway, low-income housing, and a mobile home park. Though he received a humanitarian award in 1988 for "40 years of continuous dedication, service and unselfish contributions to the City of Agoura Hills," he often stated that he was the most hated man in Agoura although he did not understand why. Below is a photograph of his restaurant menu. Today, Whizin Market Square is a popular community and tourist destination.

... (p. 105)

The first water was delivered to residents in 1963, thanks to the efforts of residents like Art Whizin. When Whizin came to Agoura in 1949, there was no water and no sewers. The Agoura community at large (500 residents at that time) wanted to preserve the rural flavor of the life style in the area. Whizin was one of 11 that bypassed Agoura residents and used their property as collateral to finance bonds to bring water and eventually sewers to Agoura.

 ✔ Yes


Sherry, 1998, Daily News Yes Yes ~ quotes:

On Wednesday, Moran again stood and watched workers attend to the sign, outlawed by an Agoura Hills sign ordinance, passed by a city that didn't even exist when Whizin's was built.
Moran said he always wanted to play by the rules, so he promised the city that he would remove the sign a "reasonable amount of time" after the death of Art Whizin, his business partner. He gave the city no more assurance than his word, and that was good enough, Adams said.... Whizin died two years ago, and on Wednesday Moran kept his word.

 ~ Partial
Barker, 1988, LA Times [53] Yes Yes ~ quotes

...fair sponsors had agreed in a rental agreement with owner Art Whizin to remove the structures by June 30
...
The foundation was formed earlier this year to fight the proposed development, a 160-home gated community planned by Heller and Whizin.

 ~ Partial
Wilcox, 2006, Daily News [54] ~ There are quotes from family, but also many facts stated in the voice of the paper. Yes Yes quotes

His father had recently bought 320 acres that was part of Paramount Ranch...They ate at a little 12-stool, three-table hamburger stand with a couple of Mobile Oil Co. gasoline pumps out front. Art Whizin bought that, too, and began renovating the property....
By Mother's Day 1954 all that remained was a slab, but customers came anyway, so many that Art Whizin set out some tables and chairs....
It evolved into its present form over the years and the Whizin name became familiar to travelers along Highway 101.
...
Between 1930 and 1941, Art Whizin opened 21 Chili Bowl restaurants around Los Angeles, buying each lot for between $300 to $500. In the late 1940s he closed the business and began selling the lots.

 ~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:00, 7 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) 07:22, 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 Speedy delete‎. WP:G5. (non-admin closure) Usedtobecool  ☎️ 14:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Nabin luhagun

Nabin luhagun (  | 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 fails WP:NACTOR. Has three roles, all of which were minor. There is also nothing in-depth that would show how he meets WP:GNG. CNMall41 ( talk) 07:01, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Appin (company)

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

This article appears to go against WP:Libel policy. The subject of the article is in legal litigation with Reuters the publisher of the major source cited in the article. Reuters has taken down the report from its website in compliance with an Indian court order. See Reuters editor’s note here [ [55]]. Other sources cited all quoted the Reuters report that is no longer in public domain. In this [ [56]], SentinelLab quoted the Reuters report as its own source: “After an extensive review of this data, brought to our attention by Reuters investigative journalists”, then this [ [57]] quoted SentinelLab as its own source all linking back to the Reuters report. These sources can no longer be relied upon as the original source of information has been taken down by a court order. The remaining sources in the article only reported the court order forcing Reuters to take down the article. Metroick ( talk) 05:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep This company is detailed in this earlier Reuters report [58] which was not taken down. Further, the court order and the impugned report are discussed here [59] and here [60]. The litigation is publicly acknowledged by Reuters. And, as noted in the 404 Media article the article is still on Internet Archive. That should be enough for notability.
There may be some basis to say the facts in the impugned article aren't verifiable, because the article is no longer truly published pending court scrutiny, but that's a pretty slender reed.
As to the issue of libel, although I can not find the Indian court order it was a preliminary order. That likely means substantive determinations on the Reuters article (again, only the one report which was taken down, not the still-live one linked above) are yet-to-come. So it's highly unlikely, and certainly not reported anywhere I can see, the report has been found to be libelous. If libel is found by the court at some later date, this article could be reconsidered on that basis. Oblivy ( talk) 05:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Courts aren't arbiters of truth. However, since the company primarily seems to be notable for the article and the subsequent lawsuit, and 95% of the sources I can find online are about that, the article should be moved to Appin hacking allegation lawsuit. Or something more elegant than that. Cortador ( talk) 09:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    It seems there's still a fair amount of reports on the hacking. I'll change my vote to keep. Cortador ( talk) 14:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I'll set aside arguments about GNG and NCORP (both are met) since they're not brought up in the nom. I don't think it can meet WP:LIBEL if it's verifiable and cited to reliable sources, and Reuters is a pretty top-tier RS, whose report is based not on one or two anonymous sources but on an investigation by three reporters who have a history of covering this subject area (one of whom has won an award for it). Reuters says it stands by its reporting, and RS that have covered the company after Reuters's removal (like 404media) do not treat the reporting as suspect, rather they blame lack of press freedom in India. It reminds me of Pierre-sur-Haute military radio station, where we kept the article despite legal threats (against a Wikipedian, not just a news outlet). I would also oppose a move since the "main" story is the revelations, not the Reuters lawsuit about the revelations. DFlhb ( talk) 13:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: The New Yorker reported on the issue, article is more than adequately sourced. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - As author. Meets WP:GNG. My personal take on this is that India is trying to scrub a report into the darker side of its intelligence aparatus. I don't know why we'd want to help them with that. The irony here is that in trying to scrub the report, the company becomes more notable for trying to scrub the report. Streisand effect? NickCT ( talk) 16:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Notable company. Article title change is not needed. Capitals00 ( talk) 05:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is libelous, the main source of the article has been deleted which was Reuters. Most of the publications from the websites were gotten from Reuters and since the reuters source is down, this should be considered no longer credible. Chaosbrigader64 ( talk) 09:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Have not evaluated notability as of yet, but as LIBEL is handled by WP:OFFICE, leaning speedy keep as AfD is not competent to decide on such an issue. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 10:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    Speedy/snow keep. I'm standing by my assessment that there is nothing for the community to do here. Offline sources are still sources. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 03:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for the meantime pending the final determination of the lawsuit against Reuters article that has now been taken down. It can be recreated after the final verdict if it goes in favour of Reuters which is confident in its journalists and their reporting by stating that it stands by its reporting. The issue here is not about the notability of the company but the lawsuit. It will not be surprising if the company sue the other sources cited in the article as some of them quoted Reuters reporting as their source and if that happens it may lead to the taking down of such press articles thereby stripping this article of its major sources. Lagdo22 ( talk) 12:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The accusations were provided by Reuters, which is one of the highest regarded RS, and they continue to stand by their reporting. Since the article was pulled down by only a prima facie court order, Reuters has not had an opportunity to defend their reporting. If it turns out the content was falsified Reuters would retract the article and the article can be reconsidered then. The sources currently not being available due to court order is not an issue because WP:LINKROT is a known, very common, and already solved problem on Wikipedia. Jumpytoo Talk 20:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment I have added four additional citations, two extensively discussing the company and two about the controversy. If (a big if) there was any serious question about whether the court-ordered suppression of the Reuters story somehow defeats notability, this should put an end to it. Oblivy ( talk) 01:56, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Daniele Filippi

Daniele Filippi (  | 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 Joeykai ( talk) 04:41, 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 delete‎. ✗ plicit 00:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Caravaggio to Canaletto

Caravaggio to Canaletto (  | 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 temporary art exhibit may be notable if it has a lasting impact. This is not evident from the text. Furthermore, the article gives no independent, substantive coverage. I think therefore that the topic fails wp:gng Ruud Buitelaar ( talk) 03:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 04:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, as a routine temporary exhibition such as every gallery and museum holds, all the time. All such exhibitions get press mentions at the time (otherwise no one would know to go to them!) and some get passing mentions in other contexts from time to time afterwards, but for a stand-alone article we need some in depth sourcing. Elemimele ( talk) 07:03, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Donald Trump's rhetoric

Donald Trump's rhetoric (  | 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 scope of this article is undefined and could include anything the man has ever said about anything in his lifetime soibangla ( talk) 03:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Changing to Keep per WP:HEY. The changes made to the article following my initial comments (in favor of draftifying) and arguments made by others (particularly SPECIFICO) in favor of keeping the page have convinced me to reconsider. It clearly needs more work, and renaming to Rhetoric of Donald Trump is strongly advised, but I now believe there is sufficient sourcing and enough encyclopedic content to justify keeping in mainspace. A. Randomdude0000 ( talk) 04:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Draftifying, would be my second choice. GoodDay ( talk) 03:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Trump's rhetoric in-and-of-itself is notable and has been analysed scholars. I'll link to a few papers and books dedicated to it: [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70], though somehow I can't find the couple of papers I remember reading that were on-point. Per my comment on the talk page I recommend treating this as separate from the planned article on authoritarianism. I also oppose draftifying because it no longer meets the WP:DRAFTIFY criteria since it was expanded after the comments above; it now has merit and contains a reasonable amount of verifiable information. DFlhb ( talk) 06:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    I don't recall there was the planned article on authoritarianism. Rather, creation of this article seems to be a broad and undefined invitation to include everything the man has ever said about anything, since the 1970s. Imagine the possibilities. Even renaming the article to Trump authoritarian rhetoric should not be used as a compromise to deflect any reference to it in the BLP. I am increasingly concerned that relegating this to ancillary articles is a deliberate effort to exclude any mention of his authoritarian rhetoric in the BLP, despite it being abundantly sourced for years as a distinctive characteristic of the man. soibangla ( talk) 07:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    should not be used as a compromise to deflect any reference to it in the BLP Categorically yes.
    I am increasingly concerned that[...] So am I. The way I see it is that I've presented enough sources for it that non-inclusion in the main BLP would be counter to policy, and there's recourse for that.
    There's also recourse against people who would try to include irrelevant material from sources that don't analyse aspects of his rhetoric directly and in depth. DFlhb ( talk) 08:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The article needs work, but AfD isn't cleanup, and the topic is notable since Trump's rhetoric has received a lot of attention and has been analysed by a number of people. Cortador ( talk) 09:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for now. Needs lots of work and attention, which I hope will be sparked by this AfD. There are many secondary and tertiary RS publications to support relevant content. It's possible the page title will be tweaked, and it should not be viewed as a fork of the main Trump page, where there's obstinate, insupportable, opposition to even a brief mention of his most significant recent themes and preparations for his second term. SPECIFICO talk 12:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify Half the article is just an excerpt of False or misleading statements by Donald Trump and the page needs more work before it's ready for mainspace. Reywas92 Talk 16:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    Well, that suggests that at least half the article is at least properly sourced. Draft will get less attention and less of a chance to develop. SPECIFICO talk 18:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - WP:NOTPROMO "Wikipedia articles about a person, company, or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts." Campaign rhetoric and character assassinations, leading up to a presidential election. And-or for daily postings in his legal issues/comments. It gives his supporters a cut and paste quickie for their social network postings. This would amount to a forum in the guise of a Wikipedia article. We really shouldn't be giving any candidate this. — Maile ( talk) 00:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    Such content would not remain in any article for long, per NPOV weight, NOTNEWS, etc. The same concern could be raised with respect to any article about a political campaign, a performing artist, et al. There is a substantial literature that presents expert and, increasingly, shcolarly summary and analysis of the themes and narratives of his public speech. SPECIFICO talk 01:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Initially my position was that this topic was too poorly defined to merit an article, but upon doing some research, it turns out there are a fair number of scholarly works on this exact topic (i.e. Trump's methods of persuasion and modes of communication) including a scholarly book by this very name : https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv1rr6dh8. (We should likewise rename this page Rhetoric of Donald Trump, I think.) The extent of the literature leads me to think the topic is indeed notable and has drawn significant scholarly and media attention. This, however, is not the topic that was being proposed on Donald Trump's Authoritarianism, nor should an article on either of these topics be taken as an excuse to continue omitting discussion of the scholarly literature and extremely extensive media coverage of Trump's authoritarian inclinations or statements from the main article. That omission of one of the most widely written about aspects of the man continues to be scandalous. 67.82.74.5 ( talk) 01:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I think this can be a good article that other aspects of Donald Trump's rhetoric can be linked to. For instance, False or misleading statements by Donald Trump which can be considered part of his "rhetoric" can be mentioned in a section here, along with List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump and Social media use by Donald Trump. This page can also serve as a place to put recent concerns about his authoritarian and violent rhetoric by the media until there is enough content and coverage that its own page could be warranted. BootsED ( talk) 02:26, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This article is taking shape and can be a good thing. Well worth keeping, and certainly passes WP:GNG. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 04:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep there's a significant amount of coverage discussing his rhetoric, especially after he started talking about "poisoning the nation's blood" and everything a couple weeks ago. AryKun ( talk) 14:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for the reasons given above. Jack Upland ( talk) 23:24, 19 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) 01:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Baran (singer)

Baran (singer) (  | 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)

nn, tagged unaddressed since October 2022 - Altenmann >talk 02:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Editors can't just say "Sources exist", you must share specific links or citations so others can investigate whether they demonstrate notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:41, 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 redirect‎ to The Coddling of the American Mind. I found the nominator's statement and evaluation of sources to be very persuasive and reflects not only Wikipedia policy but also the rough consensus of participants. Liz Read! Talk! 01:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Safetyism

Safetyism (  | 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:NOTNEO. "Safetyism" is a term coined by the authors of a 2018 book The Coddling of the American Mind by two free speech advocates ( Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt) and their co-researcher Pamela Paresky. It is a social hypothesis that a certain mindset is the cause of then-recent American student campus behaviour that the authors find unsatisfactory. That this is actually the primary motivator of this behaviour, that this behaviour is in any way recent, or that the behaviour is universally regarded as unsatisfactory is disputed by some.

No dictionaries contain a definition. Onelook, Merriam-webster, Macmillan, Oxford Learners Dictionaries, The American Heritage Dictionary, Vocabulary.com, Cambridge. I see that Collins Dictionary noted that the word was proposed to them in 2020 but remains under review. A google search of the BBC "safetyism site:bbc.co.uk" also finds nothing.

Having the term as an article has two consequences. As WP:NOTNEO notes, it can "increase usage of the term" by giving it a validity undeserved by sources. As currently written, the article is entirely uncritical, writing about this proposed explanation of student behaviour as though it is an established concept in social psychology. And we comment on this concept as though this is a universal and timeless failing of human behaviour rather than a recent concept proposed and promoted by two free speech advocates complaining that and how their students keep protesting about stuff. Currently the article on this term is longer than our article on the whole book, and its main source is an academic paper that itself promotes a neologism (ideacide) and only briefly mentions safetyism among three "dynamics". Most of the relatively small number of sources using the word are political opinion pieces that are themselves promoting free speech, citing the book or its authors, or using the word as a weapon against whatever kind of activism they dislike.

Compared with Truthiness, which is a similar social neologism but swiftly became word-of-the-year and is highly used and discussed. Within social science, this "safetyism" is a fringe concept lacking WP:WEIGHT. Even within the book, The Coddling of the American Mind, "safetyism" is a minority of the work. Another comparator would be " Autistic enterocolitis" a term coined by Andrew Wakefield as a proposed explanation of autism. We do not have an article on that because it is also a fringe (and discredited) concept in medical science, though we do have Lancet MMR autism fraud that discusses it.

That it is disputed that this word "safetyism" is even a "thing" and whether it has any significant currency outside of American university politics c2018 means it is best discussed briefly in the context of our article on this book on American university politics c2018. I suggest that "Safetyism" be discussed with appropriate, relatively brief, weight in the book article, and safetyism be turned into a redirect. -- Colin° Talk 14:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Draftify while we look for better sources. Owen× ☎ 12:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • User:OwenX, I'm not nearly as familiar with AfD as you. But there can't be any sources "from over a decade ago" because it was only coined in 2018, five, nearly six years ago.
    When I read WP:NOTNEO it tells me to watch out for the difference between sources using a term than ones that are actually about the term. We have some opinion-piece advocacy sources where people have picked up that word and used it. We have some sources commenting on the book and its fallout. But the two sources about the term Safetyism Was Never Real and Safetyism Isn’t the Problem both actually argue that it isn't really a thing and that anyone using the term is wrongheaded or trying to fool their readers, not that you'd learn that from the article text.
    As a tertiary encyclopaedic source and for a subject worthy of its own article, what I'd expect is for us to be citing some secondary sources explicitly on "Safetyism" as a concept in modern social psychology. That after five, nearly six years, we'd find dictionary definitions, book chapters, books even, all explaining to students what this accepted academic term is and means. We can't. Because it isn't an accepted academic term. It is a fringe idea by two guys who wrote a book. That this neologism is used by some free speech advocates doesn't seem to meet the requirement at WP:NOTNEO. -- Colin° Talk 10:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    My mistake! Google Scholar incorrectly reports the term as being used in J.S. Beck's 2011 Clinical textbook of addictive disorders. Thanks for prompting me to dig deeper. Changing to Draftify while we look for better sources. Owen× ☎ 12:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- This is being discussed in journals and the sourcing seems adequate. 'With the advent of smartphones, parents' surveillance adds to the “culture of safetyism” that predominates on college campuses...' [71], 'Lukianoff and Haidt contend that an atmosphere of “safetyism” threatens the university’s ability to serve as an arena for free speech and academic freedom. In this paper, we examine their thinking...' [72], '...a “national wave of adolescent anxiety and depression”; overprotective parents caught up in “safetyism”; campus officials who encourage dependency...' [73] etc. I am NOT implying that all of these results are independently RS, but they do indicate adoption in limited but persistent use and support the sourcing already in the article. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 15:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    I'm not disagreeing that some sources use the term but the sources you give aren't using it as a real word outside of scare quotes, or using it independently from the book as though this was a concept with wide acceptance.
    1. The first article only once mentions “the culture of safetyism” and they do so in scare quotes while citing the "The Coddling of the American Mind". That's not evidence they think this is a term in modern social psychology, only that they wish to quote some other author's work.
    2. The second source also uses the word in scare quotes: 'In The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas are Setting Up a Generation for Failure, Lukianoff and Haidt contend that an atmosphere of “safetyism” threatens the university’s ability to serve as an arena for free speech and academic freedom. In this paper, we examine their thinking...' Again they are effectively quoting the book, and their article examines its claims with comments from their own experiences. They only use the word twice in their article, both times they are in-text referencing the book/authors and the claims the book/authors made. They are not using the word for themselves as though it was a real word.
    3. The third source is simply a book review of "The Coddling of the American Mind". They use the word "safetyism" in scare quotes, because they also don't actually regard it (yet) as a real word, and are merely stating what the book itself claims in order to pass judgement on the book. -- Colin° Talk 16:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Per analysis of sources by Colin, most of the coverage of the term seems to be related to The Coddling of the American Mind. So a redirect to The Coddling of the American Mind seems most appropriate, unless better sources which discuss it more independently or more in depth can be found. Shapeyness ( talk) 20:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 13:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - A robust critical section should be written using sources to provide balance. Political opportunists will certainly use the concept irresponsibly, even using mean or hateful rhetoric. Haidt & Lukianoff use it rather responsibly, but are transparent about the political dimension of related discussions. -- skak E L 14:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    Skakkle I see you made some edits to "provide balance" and I certainly felt that as previously written the article was uncritical (see talk page comments). But I'm concerned your changes to the lead are not sourced (nor do they appear to summarise the body). Do you have some sources for the remarks about Safetyism that you added. Without those, it is possible to see that your changes might simply be undone per WP:V. -- Colin° Talk 08:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    In voting "Keep", I recommended to the community and anyone interested that robust critical section should be written. I'm sure the community and anyone interested can achieve that.
    My contributions were intended more narrowly. My edits sought "de-nature" the inflammatory frame of the term safetyism and help discover a less controversialized frame to talk about the substance of the topic and the subject matter at hand (university policy, how students really feel, how academics & authors talk about these things, the issues that spark the most trouble in these university contexts, etc). My contributions might not be perfect or complete but I made them in good faith & I am hoping the community and anyone interested can continue to work on this productively together. skak E L 13:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    Skakkle, I don't doubt your good faith and intentions and I'm not suggesting you are required to personally fix the article. I generally agree with your additions, but that doesn't mean I've been able to source them. My research suggests the limited sources available on this topic hinder the ability to write an appropriate "robust critical section" with appropriate sources (there is some criticism in sources but they are either dealing with politics or in response to the book). I think this diminishes the weight of a "keep" vote that assumes something is possible that may not be. High quality sources have "better things to do" that attack ideas that never widely took off in the first place, which had a short-lived significance in American politics in 2018, and aren't established concepts. -- Colin° Talk 14:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 05:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to The Coddling of the American Mind per the nomination. Evidence is lacking that this is, you know, a thing. That is, it so far appears not to be a concept that has grown to be bigger than the book while maintaining a coherent definition. We don't need to provide a studiously balanced, critical overview of a topic that isn't encyclopedic to begin with, and keeping such an article around invites synthesis of remarks from everybody who has written something that vaguely sounds like the same idea. The reception of a book can be covered in the article about the book. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: seeing as additional sources might be hard to find, I'd also be happy with a Redirect to the book, as suggested by others. Owen× ☎ 14:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment. Here are additional independent secondary sources where Safetyism is discussed, that collectively validate WP:GNG. I have quoted passages which demonstrate WP:SIGCOV of Safetyism as a standalone topic. All of the articles are called Safetyism is ___, not Review of The Coddling of the American Mind, demonstrating that the topic is discussed independently of the other article. Lastly, arguing against the merit of a single source does not discredit the merit of the others, as WP:GNG only requires two or more sources, which demonstrate significant coverage, and that are independent (COI-free) of the subject.

  • "Safetyism Was Never Real". Insight Higher Ed. June 4, 2020.
The article states: Launched into the world by Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff in their book, The Coddling of the American Mind, “Safetyism refers to a culture or belief system in which safety has become a sacred value, which means that people are unwilling to make trade-offs demanded by other practical and moral concerns.According to the authors, safetyism, along with other factors such as “screen time,” were causing observable increases in anxiety and depression among young people, as well as leading to protests such as the one over Halloween costumes at Yale, which the authors see as an illiberal assault on the values of the institution. Coddling was published in 2018. I am trying to recognize the description of a generation which is so apparently fragile that they cannot even bear a challenging thought with the one that has been the greatest number of those facing pepper spray, tear gas, beatings and rubber bullets on the streets as they protest systemic injustices in the wake of the recent killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and Ahmaud Arbery.
The article states: During the second half of the twentieth century, concentrated efforts were made to make the world safer for children, drivers, and vulnerable people. All fifty states passed safety belt laws. Sharp objects were removed from homes and day care facilities. Toys and playgrounds became softer. It worked. Death rates for children declined steadily. Over the first two decades of the twenty-first century, however, “safety” has broadened to include emotional safety and this broader understanding of safety has become a fundamental value and ideal. Especially on university campuses, young people protest triggers – co
The article states: With the steady decline in organised religion among the British, other beliefs have stepped in to fill the vacuum, guiding us and providing a framework with which to live our lives. The decline of organised religion hasn’t ushered in a world that is rational, logical and rooted in empirical scepticism; our modern materialistic secular world is full of new superstitions, rituals and faith. One of the most visible of these new doctrines, after gaining traction for many decades, blossomed in 2020 - that of safetyism.
The article states: Something is going badly wrong for American teenagers, as we can see in the statistics on depression, anxiety, and suicide. Something is going very wrong on many college campuses, as we can see in the rise in efforts to disinvite or shout down visiting speakers, and in changing norms about speech, including a recent tendency to evaluate speech in terms of safety and danger. This new culture of “safetyism” is bad for students and bad for universities.
The article states: As America debates when and how to reopen, those concerned about the side effects of the lockdown have begun to use the word “safetyism” to characterize what they consider extreme social-distancing measures.
The article was locked to me. It is titled "The rise of Safetyism has entered the courtroom". It is as unrelated as it gets to a book.
The article states: In recent years behaviours on university campuses have created widespread unease. Safe spaces, trigger warnings, and speech codes. Demands for speakers to be disinvited. Words construed asviolence and liberalism described as ‘white supremacy’. Students walking on eggshells, too scared to speak their minds. Controversial speakers violently rebuked – from conservative provocateurs such as Milo Yiannopoulos to serious sociologists such as Charles Murray, to left-leaning academics such as Bret Weinstein.
The article states: The outcome of Tuesday’s presidential election will reveal whether the feminized, therapeutic culture of the university has become the dominant force in the American psyche. During the last eight months of coronavirus panic, a remarkable number of Americans have deliberately — one might even say, ecstatically — embraced fear over fact. They have shut their ears to the data, available since March, showing how demographically circumscribed the lethal threat from coronavirus infection is: concentrated among the very elderly and those with multiple and serious preexisting health conditions.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Safetyism to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". बिनोद थारू ( talk) 03:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks for listing the sources you believe matter. The rule for an article on a novel word for a proposed concept is WP:NEO which requires more than usage of the word in some blogs. The NYU Stern source is actually written by Haidt and Lukianoff so isn't really independent of the book. Many of the other sources are culturally conservative blogs. Theopolis is a evangelical church blog, Manhattan Institute is a conservative think tank, Institute of Public Affairs is another conservative think tank. Movementum Magazine is a self published blog. The Insight Higher Ed source is a blog on that site and is actually claiming the concept doesn't exist that writers/speakers are just abusing that neologism for political games. The New York Times is an opinion column about covid lockdown commenting that people are misusing the term to justify their position on that matter.
None of these are reliable sources for anything more than the author's opinion, should that have any weight. What none of these are are journal articles in sociology or linguistics or undergrad or postgrad textbooks or even political books devoted to this topic. Instead some hot headed opinionist has picked up a neologism they recently read in Haidt & Lukianoff's book (which they loved because it is so critical of these lefty social justice warrior students that they hate) and used it to rant about coronavirus lockdowns or about how parents these day are not like when I was growing up and had to go to church each Sunday with polished shoes and a suit and a respectable haircut. It's a bit like you found a bunch of right wing blogs ranting about how wokeism has infected our schools but not the scholarly work on what the term " woke" is and how that term is used and misused today. -- Colin° Talk 10:08, 21 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 comments since the last relisting so I'm closing this as No consensus. It would be nice to see more of these sources added to the article but at least it is no longer unreferenced. Liz Read! Talk! 01:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Akasya Durağı

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

This article on a Turkish television series has no references and so does not satisfy either verifiability or notability. It consists of a one-paragraph overview, and a long cast list in an infobox, in which a majority of the entries are red links. There is nothing about what third parties have said about the show. (Maybe it has been reviewed, and maybe it hasn't.) It has been tagged as having no sources since 2015, and still has no sources eight years later. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply

--->changing to Keep in the light of the sources presented by Kadı below, and that prove the series was important nationally.- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the notification.- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply
No sorry I don't think I am competant to do so as I am not a native speaker. You could use them to cite the Turkish article and see whether anyone there objects. If they are accepted there I withdraw my delete vote. Chidgk1 ( talk) 17:49, 2 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! 23:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:21, 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. I hope some of these newly found foreign language sources find their way into the article. Liz Read! Talk! 01:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Bruno Holzträger

Bruno Holzträger (  | 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 do not believe this person is notable enough to have a wikipedia page, though there is enough correctly cited information to possibly warrant the page staying FA Myn J ( talk) 02:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Arcanum (a Hungarian - not Romanian - newspaper archive) seems to have some coverage of him, including what appears to be a feature story on him from Hermannstädter Zeitung in 1970 (decades after his Olympic participation) - it includes this image which was uploaded to Commons - I can only see a small picture of what the newspaper looks like though before I get a paywall notice so it's hard to tell - @ Nenea hartia: Seems to have uploaded the image: do you have access to this source and can you determine whether this coverage on Holztrager is significant? BeanieFan11 ( talk) 16:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • @ BeanieFan11: I don't know what to say. I think he is definitely notable for ro.wiki: he was an Olympic handball player, a handball referee and coach of Karres Mediaș (later renamed Record Mediaș), with which he won the Romanian women's handball championship 3 times.
As for Arcanum, yes, it is a Hungarian newspaper archive, but it also contains hundreds, if not thousands, of Romanian newspapers. Yes, I have access to that source and a search for 'Bruno Holzträger' returned 28 results. His name is mentioned especially in German-language Romanian newspapers. At that time, there was a significant German minority in Romania (about 400,000 people), and handball was introduced to the country by them. In the beginning, there were handball teams only in Romanian cities with a significant German population. Holzträger's name is mentioned in Neuer Weg (the main German-language newspaper), in Sportul Popular (the main Romanian-language sports newspaper), in Curentul, and other national or local newspapers, from 1948 to 1996. If you wish, you can download from here the newspaper pages from which I cropped the photos uploaded to Commons (the link only works for 6 days). 28 references might not seem like much, but the communist press, especially in the 50s, was very strictly controlled and the only 'stars' that could be written about in abundance were the communist dignitaries.
Bruno Holzträger is also mentioned many times in this book about Romanian handball players and coaches of German origin. As you can see, there are enough reliable sources from Romania, but too few international sources. However, I would like the article to be kept if possible. -- Nenea hartia ( talk) 19:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
@ BeanieFan11: There are a couple. Please use the same link, I have added two more files. For example an article from March 1996 called Ein Mann namens Bruno Holzträger (A man named Bruno Holzträger) or a short obituary from 1978: Bruno Holzträger gestorben (Bruno Holzträger died). Most of the others are generally mentions of him as a handball player, coach, or referee.
There could be other references to him, for example in this big Romanian newspaper archive. Unfortunately, although every scanned pdf has OCR, there is no search engine for the whole database, so a search by Holzträger's name is not possible. -- Nenea hartia ( talk) 20:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
The obit is okay, but the other one is really good. That with the book is enough for notability in my opinion. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 22:15, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Egyptian conquest of Tunisia and Tripoli

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

This article is a POVFORK and a work of fiction. it is already established in our article Abd al-Wahid Zakariya ibn al-Lihyani that this caliph took power with Egyptian support. This is not controversial. However I can find exactly zero sources discussing a non existent “Egyptian invasion of Tunisia and Tripoli.” That is a piece of authorial invention. Mccapra ( talk) 02:05, 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 no consensus‎. Merge !votes clearly outnumber Keep. As this is not a vote, the arguments must be weighted according to their strength. Keep supporters presented a number of additional sources, as well as analysis of them. They demonstrated that the article does meet WP:GNG, which was not refuted by the Merge !votes.

Merge supporters had a number of !votes that were WP:PERX with no actual arguments. A few were even "Per X", where X was just "per Y". Some other !votes had invalid rationales, including one that incorrectly claimed there were no secondary sources. Generally, merge supporters did not adequately address the sources presented or analyzed in the discussion. However, they did make a compelling argument that the article failed WP:EVENT. This was partially addressed by Keep supporters, but not fully refuted.

As far as weighing the strength of arguments, on one hand the article passes GNG. WP:EVENT gives additional tests on top of GNG, so it must meet both. As the author of WP:EVENT, I think it probably does barely pass but the arguments that it may fail on lasting effect and persistence of coverage are compelling and were not refuted.

This AFD has been open for nearly a month, though there were issues due to the malformed listing. Another relist seems unlikely to make a consensus materialize. The best way forward is to incorporate the new sources into the article, and a future AFD (if necessary) can determine whether it meets WP:EVENT.

Disclaimer: I had my whole rationale typed up but XFDcloser ate it, so my rewrite might not be as polished. The Wordsmith Talk to me 04:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Beit Rima massacre

Beit Rima massacre (  | 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 fails notability per WP:NOTNEWS (three sources date for the day of the event or the day after), as well as being grossly miscategorized - categories mark it as 1991 while 4 news sources say October 2001. One sentence mention in the Second Intifada article could be sufficient. GreyShark ( dibra) 09:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep: It is extremely unlikely that the nominator performed an adequate WP: BEFORE, since this event is a long-term case study used in sources such as this 2014 Springer-published journal on psychological warfare: "The first major use of this theme came after an IDF raid on the village of Beit Rima north of Jerusalem in October 2001...", in this Brill source, in this 2003 report by HaMoked, etc. The WP:NOTNEWS claim is wholly untenable. Iskandar323 ( talk) 11:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Justanotherguy54 ( talk) 19:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment: The merger votes being provided here are thin on policy. For starters, the proposed merger target already has 74kB of readable prose, so per WP:TOOBIG is itself a candidate for trimming/splitting, not expansion. On top of this, not a single WP:MERGEREASON has been provided. There were some early merge votes that cast doubt on notability, and subsequent merge votes seem to have merely echoed that despite ample additional sourcing being provided. The latter in turn raises another point: that of the clear WP:NOTMERGE argument that is available based on the additional sourcing - that the material has plenty of room to grow as a standalone topic. So: no particular reason to merge + good reason not to merge. Iskandar323 ( talk) 21:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Am I missing something? This seems to clearly pass GNG and the reports after the attack show a strong case for WP:LASTING. I don't think a merge is a good solution, this is not significant enough as an event in itself for a section in the proposed target, but it does have sources for content and meets GNG so a link in the proposed target to this article seems like the best way to present the material SUMMARYSTYLE.
Source eval from article:
Comments Source
A full article from the Washington Post, clearly WP:IS, WP:RS, article unquestionably has WP:SIGCOV (16 full properly written paragraphs) 1. Hockstader, Lee; Williams, Daniel (25 October 2001). "Israelis Kill 6 in Raid on Village". Washington Post.
I have doubts about the NPOV of this source, but it is an WP:IS with WP:SIGCOV, it also is years after the event, showing LASTING. Defending Human rights in Palestine since 1979.
A full article from the Guardian, clearly WP:IS, WP:RS, article unquestionably has WP:SIGCOV (19 full properly written paragraphs) 3. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Goldenberg, Suzanne (October 25, 2001). "Israel defies US with bloody raid for killers". The Guardian.
A full article from the New York Times, clearly WP:IS, WP:RS, article unquestionably has WP:SIGCOV (30 full properly written paragraphs) 4. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h Bennet, James (October 26, 2001). "Israeli Raid Made Village a War Zone". The New York Times – via NYTimes.com.
Didn't bother to look due to the above sources, but this is a RS. 5. ^ Jump up to:a b c Human Rights Watch. Israel, the Occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip, and the Palestinian Authority Territories. 14:2. April 2002. pp. 9-10.
A full article from the New York Times, same author as above but they are different articles (they contain much of the same info), clearly WP:IS, WP:RS, article unquestionably has WP:SIGCOV (28 full properly written paragraphs), the information that is in this article that is not in #4 above would be considered SIGCOV on its own. 6. ^ Bennet, James (October 25, 2001). "Israelis Storm Village in the West Bank". The New York Times – via NYTimes.com.
  • Because of the above, I just gave a cursory look at the sources Nableezy presented and they also seem to be WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth even if there are some NPOV questions. The report seems to show LASTING.
  • We all know NOTNEWS is interpreted and applied very subjectively, editors often disagree in gf, In this case I think the event rises above routine news.
  • I didn't do a BEFORE because this seems to be a keep based on the above.
  • I do agree the article should have a better name, the massacre was part of a larger event. I would suggest something along the lines of 2001 raid on Beit Rima, not wedded to any particular phrase, but to meet WP:PRECISE this should be named differently.
Again if I'm missing something, ping me.  //  Timothy ::  talk  06:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Although this AFD was opened in November, apparently, it wasn't added to the daily AFD log page so this is the first relisting. Right now, opinion is divided. I'd like to see those advocating Merge respond to the source evaluation and latest arguments in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep per @ TimothyBlue Homerethegreat ( talk) 17:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Upon second revision, perhaps it is actually due and better to merge and therefore I change my vote to merge per arguments above. Homerethegreat ( talk) 08:49, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Kiribati–Spain relations

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

This article is largely based on 1 primary source. The relations are not subject to third party coverage. Most of the interactions are in multilateral contexts eg with other Pacific Island and the EU. Fails GNG. LibStar ( talk) 00:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:46, 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. At AFD, we have discussions about deleting articles based on Wikipedia policies. It sounds like the nominator is actually arguing for a Merge which can happen outside of AFD back on the article talk page. There is no support here for the deletion of this article. Liz Read! Talk! 00:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

List of The Book of Boba Fett characters

List of The Book of Boba Fett characters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD |

Per User:TNstingray at Talk:List of The Book of Boba Fett characters#Existence, I am wondering if there should be a List of The Book of Boba Fett characters page? Like obviously it has more than enough sources, but I don't see why that information could not just be included at The Book of Boba Fett itself and the character pages for the characters featured, since most of the character information here is for characters that already existed. As User:TNstingray noted, it feels really pretty much totally redundant considering we have a standard List of Star Wars characters, plus the more specific List of The Mandalorian characters, and there were no original characters from this series notable enough to receive Wikipedia pages. Boba Fett has existed for decades, Black Krrsantan and Cobb Vanth were book characters first-and-foremost (the latter mainly appearing in The Mandalorian afterward), and the Mandalorian and Fennec Shand also appeared first in The Mandalorian. The entire main and co-starring character section consists solely of characters who appeared first and primarily in other Star Wars films and shows, and told in more relevant detail on those pages, and then what is left is "Featured guest characters" and "Minor guest characters". Also this was a single-season miniseries. I don't know of any other single-season miniseries on Wikipedia to have its own list of characters page. ICOTEYE ( talk) 00:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy keep. The article is very well sourced, as the nom admits, and both it and the proposed merge target are already beyond the optimal size for an article. I don't see a coherent reason for proposing deletion or merge. Owen× ☎ 00:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    Comment That is the thing. Removing the information already repeated much better on other pages, we are left only with the "Featured guest characters" and "Minor guest characters" sections, which are small enough to easily see merging with List of Star Wars characters. Like there are characters whose total screen time amounts to less than four minutes (I counted) who have three paragraphs-worth of content; that can easily be cut down. It is a very WP:FANCRUFT-ridden page, even for Star Wars character pages. ICOTEYE ( talk) 01:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I think this is a very clear WP:DINC situation. A merge may be worth discussing, but it's not necessary as ATD or NOPAGE. — siro χ o 03:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Character lists are common and I find it hard to believe that characters from any major Star Wars production would somehow not be notable. Maybe improvement is more merited than trying to trash it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 10:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Just because information is notable for inclusion on the encyclopedia, does not meant it immediately warrants its own article. I'm not quite sure what benefit this article provides that is not already covered, or could be covered, at The Book of Boba Fett#Cast and characters, List of The Mandalorian characters, or List of Star Wars characters, to name a few. Is the Book of Boba Fett so notable for its characters that it warrants a separate article on Wikipedia? I don't think so. The sourcing reflects the general buzz about a new project in a popular IP, and yet we don't have unique character articles for any other Star Wars projects (besides Mando). Yes, I am aware that WP:OTHERSTUFF is an argument to avoid. However, as someone who has tirelessly attempted to revitalize character lists for numerous franchises on the encyclopedia, I have become increasingly convinced that Wikipedia is not the place for these at all due to their tendency to accumulate cruft, and their incredible inconsistency. Instead, the subpages at Fandom (website) are the better location for these dives into minor, unimportant characters. My vote does not lean strongly in any particular direction. I just feel that the current list system has a lot of problems. TNstingray ( talk) 19:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply
    Considering this from a Wikipedia-centric point of view, keeping a narrow scope like this is a good way to keep a "real world" focus and a higher article quality, so a merge into a list with a broader scope might backfire with respect to your stated goals.
    I do think there's a fair argument to merge it into The Book of Boba Fett#Cast and characters, but I don't see it as necessary as an alternative to deletion. Given that the list is more than double the length of the main article, keeping them separate may still be the right approach.
    All in all, AfD is rarely the right place to have this manner of discussion, I think the talk page discussion you started—which later prompted the AfD—was indeed the right place to start. While I can't promise I'll be available, do feel free to ping me on any talk page discussions you start in these "fictional elements" topic areas, as I would like to participate and have some general ideas as to how massive franchises could be handled. — siro χ o 03:51, 16 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_December_15&oldid=1191353685"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE