Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 27 March 01 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 23:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

John A. Fulton

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

Small-town mayor fails WP:POLITICIAN. Toddst1 ( talk) 23:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, I can find no meaningful sources. This is a DC Doozie which appears to have been created to highlight a "first", and what a dubious "first" that is: One of these two telescopes owned by Fulton made by Holcomb was the first reflecting telescope manufactured in America, however it is not known if this one was that particular telescope. He gets a minor mention in a local genealogical work, and one mention in passing as a surveyor. [1] SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Engineering, and Ohio. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, I couldn't find sufficient sources to show notability. Suonii180 ( talk) 19:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - lack of sources, as above. Ingratis ( talk) 22:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I too did an exhaustive search and turned up no evidence of WP:NOTABILITY that would satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NPOLITICIAN. Shawn Teller ( talk) 20:37, 7 March 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 20:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

List of most-awarded music artists

List of most-awarded music artists (  | talk | history | 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 was waiting for the work in progress tag to be removed. Now that it has, the first problem that I noticed is that there aren’t any references for the lead, hence the reason as to why this fails WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. None of the rhetoric in the lead is cited with a single source. Secondly, this article also violates  Wikipedia:NOT#STATS. There is no encyclopedic value for this data. Merely existing does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Finally, this is already covered in the articles for individual artist list of awards. The existence of this page is misleading and serves no purpose. TruthGuardians ( talk) 21:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete "The exact number of all awards received by an artist is difficult to verify because there is no organization regularly tracking the data." Your article is bad when your lede serves quite perfectly as its own deletion rationale. Nate • ( chatter) 23:07, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not feasible to maintain when most (or all) of the claims are hard to confirm in the first place. This at best is a collection of WP:SYNTH and doesn't warrant an article. SNUGGUMS ( talk / edits) 01:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Just another WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. The lists lead itself clearly indicates that. The exact number of all awards received by an artist is difficult to verify because there is no organization regularly tracking the data. Most media only report the most-awarded artists at individual award show, and a complete list of the most-awarded music artists remains unavailable. Nevertheless, the following list features music artists having won 10 times or more at five different award shows, thus giving an illustration of the “most-awarded music artists in history The articles of individual awards shows like Grammy, American Music Awards clearly mentioned who bagged most of their awards.— TheWikiholic ( talk) 04:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The list is arbitrary, not well-sourced castorbailey ( talk) 05:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This list deserves a 10 for effort and creativity and a 0 for compliance with policies and guidelines. gidonb ( talk) 13:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: I think those above me have said most of what I'd want to. My biggest concern is probaably the arbitrary threshold of awards to include in said list. Hey man im josh ( talk) 14:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment and delete With celebrity culture of all-about them, as far I remember, a handful of publications have elaborated lists regarding "most awarded" artists, or at least some have reported a "total" of award and nominations received by a specific artist. However, it feels like circular reporting. Bluesatellite gave a picture, but I also felt is not necessary. Aside that doesn't exist any tracking body, the concept of "award" is hard to determine: some people could mix solo/group careers of certain artists to present a "total", or imagine those awards gave to artist's team instead them, "certified awards" (VEVO, Guinness World Records), even listicles... and so on. -- Apoxyomenus ( talk) 01:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This is a new article that can be improved with more sources. Articles such as "Taylor Swift makes history as most awarded artist of all time" in Entertainment Weekly show that the media are keeping track of this topic. The book series Guinness World Records has kept track of this issue, listing Whitney Houston for many years as the most awarded female musical artist. I think it would be appropriate to WP:TROUT the nomination as this appears to be a content dispute about Michael Jackson with discussion based at Talk:Michael_Jackson#“Most_awarded_musician_in_history”. The fact that Michael Jackson doesn't appear at the top of this page is irksome to MJ's fanbase, and instead of expanding the article to include more of MJ, they are trying to delete it. Binksternet ( talk) 03:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    The above Entertainment Weekly show link that you provided was about Taylor Swift overtaking Michael Jackson as the most-winning American music awards artist. And it's already covered on the page of the American Music Awards. And Whintey Houston being the most-awarded female musical artist is yet to be verified and hence it has been removed from her pages as well. Reading the above talk page discussion gives the impression that the creator of this list has created it only to prove his arguments. TheWikiholic ( talk) 11:34, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • This article aims to cover the most accolades won by any musician ever across all ceremonies combined, and TheWikiholic is correct that Binksternet's link is only about the American Music Awards. It therefore shouldn't be treated as saying Taylor is the most cumulatively awarded for anywhere else. To give another example, Beyoncé setting a separate record for most Grammys received doesn't make her the most worldwide awarded artist either when factoring in all award ceremonies, just from that organization. Unless somebody can provide a ref establishing how an artist got more wins across every award ceremony there is along with some runner-ups (which I doubt exists), the list here isn't sustainable. I either way would like to make it clear that my vote isn't based on trying to designate anybody in particular as the most awarded musician. Guinness unfortunately could be outdated for Whitney. SNUGGUMS ( talk / edits) 12:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Not sure if Guinness World Records is necessarily a reliable source. LegalSmeagolian ( talk) 14:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
It most certainly is reliable, but its statistics often become obsolete with new records being made for things. SNUGGUMS ( talk / edits) 18:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
I'm sticking with my Keep vote because of various indications of media interest in who is the most-awarded across multiple awards. For instance, The Hollywood Reporter made a list in January 2018 of the top 25 musical artists based on Grammy awards, digital streaming, and retail sales figures. They talk about how Bruno Mars won multiple Grammys and AMAs to get listed at number 5. Other media observers relayed similar lists to their readers, including this 2018 list from Jacaranda FM which names Michael Jackson as the top. Another list came from this K-pop fan magazine talking about how a Korean group is listed alongside more famous Western acts. Loretta Lynn is named the most-awarded female country music artist by this piece in Billboard. The media are interested in this topic. Binksternet ( talk) 18:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Pile-on delete The most ridiculous thing about this is that the various artists and their awards cannot be directly compared to each other. Three of these artists have many Latin music awards, but the rest don't sing Latin music, so so what? Some have country, pop, or international awards that not everyone is competing in so there's no legitimate comparison to be made. Celine Dion apparently has 11 Best of Las Vegas Awards, but the linked article doesn't even mention these. Junk list altogether, and if the media above aren't using direct comparisons of awards everyone competed for (like within a single genre), they're junk too. Reywas92 Talk 19:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment That newspaper award should just be discounted entirely; those are always encouraged by the newspapers and businesses to have ballot stuffing. It's just a plaque hanging somewhere in the lobby, nothing Celine likely has ever touched herself. Nate • ( chatter) 15:39, 6 March 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. There is no possibility that this AfD will end any other way at this point. BD2412 T 23:11, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Rick Newman

Rick Newman (  | talk | history | 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 could not really see enough online and from the article to what I believe would allow this to pass WP:GNG. Results are dominated with other people with this name. Suggest merge and redirect to Catch a Rising Star (comedy clubs) in some form. Govvy ( talk) 21:30, 28 February 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 20:11, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

United Airlines N7431

United Airlines N7431 (  | talk | history | 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 aircraft accident. This is a 1951 crash of a DC-3 that was on a training flight, because the pilot stalled the aircraft and spun it into the ground, with all three people on board killed. It is not often that the actual text of the article makes the case that the article is non-notable, but this one actually does, stating It is not uncommon for this type of accident to occur during training flights as pilots may be experimenting with different maneuvers or training exercises. Indeed the text is correct: this sort of accident is very common and WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Thousands of DC-3s and C-47s have crashed and most of these accidents are not notable. Being 72 years ago, we now know that there were no WP:LASTING effects from this accident noted, no airworthiness directives, no changes in flying or ATC procedures, etc. This article is just a simple newspaper story and contravenes our Wikipedia policy WP:NOTNEWS, which says Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. Ahunt ( talk) 20:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt ( talk) 20:52, 28 February 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! 07:19, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Trevor Grahl

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a composer, not properly sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. There are things stated here that would be acceptable notability claims if they were referenced properly, but the article is entirely unsourced, and there's nothing stated here that would constitute an "inherent" notability freebie in the absence of any WP:GNG-worthy sourcing. And the article has existed since 2006 without ever having any proper sources added to it except for inappropriate offsite links to the self-published websites of organizations named in the body text, which had to be stripped as WP:ELNO violations — so it's time to source it properly or lose it.
There's also a past prod in the edit history, which got the article deleted and then subsequently restored on an undeletion request by somebody with a username highly suggestive of being the article subject, which in turn raises conflict of interest issues. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which people are entitled to have articles just because they exist; notability has to be demonstrated by third-party reliable source coverage analyzing the significance of their work, not just by verifying that their work exists. (For example, competitions only become notability claims to the extent that they can be referenced to media coverage in order to establish that the competition is seen as a significant one by the media, and do not become notability claims if they're primary sourced to the competition's own self-published content about itself.) Bearcat ( talk) 17:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. Bearcat ( talk) 17:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I failed to uncover enough evidence that the subject meets GNG. There are a few website matches, that appear to republish a bio provided by the subject. He gets a few lines in "A Laboratory for Sound" by Kimberley Marshall, in American Organist Magazine. Oct2020, Vol. 54 Issue 10, p54-56. "'Urban Wind' and the John Weinzweig Award" in Canadian Winds / Vents Canadiens. Spring2008, Vol. 6 Issue 2, p55 probably counts as one source towards meeting GNG, but I couldn'd find another. Please ping me if good sources are identified. BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 10:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 19:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - I don't see any meaingful coverage in RS's. NickCT ( talk) 20:18, 28 February 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. Yes, I opened this. However there is no dissension and original editor now willing to accept draft space, rendering this moot so my nomination is withdrawn if that makes the close less weird. Star Mississippi 00:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Ali Sahib Abushanan

Ali Sahib Abushanan (  | talk | history | 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 indication of notability, although language is likely an issue there is barely an assertion thereof. Likely UPE, but creator unwilling to accept draftspace. Star Mississippi 18:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iraq. Star Mississippi 18:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    Can the article be reviewed, or will it be acknowledged to be deleted, and I hope to improve it in the future. If it is deleted, I will accept any decision regarding the article and regarding the mistake I made. Thank you Ali.saheb99 ( talk) 22:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    Comment- Ali.saheb99 you would have left it at draft space when it was moved for an experience editor after summiting, why in hurry or do you have connections with the article? From the sources provided it doesn't meet Notability not even WP Anybio. Epcc12345 ( talk) 23:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    Yes, I made a mistake because of my haste in order to turn it into its article, but I am completely sure of all the sources that I put in, especially the sources from the newspaper, but I will accept whether it was deleted or not, and I will start again, and I hope that you will guide me. Should I delete it or wait for a review to delete it? Errors to avoid their occurrence in the future and improve writing. Ali.saheb99 ( talk) 23:34, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    If you are willing to accept draft space and wait for a neutral review @ Ali.saheb99 I will close this discussion as draftify. Star Mississippi 23:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    I agree Ali.saheb99 ( talk) 23:55, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    Thank you. I'll leave a note on your Talk page so you know where to access the text. Star Mississippi 00:15, 4 March 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 One Day International. Liz Read! Talk! 04:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC) reply

NatWest Series

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

The NatWest Series was just a sponsor name for the One Day International matches played in England. Unlike what the article is trying to say, there was no links between the different year's matches, and so we don't need an article listing all the matches in series under the same sponsor name. This is a case of sponsorship rather than it being a genuine recurring event like the Cricket World Cup or The Ashes. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann (Talk) 18:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to or Merge with One Day International. It's a plausible enough search term that it should lead somewhere. JMB1980 ( talk) 18:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with One Day International.  //  Timothy ::  talk  08:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect and Merge I would agree that a separate article is not needed, but as noted it is a plausible search term and thus a redirect makes sense. Dunarc ( talk) 23:32, 4 March 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 Bebe Patten. Liz Read! Talk! 18:07, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Patten Academy of Christian Education

Patten Academy of Christian Education (  | talk | history | 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 notability. I found one RS on web [2], but it's just a short mention of "a small private school" Suitskvarts ( talk) 18:28, 28 February 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! 18:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

William Hare (author)

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

Prevailing logic of previous reasons for keeping this page was "He has 5 books with about 200-300 libraries holding each, and there will presumably be reviews, though they need to be looked for" pretty much WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. After briefly searching for reviews of these books, I could not locate any, and regardless I could not find any sources which suggests this person meets the notability guidelines for authors. Hence delete the article due to not being notable. LegalSmeagolian ( talk) 18:26, 28 February 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! 18:02, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

List of Fabloo bands

List of Fabloo bands (  | talk | history | 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 list for which I was unable to find any detailed coverage in WP:RS to support inclusion for any of the contents apart from Tally Hall, who coined the genre first. The only website coming back in my searches is Reddit, which is not an acceptable source. Not finding evidence for WP:GNG or WP:LISTN for this list, which seems to be WP:OR. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Note - See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fabloo. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 13:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Reddit and last.fm are deprecated at WP:RSPS Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:03, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Reddit is deprecated at WP:RSPS Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:03, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this and the "genre" page. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme ( talk) 04:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per detailed explanations above. Lorstaking ( talk) 15:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - It does not matter that some bands coined a new term for themselves and a few of their fans talked about it on Reddit. Not only is the genre itself non-notable, including a band in a list about the genre does not qualify for WP:NLIST. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 13:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Is a made-up genre used by one band and its musicians. This page is also WP:OR. Why? I Ask ( talk) 13:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the list does not pass WP:NLIST. TipsyElephant ( talk) 21:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete "Fabloo" is barely notable as it, in addition to the WP:NLIST issue. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NLIST. Shankargb ( talk) 03:08, 7 March 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. Vanamonde ( Talk) 16:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Pujaran

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

Television series of uncertain notability; has been moved back and forth to draft and replaced in main without improvement. It *may* ultimately prove notable but as it stands does not meet criteria. 'Naive' search did not reveal SIGCOV and to avoid further 'move-warring' a discussion is now warranted. Eagleash ( talk) 16:19, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. Skynxnex ( talk) 16:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Fails WP:NFP , WP:GNG, not single reliable source exist, routine blogposts. M.Ashraf333 ( talk) 02:22, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG. The subject has only one reliable source and significant review VOA Urdu, which is not enough. Insight 3 ( talk) 08:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, as references listed are from strong websites in the country, not merely blogs. I can add more references and content in few days as well. Lillyput4455 ( talk) 06:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Fails WP:NFP , GNG, Sources in article are promotional, routine, blog type posts. Article does not have SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from independent RS.  //  Timothy ::  talk  07:40, 7 March 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 Quantum Leap characters. Clear consensus against a standalone article, no objections discussed to the argument to redirect. Vanamonde ( Talk) 16:46, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Al Calavicci

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

2600 words on entirely in-universe information, with no assertion the subject meets the GNG (and not a single reference, to boot.) Coverage of the character is glancing and incidental on a look for sources, with the best stuff I could find being side relevance to recaps and the like, or single mentions of the characters loud fashion choices, which does not a standalone article make. There's already a List of Quantum Leap characters article where a short summary would satisfy the relevance of this character. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:03, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep, this character is central to the television series and one of two from it to have a well-deserved stand-alone article. I would think the actor's obit, at a minimum, would mention this iconic role. His television legacy now extends to the current series. As a side-note, Ziggy predates the popularity of the internet and Wikipedia itself which it foreshadows. Randy Kryn ( talk) 16:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    • The actor's obituary mention it, but nothing substantial to meet WP:GNG. They're arguments for the notability of the actor, not the role. As for predating the popularity of the internet, that doesn't really factor in here: I looked on Ebsco and ProQuest and the coverage of the character is incidental in contemporary reviews of the show, as well. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Skynxnex ( talk) 16:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • No real objection to merging to the list of Quantum Leap characters if this is NN, but did you look at the Google Scholar hits? Several of them appear to be worth checking out. Jclemens ( talk) 01:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect' or delete There is no argument that can keep unsourced article on mainspace, that has been here for years. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Redirect it to the appropriate place. scope_creep Talk
  • Delete Unsourced fancruft, no evidence this has any SIGCOV from RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. No objection to redirect to List of Quantum Leap characters.  //  Timothy ::  talk  07:45, 7 March 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 13:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

List of ghost towns in New Brunswick

List of ghost towns in New Brunswick (  | talk | history | 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 contains of a chunk of unsourced "classifications" and then lists what appears to be a very arbitrary collection of sites, including two sparsely but indisputably inhabited towns, and a dilapidated amusement park. One single reference and that for a place that does not appear to be a ghost town. I'm seeing a lot of WP:OR and next to nothing to back up inclusion of entries. At present, there's no basis for an article. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 16:00, 28 February 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. Consensus is already overwhelmingly clear, there is no need to prolong this discussion. I will retain the talk page as G8 exempt. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Birth of public radio broadcasting

Birth of public radio broadcasting (  | talk | history | 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 mess, and a Doug Coldwell creation. The whole premise is that Lee de Forest supposedly did the world's first public radio broadcast. As it turns out, this claim is not supported by the sources. The source for "this event is regarded as the birth of public radio broadcasting" actually says "In 1910, he attempted the first live broadcast from New York's Metropolitan Opera House (starring Enrico Caruso)." In other words, he took a source that doesn't support this claim at all and spun it into an OR creation. The line "The birth of public radio broadcasting had an immediate impact on radio broadcasting as it stimulated the idea of having additional musical programs." is entirely original research.

This one broadcast isn't individually notable, and this article never should have been created. This particular event is sufficiently covered at Lee de Forest#Initial broadcasting experiments, which also shows that this wasn't even the first broadcast by de Forest, identifying a 1909 broadcast of a suffragette speech by de Forest's mother-in-law! That this was even created, let alone passed GAN makes a mockery of the entire process. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 15:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. How terribly sad to see all this. The article's premise is simply mistaken and the claims are based on nothing. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 15:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I do think a wider article on the early history of public radio broadcasting could potentially be notable (even if this particular event may not warrant its own article). However, this article would have to be completely rewritten, as it is extremely misleading. As the nominator says, this article itself contradicts Lee de Forest#Initial broadcasting experiments, and there are significant issues with source-text integrity. – Epicgenius ( talk) 16:09, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    I concur that the ostensible subject of the article (early history of public radio broadcasting) could be an encyclopedic topic. Sadly that is not what we have here. If we did, I would have stubbified and moved on (to PDEL copyvio) instead of using AfD. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 16:12, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    That makes sense. – Epicgenius ( talk) 01:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    I should also note that I agree with Sammi Brie's comment below; this isn't even about public radio broadcasts. So the entirety of the article is based on two falsehoods. This already was not the first radio broadcast that the public heard, but even if it were, this was also not the first broadcast of public radio. Given that it wasn't the first radio broadcast heard by the public, nor was it the first public-radio broadcast, I do not believe it meets the GNG. I also doubt its long-term significance, since if something already happened once, the next occurrence of that thing isn't typically as important. – Epicgenius ( talk) 13:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Doesn't deserve to exist. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete a DC doozie. (I stared at that article for half an hour trying to figure out what next; glad TAOT took it on.) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    Closing admin: is it possible to save the talk page here for history? It was a DYK hook, ran four times on OTD, and in spite of several threads on talk questioning the article, it was promoted GA. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    In addition to the admin not pressing the button, consider adding {{ G8-exempt}} to the talk page to keep bots from deleting it. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 18:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    I agree that the talk page should be at least retained. Even though the article should definitely be deleted, I think the talk page may still be a "page that is useful to Wikipedia" because of its OTD appearances and because it is a delisted GA. – Epicgenius ( talk) 01:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex ( talk) 16:50, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as a fabrication. Even the title is gimmicky and unencyclopedic. An article about this specific event, presuming that it deserves one, should be named for the event: Lee de Forest radio broadcast of January 1910, for example. This title reads like the headline for a local-interest story. (I can almost see it now, beginning with "113 years ago today, a Council Bluffs man tried to get radio off the ground." And ending with a joke about pledge drives.) XOR'easter ( talk) 17:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete Feels like an essay or OR. Public broadcasting is different in each country and the article doesn't make that clear. Seems to draw conclusions that aren't in the sources. Oaktree b ( talk) 18:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:TNT. We already have other articles that provide much better coverage of this subject. Partofthemachine ( talk) 00:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The title is terrible (radio broadcasting to the public is not what "public radio" is to most people), the content is terrible, the provenance is terrible. A page whose deletion will be good for the encyclopedia and our readers. Sammi Brie (she/her •  t • c) 07:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to History of broadcasting. Other possible targets would be History of radio#Broadcasting or Radio broadcasting#History. WP:BLAR would preserve everything and among those is a plausible redirect. Whether those three agree on the history is a different matter. Slywriter ( talk) 14:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per TAOT. I saw this AfD because I watchlisted the original GA review page back when it was nominated (before that page existed), and saw Sandy add a template to it. I don't do much GA reviewing, but take a look at the list of noms once in a while in case something jumps out. Around that time I came across a few nominations by prolific GA writers that seemed to have really fundamental problems (inappropriate scope/title, reliance on in-universe sourcing, notability concerns, etc.). I didn't dig into the sources of this one, but even still it seemed more like a small part of another article, spun out and given an inappropriate title/framing, rather than an independently notable event. I remember thinking "how is a reviewer going to even approach this?" To my surprise, it pretty much sailed through the review process (as did the others FWIW, mostly not articles by DC IIRC). Looking forward to seeing how the ongoing GA RfC will pan out, and how it will find a balance between minimum standards and not becoming a huge task for a reviewer. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:18, 1 March 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 Punjabi Bagh. Liz Read! Talk! 17:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Paschim Vihar

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

unreferenced article. Endrabcwizart ( talk) 05:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting rather than soft deleting as the state of references in an article does not necessarily reflect notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 15:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: No objection to a redirect to Punjabi Bagh. An unofficial area within a subzone of a subdivision. Article makes no claim of notability, in fact states this is a "typical" area and goes on to describe a completely ordinary area with no distinguishing features from the surrounding areas. Fails GNG and NGEO, nothing to merge because its all entirely unsourced and there are no RS with SIGCOV.  //  Timothy ::  talk  02:37, 7 March 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. (non-admin closure) –– FormalDude (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

AlphaPolis

AlphaPolis (  | talk | history | 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. I'm only seeing coverage that is non-reliable or trivial. –– FormalDude (talk) 06:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
 Nomination withdrawn –– FormalDude (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. AlphaPolis is a Japanese publisher of several novel series that have been turned into anime, including Gate and Tsukimichi: Moonlit Fantasy. The original novel series for Gate has old over 6 million copies. (AlphaPolis were the only publisher on the list of best-selling light novel series to not have a Wikipedia page.)
The process by which the article was listed for deletion contravened points C 1, 2, 3 on the recommended process for AfDs. The article can be fixed through ordinary editing, it was recently created, and no effort was made to raise concerns before it was listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waltpohl ( talk • contribs) 09:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Waltpohl ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. reply
The article was moved to draftspace by MPGuy2824 where you could have tried to fix it without risk of deletion, but instead you added two sources that don't suggest any notability and moved it back to mainspace. –– FormalDude (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Did you nominate it for deletion as a favor to User:MPGuy2824? I'm having trouble understanding your motivation here. -- Walt Pohl ( talk) 10:22, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I agree with nominator. None of the sources listed on the page are significant, independent, reliable, and secondary as required by WP:NCORP. I wouldn't be opposed to re-draftifying either, though. Bensci54 ( talk) 17:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    What is wrong with the sources? Anime News Network is the main English-language news site for anime and manga. The sales charts are translations from the Oricon sales charts, which are the main bestseller list for manga. -- Walt Pohl ( talk) 21:24, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    They lack in-depth coverage. –– FormalDude (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    I added links to news stories from Oricon and Nikkei (though the Nikkei one is partially behind a paywall).
Anyway, the sales charts are prima facie not routine announcements.-- Walt Pohl ( talk) 23:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Thank you, that is exactly what was needed. I'll withdraw my nomination but I can't close this AfD since Bensci54 has !voted. –– FormalDude (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
I took a look at how the sourcing has improved since I last commented on this AfD, and I agree that notability has been established. I do not have any issue with closing the AfD. Bensci54 ( talk) 17:21, 3 March 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! 17:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Ringo (game)

Ringo (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)

there seem to be a number of games called Ringo but I can't find any significant sources discussing this version. Article is overdetailed, and effectively unsourced. Gugrak ( talk) 06:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Have added a second source and commensurate text. As far as "overdetailed", I quite agree; however, trimming down substantially is an editing matter, not a cause for article deletion. (It's common for original article creators to over-detail, simplification isn't easy it's a skill, I've acquired some of said skill but haven't edited this article before today.) p.s. Perhaps the article title s/b more specifically Ringo (board game) rather than Ringo (game). -- IHTS ( talk) 07:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Have also added a second R.C. Bell source. -- IHTS ( talk) 08:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Barely.  //  Timothy ::  talk  03:22, 7 March 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! 05:20, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Financial Market Authority (Austria)

Financial Market Authority (Austria) (  | talk | history | 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 unreferenced article looks like a promotion Endrabcwizart ( talk) 05:22, 28 February 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. There's clearly not going to be a consensus to delete this, and the count is currently in favour of keeping the standalone article, however further evaluation of the sources and whether to merge can of course continue on the article talk page. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 09:57, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Charles Cholmondeley (British intelligence officer)

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

Notable only for WP:1E of his involvement in Operation Mincemeat, all relevant detail can be found on that page so this should replaced with a redirect Mztourist ( talk) 04:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep There is no such thing as partial notability. With a biography, it is either established by significant coverage, per WP:GNG, or it isn't, and in this case the two books relied on clearly take Cholmondeley over that hurdle, the whole of him. On WP:1E, that says "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Moonraker ( talk) 20:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
I don't see that his role in Mincemeat was "a large one". The page is simply a brief description of his role in Mincemeat, with more detail about the Twenty Committee and Montagu than him. There is a complete lack of basic biographical detail about Cholmondeley and none of the sources I have seen amount to SIGCOV of him satisfying GNG. Mztourist ( talk) 04:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
I don't see that his role in Mincemeat was "a large one". Bizarre comment, given he and Montagu were almost wholly responsible for it! Montagu was the more senior officer (by only a single rank), but Cholmondeley was equally responsible. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 11:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Proveit with RS. Mztourist ( talk) 03:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Reliable sources are cited in the article and already were when you nominated it for deletion. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist ( talk) 04:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ( work / talk) 06:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge. A search on him returns hundreds of pages, and a search excluding the name of the operation returns pages in other languages, so looks like WP:1E indeed. 20:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep. Prominent figure in a prominent operation that has been the subject of multiple books and two feature films (although he was fictionalised in one of them). Continued his intelligence career after the war. Plenty of coverage of him personally. Clearly notable. Easily meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 11:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Please provide the "Plenty of coverage of him personally" because that is completely lacking on the page or in any of the references I've been able to access. Mztourist ( talk) 03:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Have you looked at all the books about the operation? You know, actual books, not just online sources? There are a number of them out there. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Have you? Or did you just watch the film? You claim there is ""Plenty of coverage of him personally" so proveit. Mztourist ( talk) 10:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Yes, and they're cited in the article. You seem to be moving close to claiming that only content you can personally see online is valid. You know very well that's not the case. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
No, there is no coverage of him personally as you claim. Where and when was he born? How many siblings did he have? Where did he go to school? Was he married? Did he have children? When did he join the RAF? What did he do after the war? What did he die of? Where is buried? Basic biographical detail, none of which is on the page. Mztourist ( talk) 16:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is a work in progress and AfD is about the validity of the topic not the current quality of the article. I'm sure you do know this really. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 16:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Basic biographical detail of someone who died 70 years ago and is supposed to be notable should be available. I'm sure you do know this really, just as you know how WP1E works, but then you seem to think no page should ever be deleted. Mztourist ( talk) 03:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Not sure why it's necessary for basic biographical details to be available for someone to be notable for Wikipedia. We can take from his Times obituary that he didn't seek publicity and probably didn't divulge these details. However, there are online sources that do reveal that he was born in South Australia on 27 January 1917 and was buried in St. David's Churchyard, Barton St David, Somerset and also what he did after the war. Piecesofuk ( talk) 10:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Because if they're notable for more than WP:1E as claimed then basic biographical details should be available. The family geneology page that you provided is not RS. Mztourist ( talk) 06:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply
but then you seem to think no page should ever be deleted. This is of course utter rubbish. I don't think pages on clearly notable subjects should be deleted. I think some editors on Wikipedia delight in getting articles deleted and would far rather do that than create them. I certainly do not think that no page should ever be deleted. Please don't start making attacks on those who disagree with you. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 11:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Given your lists and various arguments here at AfD over the years it seems a perfectly valid observation. Mztourist ( talk) 06:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply
This is a civil discussion about an article and available sources, on- and off-line. Please focus on the article and possible sources, not your opinion of other editors. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 04:29, 5 March 2023 (UTC) reply
It is a completely false observation clearly intended to undermine my position. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:11, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Look at your User Page under Notability. Mztourist ( talk) 04:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
That is a very strange "obituary" as it omits any details of Cholmondeley's life other than his involvement in Operation Mincemeat and otherwise unsupported claims about V-weapons. Nice of Montagu to write it I suppose, but doesn't add anything to what is contained in other sources about his WP:1E life. Mztourist ( talk) 03:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
UndercoverClassicist I also can't find him in the ODNB, please provide a link. Mztourist ( talk) 10:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Sorry: I was looking at the ODNB cited in the article, but it's someone else.
Yes Montagu's, because he was notable for more that just that WP:1E. Mztourist ( talk) 16:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
As for the obituary, I don't think we get to split hairs about content here: if someone has an obituary published in a national newspaper, that's evidence that they were considered notable. The content of the obituary is a nice extra, but there's no way to discount its existence as evidence of notability. UndercoverClassicist ( talk) 13:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
No, there are "real" obituaries written by the paper's obituary writers and others written by family or friends, the former go to notability, the latter don't. Montagu's "obituary" clearly is the latter. Mztourist ( talk) 16:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
A good quotation here from this book, p.370:
"In truth , it was Flight Lieutenant Charles Cholmondeley who really triggered off the whole concept of MINCEMEAT ... and Bevan recognised that Cholmondeley and Montagu were due at least equal credit." UndercoverClassicist ( talk) 13:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Pure WP:1E. There is no basic biographical detail about him separate from Mincemeat. Mztourist ( talk) 16:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge or Redirect Looks to be a clear case of WP:1E. I see no evidence of notability aside from his involvement in MICEMEAT. The existence of an obituary only proves that he died. Intothat darkness 14:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    • It proves that he died and that Britain's premier national newspaper of record thought he was important enough to publish an obituary written by one of his colleagues. A rather different thing. Most people die without a summary of their life and achievements appearing in The Times. Bear in mind that The Times wouldn't even note the deaths of many of the pop culture figures with no long-term significance whatsoever who have articles on Wikipedia, let alone publish something more substantial on them. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
      Sure, but it's also quite possible the obituary was run on the strength of who wrote it, and not the notability of the subject. We're also not discussing pop culture figures, and if they should have articles or not doesn't really bear on this particular article. Intothat darkness 15:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge or Redirect to Operation Mincemeat unless better sourcing is found. I'm not seeing any indicia of this being more than WP:BIO1E. - Ljleppan ( talk) 10:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • keep based on the obituary in the Times and involvement in an important intelligence operation. Without the obituary it might be a BIO1E case but an obituary in the Times indicates continued relevance and enough relevance for the newspaper to run the obituary. -- hroest 04:03, 5 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Passes GNG, BASIC: Two of the sources (Smyth 2010, Macintyre 2010) have SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. See below:

Source assessment table: prepared by User:TimothyBlue
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/the-war-on-paper-operation-mincemeat Yes Independent Yes RS No Article only mentions subject in "together with Squadron Leader Charles Cholmondely". No actual information. ✘ No
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/17910065 Yes Independent Yes RS No Name mentioned in list, no SIGCOV ✘ No
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/36544/supplement/2584 Yes Independent Yes RS No Name mentioned in list, no SIGCOV ✘ No
Montagu, Ewen (23 June 1982). "Mr Charles Cholmondeley". The Times. No. 61267. p. 12. ? Independent ? RS ? Obit, uncertain of how independent or the editorial oversidght/fact checking of obits. ? Unknown
Macintyre 2010 Yes Independent Yes RS Yes I own this work, it does have SIGCOV about the article subject (See index) ✔ Yes
Smyth 2010 Yes Independent Yes RS Yes I own this work, it does have SIGCOV about the article subject (See index) ✔ Yes
Foot 2004 Yes Independent Yes RS No Mentioned, no SIGCOV ✘ No
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}}.

 //  Timothy ::  talk  04:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Then please add the detail to the page so those of us who don't own the books can see what they say. I certainly agree with you that the Montagu "obituary" doesn't count towards GNG Mztourist ( talk) 04:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
@ TimothyBlue: given that the primary concern is WP:BIO1E, it would be helpful if you gave a brief rundown of how extensive and far-reaching the coverage in Macintyre and Smyth is beyond MINCEMEAT. Simply asserting significant coverage in this context is not very helpful, especially since both Macintyre and Smyth appear (based on the titles) to very much be about the operation. Ljleppan ( talk) 06:40, 7 March 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. Some of the issues here (out of date / duplicated content) can probably be resolved through editing, unfortunately no consensus has formed for either the merge proposal or deleting this article at this time. No prejudice against a further nomination at a later time if issues around how to present this content are still unresolved – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 10:14, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Predicting the timing of peak oil

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

Firstly hopelessly out of date as it seems to assume that oil will peak due to lack of supply rather than demand.

Secondly the topic is covered much better in Fossil fuel phase-out.

By the way my earlier proposal to merge with peak oil was rejected. Chidgk1 ( talk) 14:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete This is already covered in peak oil, and the topic is too closely related to peak oil to have its own article. Essentially, a discussion of peak oil is practically a discussion of the prediction of peak oil. There may be some salvageable information (especially historical context) that can be integrated into peak oil. -- Ita140188 ( talk) 17:33, 13 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    Good point about salvageable info - you and @ EMsmile have now convinced me I favour Redirect to peak oil so that future editors can use "View history" to easily retrieve anything they would like to move to that article Chidgk1 ( talk) 06:33, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This is already covered in peak oil, but in standard summary style, just as long articles must be. Naturally, there are many <main article> summary sections on that peak oil page. This is a long topic, rightly broken down to a summary article and component articles on subtopics. Peak_oil#Predictions is a fairly vanilla use of the <main article> style of article organization (something that's apparently used in 1% of all articles). This historical background is worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia, but would give undue weight and length to the parent article if embedded there. (Presumably, this is why this page was given its own article, and why similar pages on complex subjects are broken out from their main topic, and was only reason that the earlier merger proposal was rejected.) So, I prefer the style as it is, but that's maybe just my personal preference. I want to address the three specific reasons given in the deletion proposal above. The first reason given for deletion is that: the article is "outdated"... but that's entirely to be expected of a retrospective of predictions. (Note that the lengthy Geocentric model article also uses the summary & <main article> organization.) The second reason given (in the AfD proposal) is that: "the topic is covered much better" in another article... Yet that other article actually contains almost none of the same content (on historic predictions) and really has a different focus (though not a different POV--it's not even a wp:povfork). The third proposal sentence is the killer, since it points out that an earlier merger proposal was rejected, which clarifies the intention: to excise this material from the encyclopedia. The effect of deletion would be: to remove interesting background content from Wikipedia, information that is not given on the main page or in Fossil fuel phase-out or on any other article (that I can find). If there were such parallel/fork articles, or if the merger request hadn't already been rejected, then moving this content would be a worthwhile discussion. But instead, this AfD proposal is simply a proposal to delete the detailed history of peak oil predictions. I.e. it's a proposal to erase notable and relevant background to the main article (which aleady includes this important sub-topic in summary form). We should keep this content. Outright notable content removal isn't a standard use of AfD. I don't see how deleting this article would satisfy any of the AfD criteria, but even if I've missed something in that list (that might by used to justify this deletion) the two reasons given in the proposal don't conform to any of the 14 reasons listed be the AfD policy (as well as being unclear reasons for deletion in themselves). -- Wragge ( talk) 04:51, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    Reason 14 which covers anything else - because “A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject” As you rightly say the article is a detailed history of peak oil predictions. In fact it is so detailed and out of date that I contend that a reader would not be able to see the wood for the trees and would misunderstand the subject as we understand it today. I am not an academic but as I understand it nowadays (since the invasion of Ukraine) the peak year is most likely between 2022 and 2025 and depends on energy security and Russian drills falling apart, price caps, IRA and carbon taxes etc - this can perfectly well be summarized in a few paragraphs in the peak oil article. But I suspect editors are reluctant to update anything to do with peak oil because they fear getting tangled up in many pages of historical details. Chidgk1 ( talk) 12:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    I should also have mentioned Phase-out of fossil fuel vehicles as another article which seems far more useful to the reader and which could be used to hold any bits of info which are actually summary style Chidgk1 ( talk) 13:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply
I think I would support Chidgk1's proposal although a whole sale deletion sounds a bit harsh. I would assume some content could be salvaged in a kind of "history" section as part of peak oil. Actually this coincides with the proposal by Ita140188, so I agree with them. An alternative might be to give the article a name change to History of peak oil predictions. - Can we please have the link to the earlier discussion of merging it into peak oil? Oh wait, I found it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Peak_oil&oldid=1136640945#Merger_proposal EMsmile ( talk) 15:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply
We agree that there's a problem, but might differ on exactly what it is. For me, the key problem isn't the overabundance of historical predictions, but is the lack of detail on the most material point that the average reader would probably want to know: what is the best & latest estimate for the peak oil year? I think has Chidgk1 has put their finger on this point (in the comment above). The strange thing about all three of these articles is that (despite being very long) none lead with this date. This absence might be explained by an overinterpretation of WP:CRYSTAL, but whatever is the cause, the gap is glaring. (How can we have an article or a section on "predicting peak oil" without daring to give the consensus prediction?) And closing this gap can't be achieved by deleting material; it should be solved in the normal way: by boldly editing these articles to foreground the best estimates from the literature. (Ideally, this expected date would be in the first sentence of Peak_oil#Predictions and would be covered in more detail at the start of this <main> article.) In the current state, the most daring answer given to the main practical question is in the Peak Oil lede: "as of 2021, forecasts of the year of peak oil range from 2019 to 2040"... If that's really the best we can do, then it's not an argument for deleting (most) of the content in this article (maybe it's an argument against the deletion, since we need more detail on the reasons for uncertainty). Alternatively, if we can be more specific then a bold edit should solve it. -- Wragge ( talk) 02:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Wragge If you or anyone else would like to spend the time and effort to bring the article up to scratch good luck with it - but I doubt there is enough good info to justify both this article and peak oil. If there was only one article I suspect editors would be keener to improve it Chidgk1 ( talk) 06:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - IF the article is kept, and I am neutral on that point, the title needs to be changed to something more noun like. I'm aware "Predicting" is technically a gerund in this context, but it doesn't read like one. PianoDan ( talk) 17:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep; subject is notable enough to justify an independent article. InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 22:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply
I agree the subject is notable - but I disagree that is enough to justify an independent article Chidgk1 ( talk) 06:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 03:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Redirect to peak oil per nom RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 05:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy ( talk) 03:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep The meat of this article is the detailed history of past and present prediction methods. Good encyclopedic material, and demonstrably quite extensive. I don't see why this should not be spun out into a separate article that is suitably linked and summarized in the main article. Peak oil is not unmanageably big but it's certainly getting into the range where we should think twice about ramming in further material that makes good standalone sub-topics. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 13:53, 6 March 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 04:26, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

@properties

@properties (  | talk | history | 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 meeting CORP, sources are all press-releases or the like. No coverage in RS found, beyond routine mentions of business transactions. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:58, 28 February 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:46, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Dominique Brown

Dominique Brown (  | talk | history | 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 does not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for sports and athletics. This is a guy who was not selected in a professional football draft, never appeared in a professional football game, never won a college football award, etc. Dennis C. Abrams ( talk) 02:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep per sources shown by Cbl62. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 21:37, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. He rushed for 1,795 yards in his college career and scored 18 touchdowns for a Division I FBS program. See here. This level of accomplishment leads me to think that there's likely to be SIGCOV. A quick search of Newspapers.com does turn up some. E.g., this ( part 1/ part 2) and this. I will try to do a deeper search later but this look like a possible GNG pass. Cbl62 ( talk) 20:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Hmm... I didn't see those sources when I searched. I'll strike my vote for now. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 21:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Finding some more. E.g., this ( part 1/ part 2), this/ this (same AP piece picked up in different newspapers), this, and this, this. Cbl62 ( talk) 21:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Wow! I must have really screwed up in searching to miss all those. I'd say its enough for GNG. I've !voted keep. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 21:37, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Brown was a NCAA Division I FBS starting quarterback/running back. His career was exceptional enough to win him an invitation to play in the East–West Shrine Bowl, a college football all-star game. See here. Not surprisingly in light of his accomplishments as a major college player, he received considerable WP:SIGCOV and thus passes WP:GNG. Examples of the SIGCOV are linked above. Cbl62 ( talk) 21:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Meets GNG per sources from Cbl62. ~ EDDY ( talk/ contribs)~ 22:02, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Cbl62's sources. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 03:20, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG with the sources found by Cbl62. Alvaldi ( talk) 08:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Passes GNG with the improvements made by Cbl62. Hey man im josh ( talk) 14:07, 6 March 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 am persuaded by the arguments that WP:SYNTH is a fundamental problem in this article and that it warrants its deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Albanian Resistance in Yugoslavia

Albanian Resistance in Yugoslavia (  | talk | history | 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 bulk of the article actually discusses topics which already have articles of their own ( Albanian–Yugoslav conflict, 1981 protests in Kosovo, Adem Jashari, Insurgency in Kosovo (1995–1998), and Kosovo War). Leaving all of that out, we are left with a text about a supposed plan by the Communist-era leader of Albania Enver Hoxha to invade Yugoslavia after Josip Broz Tito's death which never materialized; content that can easily be merged into the Hoxha article or another.

The bigger problem is that the article links up various events in Kosovo post-Cold war era and declares that they were all part of one conflict that lasted from 1948-1999 with the direct involvement of Albania. It's a WP:SYNTH of sources and likely WP:OR on the part of the creator. This is not how bibliography or sources generally treat the subject. The level of involvement on the part of the government of Albania in the push for Kosovo independence or unification with Albania is also disputed. Even one of the sources cited, Julie Mertus' Kosovo: How Myths and Truths Started a War, says that "If Albania was, as some Serbs suggest, helping Kosovo Albanians in 1981, that move would have been against Albanian policy. Albanian had indeed beamed its television and radio programs and sent books over the border to Kosovo, but it did little more to encourage Kosovo Albanians to "unite with the motherland".. never wanting to create tensions with Yugoslavia, Albania had even returned members of illegal Kosovar groups who had sought shelter within its borders." Albanian influence in these various matters is something that could be mentioned but doubtful as an umbrella article of its own. Griboski ( talk) 22:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Albania. Shellwood ( talk) 23:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Kosovo, and Yugoslavia. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Enver Hoxha had many conflicts with Yugoslavia or with Tito, about whom you also said that Enver Hoxha didn't want anything to go into any conflict with Yugoslavia, then tell me why Enver Hoxha had many plans with Mehmet Shehu to found Kosovar Albanian rebels, about whom Enver Hoxha also knew that there were many Albanians in Kosovo who made attacks on the Yugoslavs and Enver Hoxha withdrew and did not support Tito. NormalguyfromUK ( talk) 15:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Then to the protests in 1981 many Kosovo Albanian rebels like Nuhi Berisha and Rexhep Mala made attacks on Yugoslav policemen. Enver Hoxha supported their party and the Kosovars a lot during the crisis in Yugoslavia. Also because of this, Enver Hoxha made a plan to attack Yugoslavia during the 70 years in order to retake Kosovo. NormalguyfromUK ( talk) 15:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Please read more carefully. The issue is whether this topic deserves a stand-alone article. The article is mostly a rehashing of already existing articles. And I was not stating my opinion, I was using one of the sources you cited which stated that Albanian involvement in the 1981 protests was meager. -- Griboski ( talk) 18:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply
I understand, however, there is no reason to delete the article. Maybe if we want, we could add tags to this article with More sources to improve, but I don't understand this as deletion. Resistance also existed and ended like that when the Kosovo war ended. You yourself agreed with me, Yes, many of the articles were also taken from the Wiki article, but this is part of the Resistance, I will add the main articles again. Even if it could be improved, deleting the article makes no sense to me! There were also several protests by Kosovar Albanians in Yugoslavia, which I would like to add to the Resistance. NormalguyfromUK ( talk) 19:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The situation is not a linear conflict that lasted from 1948-1999. You're also conflating two different things. On the one hand, you're talking about Kosovar Albanian resistance to the incorporation of Kosovo into Yugoslavia (which pre-dates 1948 btw) and on the other hand, the Government of Albania/Hoxha's covert attempts to secede Kosovo from Yugoslavia and unite it into Albania. IF the article is salvaged, it has to focus on a single topic. It's also much more complicated than "resistance", which implies there was an armed resistance throughout this period when in fact much of the Cold War period in Kosovo was marked by relative stability. The protests themselves were for different reasons with some merely seeking more rights. When creating an article, you have to make sure that it's a notable topic that's covered in reliable sources, is not original research, synthesis of sources or a WP:CONTENTFORK -- Griboski ( talk) 20:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -- There has been a longstanding nationalist movement in Kosovo, but how far this was promoted from Albania is doubtful. The militaries of many counties prepare plans (on paper) to invade their neighbours. What plans Albania may have developed may be interesting, but such plans are generally NN. I remain dubious of the merits of this article, but am not formally voting. Peterkingiron ( talk) 13:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge -- In addition to the aforementioned pages, the content can also be merged into Greater Albania. As mentioned previously, the events listed in the article are not connected and one would be extremely hard-pressed to find any reliable sources connecting these events. The content can be recycled as there is nothing wrong with it. ElderZamzam ( talk) 23:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Delete -- Upon review of the possible pages for a merger, I can not see a way in which the content can be merged in a coherent manner. ElderZamzam ( talk) 21:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • This certainly seems to be a lot of improper synthesis. The 1981 stuff and beyond is especially jarring, because when I was reading sources about those protests, and a lot of them were Serbian, there was barely any mention of this kind of meddling by Albania. I remember recently reverting an edit like this at the protests article as well, I guess it spilled over... certainly I don't think it's appropriate that we talk in an encyclopedia about "plans" to attack Yugoslavia in the 80s in a B92 article that relays a Jutarnji list article. This is far enough in the past that we can require serious scholarly, historical sources, as opposed to this. The mention of Hoxha's November '82 speech is also weird, because the suppression of the protests started in April '81, and we have post mortem coverage from July '81. This needs to go. Albania–Yugoslavia relations can be as good as place as any to salvage the few paragraphs that make sense. -- Joy ( talk) 11:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:23, 28 February 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. WP:SNOW; all the votes are in favor of keeping and the rationale is almost entirely WP:GREATWRONGS-based. (non-admin closure) Dronebogus ( talk) 09:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Tri-Ess

Tri-Ess (  | talk | history | 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 "organization" is an individual whom is spreading misinformation about what a trans person is and encouraging cult-like and harmful practices. This individuals blog is full of racist comments and they believe a transgender person and a cross-dresser are one and the same a harmful view to be promoting. The "Pledge of Membership/Code of Conduct" on their website includes "When in public, a members presentation will be either 100% feminine or 100% masculine, no mixing of the two. This also would include the presence of facial hair when enfemme." meaning they are not willing to recognize nonbinary people http://www.triessmn.com/membership-pledge-code-of-conduct.html . The individual is a heterosexual male whos only part in the LGBT community is crossdressing. Their website is also not up to the standard of a real organization and sites no sources for the misinformation it provides on any of its 6 pages. It is also copywrite 2013. On the page "terminology" they wrongfully state : "The term "transgender" has become an umbrella term encompassing a wide variety of those who consider themselves to be one of the "gender variant". The term transgenderist was first coined by Virginia Prince, one of the co-founders of TriEss to differentiate somebody who wished to live their lives as the opposite gender, but has no desire to physically change their bodies. It recognizes that "sex is between your legs, gender is between your ears". " they again site no source for this claim and make several more incorrect statements about the history of terminology surrounding transgender people.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Frogwizard420 ( talk • contribs) 20:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Weak Keep. I can admit that the sourcing of this page is not great, but I also see it as a bit valuable and worthwhile, as it publishes "The Femme Mirror" (which is how I first heard of it) and other publications. I am worried that the comment by the OP provides no sources for their claims apart from one link to the tri-ess website, making me a bit skeptical of their claims. I would support making the article a re-direct to another page, if it comes down to it, but for now, I stand by a weak keep. Historyday01 ( talk) 02:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Week Keep per @ Historyday01. I also want to add that I've come across this organization in my research of trans history often before so I know there are much better sources than used in the page. I'm surprised the article isn't more developed and frankly that the organization's still going, as I thought they'd fizzled out a while ago. The article needs serious work, no doubt there, so to leave for myself or whoever gets to it first: google news search (73 results) and google scholar search (264 results). I believe quite a few also contain criticism of their views/positions so those can be included as well. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 03:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
I can agree, and it would be great to expand on the article with some more criticism. I really only heard of them tangentially, like you, during research on trans history. Historyday01 ( talk) 03:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Weak keep - per others, clearly there are reliable sources on the topic. WP:ATD The void century ( talk) 05:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment: I'm not sure what the deletion rationale actually is here. The fact that the subject spreads misinformation, or says racist or transphobic things, is not a reason for deletion; Wikipedia writes articles on notable people and organisations regardless of whether or not we agree with their views. The sourcing on the article looks dubious at first glance, but nobody actually seems to be arguing that the subject is not notable. Caeciliusinhorto-public ( talk) 09:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep seems notable. Is discussed in a Dear Abby column [6], so it's not an unheard-of organization. The links given are not the best, but it's at GNG. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Total WP:NCORP fail. Brief mentions, etc., aren't enough. Levivich ( talk) 16:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United States of America. Levivich ( talk) 16:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Weak keep per newly-added sources. The SAGE Encyclopedia has a fully entry on it, about one page long, that's WP:SIRS. "Weak" because I'm not sure there's a second; the "Transgender Communities" chapter has about a paragraph on the organization. But the sources together have enough for a policy-compliant article, and it's not like a for-profit company, so keep. Levivich ( talk) 23:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per @ TheTranarchist. There is enough notability, although the quality of the page certainly leaves a lot to be desired. Suitskvarts ( talk) 20:03, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    For all the keep !voters: can you give two examples of WP:NCORP sources about Tri-Ess? Because I see 0, and I don't think keep !voters simply asserting NCORP sources, without specifically pointing to them, is sufficient. The only source I've seen in this AFD is the Dear Abby column, and that's obviously not an RS nevermind GNG nevermind NCORP. Levivich ( talk) 20:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Update: I've gone ahead and updated the article significantly to use a bunch of WP:SIRS sources. Should be no issues keeping it now. Please feel free to take a look and revise if you feel it needs it. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 22:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)TheTranarchist reply
    Which two are WP:SIRS of Tri-Ess? Levivich ( talk) 22:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    SAGE Encyclopedia of Trans Studies, Transgender Communities: Developing Identity Through Connection, and Virginia Prince: Transgender Pioneer to name 3. I added 5 sources total, removed some bad ones, and they provide a pretty good overview of the organization and its history at this point. If you still think there aren't enough I could always add more. Or you could. Anyone want to weigh in on if they think more sources are required? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 22:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    Thanks, I updated my vote. Levivich ( talk) 23:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    Btw, when I get the chance I'll try and clean up the article more and see if there are some more sources that cover it. Additionally, I believe, but I'm not sure, that there are some WP:SIRS and WP:RS on the Foundation for Personality Expression, which I'll also work in. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 23:19, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    Thank you for expanding it. If it has an entry in the SAGE encyclopedia, I have no doubt there are other SIRS sources about it, and (as no doubt you know) gender studies papers from the 20th century may not be as easy to find online like other topics. Levivich ( talk) 23:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    No problem! And certainly lol, but with the Wikipedia Library and my college's library I usually manage TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 23:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - per WP:HEYMANN. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ( work / talk) 02:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep per the above – this seems to be something which has a lot of passing coverage (which I know is not good enough for Wikipedia standards) and a few good sources already included in the article. Although I do agree that it needs a big overhaul as it stands, this is not grounds for deletion. -- EggsAndCakey ( talk) 14:10, 1 March 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! 07:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Interchill Records

Interchill 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)

I can't find a notability criteria for record labels but this one has no references on the page as it stands and I can't find anything that looks like a RS to show notability. JMWt ( talk) 17:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment found some pages on what seem to be record label info aggregators(?), but still nothing that would seem to indicate SIGCOV in independent RS. BhamBoi ( talk) 06:55, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Would need to meet WP:NCORP by having references meeting WP:ORGCRIT. Cannot find anything to support the notability under that criteria. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 05:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy ( talk) 00:13, 28 February 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 04:26, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Animesh Nandan Sahay

Animesh Nandan Sahay (  | talk | history | 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 CEO or Engineer. Possible COI. Misterrrrr ( talk) 10:54, 13 February 2023 (UTC) - WP:SOCKSTRIKE - Beccaynr ( talk) 18:47, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The Economic Times, The Washington Post and The Hindu Businessline have covered his work. Why is this not considered impactful? Google scholar has researchers not businessmen. Above are major media internationally. This person awarded First Achiever of Odisha award by the Times group, why is that non-notable work? Sugudoo ( talk) 00:51, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep: In addition to above media, also added coverage in The Hindu (1,415,792 Daily (as of December 2019)) along with citation in The Times of India (1,590,784 (as of June 2022)).
  1. "Achievers felicitated by TOI in Bhubaneswar". The Times of India. June 14, 2015. ISSN 0971-8257. Retrieved February 14, 2023.
  2. https://www.thehindu.com/sport/hockey/hi-ropes-in-mcl-as-principal-partner-for-champions-trophy/article6567615.ece
Sugudoo ( talk) 01:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to consider sources brought up in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 15:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More opinions on the sources provided are welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy ( talk) 00:12, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per lack of notability and coverage. I checked the page sources, as well as did my web-search. Suitskvarts ( talk) 20:28, 28 February 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_February_28&oldid=1143494283"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 27 March 01 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 23:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

John A. Fulton

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

Small-town mayor fails WP:POLITICIAN. Toddst1 ( talk) 23:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, I can find no meaningful sources. This is a DC Doozie which appears to have been created to highlight a "first", and what a dubious "first" that is: One of these two telescopes owned by Fulton made by Holcomb was the first reflecting telescope manufactured in America, however it is not known if this one was that particular telescope. He gets a minor mention in a local genealogical work, and one mention in passing as a surveyor. [1] SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Engineering, and Ohio. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, I couldn't find sufficient sources to show notability. Suonii180 ( talk) 19:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - lack of sources, as above. Ingratis ( talk) 22:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I too did an exhaustive search and turned up no evidence of WP:NOTABILITY that would satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NPOLITICIAN. Shawn Teller ( talk) 20:37, 7 March 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 20:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

List of most-awarded music artists

List of most-awarded music artists (  | talk | history | 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 was waiting for the work in progress tag to be removed. Now that it has, the first problem that I noticed is that there aren’t any references for the lead, hence the reason as to why this fails WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. None of the rhetoric in the lead is cited with a single source. Secondly, this article also violates  Wikipedia:NOT#STATS. There is no encyclopedic value for this data. Merely existing does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Finally, this is already covered in the articles for individual artist list of awards. The existence of this page is misleading and serves no purpose. TruthGuardians ( talk) 21:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete "The exact number of all awards received by an artist is difficult to verify because there is no organization regularly tracking the data." Your article is bad when your lede serves quite perfectly as its own deletion rationale. Nate • ( chatter) 23:07, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not feasible to maintain when most (or all) of the claims are hard to confirm in the first place. This at best is a collection of WP:SYNTH and doesn't warrant an article. SNUGGUMS ( talk / edits) 01:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Just another WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. The lists lead itself clearly indicates that. The exact number of all awards received by an artist is difficult to verify because there is no organization regularly tracking the data. Most media only report the most-awarded artists at individual award show, and a complete list of the most-awarded music artists remains unavailable. Nevertheless, the following list features music artists having won 10 times or more at five different award shows, thus giving an illustration of the “most-awarded music artists in history The articles of individual awards shows like Grammy, American Music Awards clearly mentioned who bagged most of their awards.— TheWikiholic ( talk) 04:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The list is arbitrary, not well-sourced castorbailey ( talk) 05:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This list deserves a 10 for effort and creativity and a 0 for compliance with policies and guidelines. gidonb ( talk) 13:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: I think those above me have said most of what I'd want to. My biggest concern is probaably the arbitrary threshold of awards to include in said list. Hey man im josh ( talk) 14:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment and delete With celebrity culture of all-about them, as far I remember, a handful of publications have elaborated lists regarding "most awarded" artists, or at least some have reported a "total" of award and nominations received by a specific artist. However, it feels like circular reporting. Bluesatellite gave a picture, but I also felt is not necessary. Aside that doesn't exist any tracking body, the concept of "award" is hard to determine: some people could mix solo/group careers of certain artists to present a "total", or imagine those awards gave to artist's team instead them, "certified awards" (VEVO, Guinness World Records), even listicles... and so on. -- Apoxyomenus ( talk) 01:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This is a new article that can be improved with more sources. Articles such as "Taylor Swift makes history as most awarded artist of all time" in Entertainment Weekly show that the media are keeping track of this topic. The book series Guinness World Records has kept track of this issue, listing Whitney Houston for many years as the most awarded female musical artist. I think it would be appropriate to WP:TROUT the nomination as this appears to be a content dispute about Michael Jackson with discussion based at Talk:Michael_Jackson#“Most_awarded_musician_in_history”. The fact that Michael Jackson doesn't appear at the top of this page is irksome to MJ's fanbase, and instead of expanding the article to include more of MJ, they are trying to delete it. Binksternet ( talk) 03:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    The above Entertainment Weekly show link that you provided was about Taylor Swift overtaking Michael Jackson as the most-winning American music awards artist. And it's already covered on the page of the American Music Awards. And Whintey Houston being the most-awarded female musical artist is yet to be verified and hence it has been removed from her pages as well. Reading the above talk page discussion gives the impression that the creator of this list has created it only to prove his arguments. TheWikiholic ( talk) 11:34, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • This article aims to cover the most accolades won by any musician ever across all ceremonies combined, and TheWikiholic is correct that Binksternet's link is only about the American Music Awards. It therefore shouldn't be treated as saying Taylor is the most cumulatively awarded for anywhere else. To give another example, Beyoncé setting a separate record for most Grammys received doesn't make her the most worldwide awarded artist either when factoring in all award ceremonies, just from that organization. Unless somebody can provide a ref establishing how an artist got more wins across every award ceremony there is along with some runner-ups (which I doubt exists), the list here isn't sustainable. I either way would like to make it clear that my vote isn't based on trying to designate anybody in particular as the most awarded musician. Guinness unfortunately could be outdated for Whitney. SNUGGUMS ( talk / edits) 12:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Not sure if Guinness World Records is necessarily a reliable source. LegalSmeagolian ( talk) 14:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
It most certainly is reliable, but its statistics often become obsolete with new records being made for things. SNUGGUMS ( talk / edits) 18:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
I'm sticking with my Keep vote because of various indications of media interest in who is the most-awarded across multiple awards. For instance, The Hollywood Reporter made a list in January 2018 of the top 25 musical artists based on Grammy awards, digital streaming, and retail sales figures. They talk about how Bruno Mars won multiple Grammys and AMAs to get listed at number 5. Other media observers relayed similar lists to their readers, including this 2018 list from Jacaranda FM which names Michael Jackson as the top. Another list came from this K-pop fan magazine talking about how a Korean group is listed alongside more famous Western acts. Loretta Lynn is named the most-awarded female country music artist by this piece in Billboard. The media are interested in this topic. Binksternet ( talk) 18:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Pile-on delete The most ridiculous thing about this is that the various artists and their awards cannot be directly compared to each other. Three of these artists have many Latin music awards, but the rest don't sing Latin music, so so what? Some have country, pop, or international awards that not everyone is competing in so there's no legitimate comparison to be made. Celine Dion apparently has 11 Best of Las Vegas Awards, but the linked article doesn't even mention these. Junk list altogether, and if the media above aren't using direct comparisons of awards everyone competed for (like within a single genre), they're junk too. Reywas92 Talk 19:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment That newspaper award should just be discounted entirely; those are always encouraged by the newspapers and businesses to have ballot stuffing. It's just a plaque hanging somewhere in the lobby, nothing Celine likely has ever touched herself. Nate • ( chatter) 15:39, 6 March 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. There is no possibility that this AfD will end any other way at this point. BD2412 T 23:11, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Rick Newman

Rick Newman (  | talk | history | 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 could not really see enough online and from the article to what I believe would allow this to pass WP:GNG. Results are dominated with other people with this name. Suggest merge and redirect to Catch a Rising Star (comedy clubs) in some form. Govvy ( talk) 21:30, 28 February 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 20:11, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

United Airlines N7431

United Airlines N7431 (  | talk | history | 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 aircraft accident. This is a 1951 crash of a DC-3 that was on a training flight, because the pilot stalled the aircraft and spun it into the ground, with all three people on board killed. It is not often that the actual text of the article makes the case that the article is non-notable, but this one actually does, stating It is not uncommon for this type of accident to occur during training flights as pilots may be experimenting with different maneuvers or training exercises. Indeed the text is correct: this sort of accident is very common and WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Thousands of DC-3s and C-47s have crashed and most of these accidents are not notable. Being 72 years ago, we now know that there were no WP:LASTING effects from this accident noted, no airworthiness directives, no changes in flying or ATC procedures, etc. This article is just a simple newspaper story and contravenes our Wikipedia policy WP:NOTNEWS, which says Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. Ahunt ( talk) 20:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt ( talk) 20:52, 28 February 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! 07:19, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Trevor Grahl

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a composer, not properly sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. There are things stated here that would be acceptable notability claims if they were referenced properly, but the article is entirely unsourced, and there's nothing stated here that would constitute an "inherent" notability freebie in the absence of any WP:GNG-worthy sourcing. And the article has existed since 2006 without ever having any proper sources added to it except for inappropriate offsite links to the self-published websites of organizations named in the body text, which had to be stripped as WP:ELNO violations — so it's time to source it properly or lose it.
There's also a past prod in the edit history, which got the article deleted and then subsequently restored on an undeletion request by somebody with a username highly suggestive of being the article subject, which in turn raises conflict of interest issues. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which people are entitled to have articles just because they exist; notability has to be demonstrated by third-party reliable source coverage analyzing the significance of their work, not just by verifying that their work exists. (For example, competitions only become notability claims to the extent that they can be referenced to media coverage in order to establish that the competition is seen as a significant one by the media, and do not become notability claims if they're primary sourced to the competition's own self-published content about itself.) Bearcat ( talk) 17:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. Bearcat ( talk) 17:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I failed to uncover enough evidence that the subject meets GNG. There are a few website matches, that appear to republish a bio provided by the subject. He gets a few lines in "A Laboratory for Sound" by Kimberley Marshall, in American Organist Magazine. Oct2020, Vol. 54 Issue 10, p54-56. "'Urban Wind' and the John Weinzweig Award" in Canadian Winds / Vents Canadiens. Spring2008, Vol. 6 Issue 2, p55 probably counts as one source towards meeting GNG, but I couldn'd find another. Please ping me if good sources are identified. BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 10:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 19:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - I don't see any meaingful coverage in RS's. NickCT ( talk) 20:18, 28 February 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. Yes, I opened this. However there is no dissension and original editor now willing to accept draft space, rendering this moot so my nomination is withdrawn if that makes the close less weird. Star Mississippi 00:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Ali Sahib Abushanan

Ali Sahib Abushanan (  | talk | history | 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 indication of notability, although language is likely an issue there is barely an assertion thereof. Likely UPE, but creator unwilling to accept draftspace. Star Mississippi 18:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iraq. Star Mississippi 18:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    Can the article be reviewed, or will it be acknowledged to be deleted, and I hope to improve it in the future. If it is deleted, I will accept any decision regarding the article and regarding the mistake I made. Thank you Ali.saheb99 ( talk) 22:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    Comment- Ali.saheb99 you would have left it at draft space when it was moved for an experience editor after summiting, why in hurry or do you have connections with the article? From the sources provided it doesn't meet Notability not even WP Anybio. Epcc12345 ( talk) 23:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    Yes, I made a mistake because of my haste in order to turn it into its article, but I am completely sure of all the sources that I put in, especially the sources from the newspaper, but I will accept whether it was deleted or not, and I will start again, and I hope that you will guide me. Should I delete it or wait for a review to delete it? Errors to avoid their occurrence in the future and improve writing. Ali.saheb99 ( talk) 23:34, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    If you are willing to accept draft space and wait for a neutral review @ Ali.saheb99 I will close this discussion as draftify. Star Mississippi 23:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    I agree Ali.saheb99 ( talk) 23:55, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    Thank you. I'll leave a note on your Talk page so you know where to access the text. Star Mississippi 00:15, 4 March 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 One Day International. Liz Read! Talk! 04:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC) reply

NatWest Series

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

The NatWest Series was just a sponsor name for the One Day International matches played in England. Unlike what the article is trying to say, there was no links between the different year's matches, and so we don't need an article listing all the matches in series under the same sponsor name. This is a case of sponsorship rather than it being a genuine recurring event like the Cricket World Cup or The Ashes. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann (Talk) 18:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to or Merge with One Day International. It's a plausible enough search term that it should lead somewhere. JMB1980 ( talk) 18:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with One Day International.  //  Timothy ::  talk  08:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect and Merge I would agree that a separate article is not needed, but as noted it is a plausible search term and thus a redirect makes sense. Dunarc ( talk) 23:32, 4 March 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 Bebe Patten. Liz Read! Talk! 18:07, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Patten Academy of Christian Education

Patten Academy of Christian Education (  | talk | history | 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 notability. I found one RS on web [2], but it's just a short mention of "a small private school" Suitskvarts ( talk) 18:28, 28 February 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! 18:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

William Hare (author)

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

Prevailing logic of previous reasons for keeping this page was "He has 5 books with about 200-300 libraries holding each, and there will presumably be reviews, though they need to be looked for" pretty much WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. After briefly searching for reviews of these books, I could not locate any, and regardless I could not find any sources which suggests this person meets the notability guidelines for authors. Hence delete the article due to not being notable. LegalSmeagolian ( talk) 18:26, 28 February 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! 18:02, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

List of Fabloo bands

List of Fabloo bands (  | talk | history | 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 list for which I was unable to find any detailed coverage in WP:RS to support inclusion for any of the contents apart from Tally Hall, who coined the genre first. The only website coming back in my searches is Reddit, which is not an acceptable source. Not finding evidence for WP:GNG or WP:LISTN for this list, which seems to be WP:OR. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Note - See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fabloo. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 13:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Reddit and last.fm are deprecated at WP:RSPS Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:03, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Reddit is deprecated at WP:RSPS Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:03, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this and the "genre" page. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme ( talk) 04:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per detailed explanations above. Lorstaking ( talk) 15:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - It does not matter that some bands coined a new term for themselves and a few of their fans talked about it on Reddit. Not only is the genre itself non-notable, including a band in a list about the genre does not qualify for WP:NLIST. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 13:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Is a made-up genre used by one band and its musicians. This page is also WP:OR. Why? I Ask ( talk) 13:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the list does not pass WP:NLIST. TipsyElephant ( talk) 21:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete "Fabloo" is barely notable as it, in addition to the WP:NLIST issue. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NLIST. Shankargb ( talk) 03:08, 7 March 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. Vanamonde ( Talk) 16:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Pujaran

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

Television series of uncertain notability; has been moved back and forth to draft and replaced in main without improvement. It *may* ultimately prove notable but as it stands does not meet criteria. 'Naive' search did not reveal SIGCOV and to avoid further 'move-warring' a discussion is now warranted. Eagleash ( talk) 16:19, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. Skynxnex ( talk) 16:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Fails WP:NFP , WP:GNG, not single reliable source exist, routine blogposts. M.Ashraf333 ( talk) 02:22, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG. The subject has only one reliable source and significant review VOA Urdu, which is not enough. Insight 3 ( talk) 08:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, as references listed are from strong websites in the country, not merely blogs. I can add more references and content in few days as well. Lillyput4455 ( talk) 06:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Fails WP:NFP , GNG, Sources in article are promotional, routine, blog type posts. Article does not have SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from independent RS.  //  Timothy ::  talk  07:40, 7 March 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 Quantum Leap characters. Clear consensus against a standalone article, no objections discussed to the argument to redirect. Vanamonde ( Talk) 16:46, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Al Calavicci

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

2600 words on entirely in-universe information, with no assertion the subject meets the GNG (and not a single reference, to boot.) Coverage of the character is glancing and incidental on a look for sources, with the best stuff I could find being side relevance to recaps and the like, or single mentions of the characters loud fashion choices, which does not a standalone article make. There's already a List of Quantum Leap characters article where a short summary would satisfy the relevance of this character. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:03, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep, this character is central to the television series and one of two from it to have a well-deserved stand-alone article. I would think the actor's obit, at a minimum, would mention this iconic role. His television legacy now extends to the current series. As a side-note, Ziggy predates the popularity of the internet and Wikipedia itself which it foreshadows. Randy Kryn ( talk) 16:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    • The actor's obituary mention it, but nothing substantial to meet WP:GNG. They're arguments for the notability of the actor, not the role. As for predating the popularity of the internet, that doesn't really factor in here: I looked on Ebsco and ProQuest and the coverage of the character is incidental in contemporary reviews of the show, as well. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Skynxnex ( talk) 16:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • No real objection to merging to the list of Quantum Leap characters if this is NN, but did you look at the Google Scholar hits? Several of them appear to be worth checking out. Jclemens ( talk) 01:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect' or delete There is no argument that can keep unsourced article on mainspace, that has been here for years. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Redirect it to the appropriate place. scope_creep Talk
  • Delete Unsourced fancruft, no evidence this has any SIGCOV from RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. No objection to redirect to List of Quantum Leap characters.  //  Timothy ::  talk  07:45, 7 March 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 13:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

List of ghost towns in New Brunswick

List of ghost towns in New Brunswick (  | talk | history | 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 contains of a chunk of unsourced "classifications" and then lists what appears to be a very arbitrary collection of sites, including two sparsely but indisputably inhabited towns, and a dilapidated amusement park. One single reference and that for a place that does not appear to be a ghost town. I'm seeing a lot of WP:OR and next to nothing to back up inclusion of entries. At present, there's no basis for an article. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 16:00, 28 February 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. Consensus is already overwhelmingly clear, there is no need to prolong this discussion. I will retain the talk page as G8 exempt. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Birth of public radio broadcasting

Birth of public radio broadcasting (  | talk | history | 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 mess, and a Doug Coldwell creation. The whole premise is that Lee de Forest supposedly did the world's first public radio broadcast. As it turns out, this claim is not supported by the sources. The source for "this event is regarded as the birth of public radio broadcasting" actually says "In 1910, he attempted the first live broadcast from New York's Metropolitan Opera House (starring Enrico Caruso)." In other words, he took a source that doesn't support this claim at all and spun it into an OR creation. The line "The birth of public radio broadcasting had an immediate impact on radio broadcasting as it stimulated the idea of having additional musical programs." is entirely original research.

This one broadcast isn't individually notable, and this article never should have been created. This particular event is sufficiently covered at Lee de Forest#Initial broadcasting experiments, which also shows that this wasn't even the first broadcast by de Forest, identifying a 1909 broadcast of a suffragette speech by de Forest's mother-in-law! That this was even created, let alone passed GAN makes a mockery of the entire process. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 15:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. How terribly sad to see all this. The article's premise is simply mistaken and the claims are based on nothing. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 15:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I do think a wider article on the early history of public radio broadcasting could potentially be notable (even if this particular event may not warrant its own article). However, this article would have to be completely rewritten, as it is extremely misleading. As the nominator says, this article itself contradicts Lee de Forest#Initial broadcasting experiments, and there are significant issues with source-text integrity. – Epicgenius ( talk) 16:09, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    I concur that the ostensible subject of the article (early history of public radio broadcasting) could be an encyclopedic topic. Sadly that is not what we have here. If we did, I would have stubbified and moved on (to PDEL copyvio) instead of using AfD. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 16:12, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    That makes sense. – Epicgenius ( talk) 01:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    I should also note that I agree with Sammi Brie's comment below; this isn't even about public radio broadcasts. So the entirety of the article is based on two falsehoods. This already was not the first radio broadcast that the public heard, but even if it were, this was also not the first broadcast of public radio. Given that it wasn't the first radio broadcast heard by the public, nor was it the first public-radio broadcast, I do not believe it meets the GNG. I also doubt its long-term significance, since if something already happened once, the next occurrence of that thing isn't typically as important. – Epicgenius ( talk) 13:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Doesn't deserve to exist. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete a DC doozie. (I stared at that article for half an hour trying to figure out what next; glad TAOT took it on.) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    Closing admin: is it possible to save the talk page here for history? It was a DYK hook, ran four times on OTD, and in spite of several threads on talk questioning the article, it was promoted GA. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    In addition to the admin not pressing the button, consider adding {{ G8-exempt}} to the talk page to keep bots from deleting it. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 18:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    I agree that the talk page should be at least retained. Even though the article should definitely be deleted, I think the talk page may still be a "page that is useful to Wikipedia" because of its OTD appearances and because it is a delisted GA. – Epicgenius ( talk) 01:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex ( talk) 16:50, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as a fabrication. Even the title is gimmicky and unencyclopedic. An article about this specific event, presuming that it deserves one, should be named for the event: Lee de Forest radio broadcast of January 1910, for example. This title reads like the headline for a local-interest story. (I can almost see it now, beginning with "113 years ago today, a Council Bluffs man tried to get radio off the ground." And ending with a joke about pledge drives.) XOR'easter ( talk) 17:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete Feels like an essay or OR. Public broadcasting is different in each country and the article doesn't make that clear. Seems to draw conclusions that aren't in the sources. Oaktree b ( talk) 18:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:TNT. We already have other articles that provide much better coverage of this subject. Partofthemachine ( talk) 00:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The title is terrible (radio broadcasting to the public is not what "public radio" is to most people), the content is terrible, the provenance is terrible. A page whose deletion will be good for the encyclopedia and our readers. Sammi Brie (she/her •  t • c) 07:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to History of broadcasting. Other possible targets would be History of radio#Broadcasting or Radio broadcasting#History. WP:BLAR would preserve everything and among those is a plausible redirect. Whether those three agree on the history is a different matter. Slywriter ( talk) 14:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per TAOT. I saw this AfD because I watchlisted the original GA review page back when it was nominated (before that page existed), and saw Sandy add a template to it. I don't do much GA reviewing, but take a look at the list of noms once in a while in case something jumps out. Around that time I came across a few nominations by prolific GA writers that seemed to have really fundamental problems (inappropriate scope/title, reliance on in-universe sourcing, notability concerns, etc.). I didn't dig into the sources of this one, but even still it seemed more like a small part of another article, spun out and given an inappropriate title/framing, rather than an independently notable event. I remember thinking "how is a reviewer going to even approach this?" To my surprise, it pretty much sailed through the review process (as did the others FWIW, mostly not articles by DC IIRC). Looking forward to seeing how the ongoing GA RfC will pan out, and how it will find a balance between minimum standards and not becoming a huge task for a reviewer. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:18, 1 March 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 Punjabi Bagh. Liz Read! Talk! 17:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Paschim Vihar

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

unreferenced article. Endrabcwizart ( talk) 05:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting rather than soft deleting as the state of references in an article does not necessarily reflect notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 15:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: No objection to a redirect to Punjabi Bagh. An unofficial area within a subzone of a subdivision. Article makes no claim of notability, in fact states this is a "typical" area and goes on to describe a completely ordinary area with no distinguishing features from the surrounding areas. Fails GNG and NGEO, nothing to merge because its all entirely unsourced and there are no RS with SIGCOV.  //  Timothy ::  talk  02:37, 7 March 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. (non-admin closure) –– FormalDude (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

AlphaPolis

AlphaPolis (  | talk | history | 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. I'm only seeing coverage that is non-reliable or trivial. –– FormalDude (talk) 06:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
 Nomination withdrawn –– FormalDude (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. AlphaPolis is a Japanese publisher of several novel series that have been turned into anime, including Gate and Tsukimichi: Moonlit Fantasy. The original novel series for Gate has old over 6 million copies. (AlphaPolis were the only publisher on the list of best-selling light novel series to not have a Wikipedia page.)
The process by which the article was listed for deletion contravened points C 1, 2, 3 on the recommended process for AfDs. The article can be fixed through ordinary editing, it was recently created, and no effort was made to raise concerns before it was listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waltpohl ( talk • contribs) 09:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Waltpohl ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. reply
The article was moved to draftspace by MPGuy2824 where you could have tried to fix it without risk of deletion, but instead you added two sources that don't suggest any notability and moved it back to mainspace. –– FormalDude (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Did you nominate it for deletion as a favor to User:MPGuy2824? I'm having trouble understanding your motivation here. -- Walt Pohl ( talk) 10:22, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I agree with nominator. None of the sources listed on the page are significant, independent, reliable, and secondary as required by WP:NCORP. I wouldn't be opposed to re-draftifying either, though. Bensci54 ( talk) 17:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    What is wrong with the sources? Anime News Network is the main English-language news site for anime and manga. The sales charts are translations from the Oricon sales charts, which are the main bestseller list for manga. -- Walt Pohl ( talk) 21:24, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    They lack in-depth coverage. –– FormalDude (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    I added links to news stories from Oricon and Nikkei (though the Nikkei one is partially behind a paywall).
Anyway, the sales charts are prima facie not routine announcements.-- Walt Pohl ( talk) 23:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Thank you, that is exactly what was needed. I'll withdraw my nomination but I can't close this AfD since Bensci54 has !voted. –– FormalDude (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
I took a look at how the sourcing has improved since I last commented on this AfD, and I agree that notability has been established. I do not have any issue with closing the AfD. Bensci54 ( talk) 17:21, 3 March 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! 17:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Ringo (game)

Ringo (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)

there seem to be a number of games called Ringo but I can't find any significant sources discussing this version. Article is overdetailed, and effectively unsourced. Gugrak ( talk) 06:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Have added a second source and commensurate text. As far as "overdetailed", I quite agree; however, trimming down substantially is an editing matter, not a cause for article deletion. (It's common for original article creators to over-detail, simplification isn't easy it's a skill, I've acquired some of said skill but haven't edited this article before today.) p.s. Perhaps the article title s/b more specifically Ringo (board game) rather than Ringo (game). -- IHTS ( talk) 07:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Have also added a second R.C. Bell source. -- IHTS ( talk) 08:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Barely.  //  Timothy ::  talk  03:22, 7 March 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! 05:20, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Financial Market Authority (Austria)

Financial Market Authority (Austria) (  | talk | history | 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 unreferenced article looks like a promotion Endrabcwizart ( talk) 05:22, 28 February 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. There's clearly not going to be a consensus to delete this, and the count is currently in favour of keeping the standalone article, however further evaluation of the sources and whether to merge can of course continue on the article talk page. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 09:57, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Charles Cholmondeley (British intelligence officer)

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

Notable only for WP:1E of his involvement in Operation Mincemeat, all relevant detail can be found on that page so this should replaced with a redirect Mztourist ( talk) 04:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep There is no such thing as partial notability. With a biography, it is either established by significant coverage, per WP:GNG, or it isn't, and in this case the two books relied on clearly take Cholmondeley over that hurdle, the whole of him. On WP:1E, that says "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Moonraker ( talk) 20:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
I don't see that his role in Mincemeat was "a large one". The page is simply a brief description of his role in Mincemeat, with more detail about the Twenty Committee and Montagu than him. There is a complete lack of basic biographical detail about Cholmondeley and none of the sources I have seen amount to SIGCOV of him satisfying GNG. Mztourist ( talk) 04:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
I don't see that his role in Mincemeat was "a large one". Bizarre comment, given he and Montagu were almost wholly responsible for it! Montagu was the more senior officer (by only a single rank), but Cholmondeley was equally responsible. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 11:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Proveit with RS. Mztourist ( talk) 03:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Reliable sources are cited in the article and already were when you nominated it for deletion. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist ( talk) 04:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ( work / talk) 06:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge. A search on him returns hundreds of pages, and a search excluding the name of the operation returns pages in other languages, so looks like WP:1E indeed. 20:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep. Prominent figure in a prominent operation that has been the subject of multiple books and two feature films (although he was fictionalised in one of them). Continued his intelligence career after the war. Plenty of coverage of him personally. Clearly notable. Easily meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 11:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Please provide the "Plenty of coverage of him personally" because that is completely lacking on the page or in any of the references I've been able to access. Mztourist ( talk) 03:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Have you looked at all the books about the operation? You know, actual books, not just online sources? There are a number of them out there. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Have you? Or did you just watch the film? You claim there is ""Plenty of coverage of him personally" so proveit. Mztourist ( talk) 10:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Yes, and they're cited in the article. You seem to be moving close to claiming that only content you can personally see online is valid. You know very well that's not the case. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
No, there is no coverage of him personally as you claim. Where and when was he born? How many siblings did he have? Where did he go to school? Was he married? Did he have children? When did he join the RAF? What did he do after the war? What did he die of? Where is buried? Basic biographical detail, none of which is on the page. Mztourist ( talk) 16:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is a work in progress and AfD is about the validity of the topic not the current quality of the article. I'm sure you do know this really. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 16:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Basic biographical detail of someone who died 70 years ago and is supposed to be notable should be available. I'm sure you do know this really, just as you know how WP1E works, but then you seem to think no page should ever be deleted. Mztourist ( talk) 03:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Not sure why it's necessary for basic biographical details to be available for someone to be notable for Wikipedia. We can take from his Times obituary that he didn't seek publicity and probably didn't divulge these details. However, there are online sources that do reveal that he was born in South Australia on 27 January 1917 and was buried in St. David's Churchyard, Barton St David, Somerset and also what he did after the war. Piecesofuk ( talk) 10:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Because if they're notable for more than WP:1E as claimed then basic biographical details should be available. The family geneology page that you provided is not RS. Mztourist ( talk) 06:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply
but then you seem to think no page should ever be deleted. This is of course utter rubbish. I don't think pages on clearly notable subjects should be deleted. I think some editors on Wikipedia delight in getting articles deleted and would far rather do that than create them. I certainly do not think that no page should ever be deleted. Please don't start making attacks on those who disagree with you. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 11:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Given your lists and various arguments here at AfD over the years it seems a perfectly valid observation. Mztourist ( talk) 06:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply
This is a civil discussion about an article and available sources, on- and off-line. Please focus on the article and possible sources, not your opinion of other editors. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 04:29, 5 March 2023 (UTC) reply
It is a completely false observation clearly intended to undermine my position. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:11, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Look at your User Page under Notability. Mztourist ( talk) 04:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
That is a very strange "obituary" as it omits any details of Cholmondeley's life other than his involvement in Operation Mincemeat and otherwise unsupported claims about V-weapons. Nice of Montagu to write it I suppose, but doesn't add anything to what is contained in other sources about his WP:1E life. Mztourist ( talk) 03:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
UndercoverClassicist I also can't find him in the ODNB, please provide a link. Mztourist ( talk) 10:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Sorry: I was looking at the ODNB cited in the article, but it's someone else.
Yes Montagu's, because he was notable for more that just that WP:1E. Mztourist ( talk) 16:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
As for the obituary, I don't think we get to split hairs about content here: if someone has an obituary published in a national newspaper, that's evidence that they were considered notable. The content of the obituary is a nice extra, but there's no way to discount its existence as evidence of notability. UndercoverClassicist ( talk) 13:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
No, there are "real" obituaries written by the paper's obituary writers and others written by family or friends, the former go to notability, the latter don't. Montagu's "obituary" clearly is the latter. Mztourist ( talk) 16:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
A good quotation here from this book, p.370:
"In truth , it was Flight Lieutenant Charles Cholmondeley who really triggered off the whole concept of MINCEMEAT ... and Bevan recognised that Cholmondeley and Montagu were due at least equal credit." UndercoverClassicist ( talk) 13:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Pure WP:1E. There is no basic biographical detail about him separate from Mincemeat. Mztourist ( talk) 16:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge or Redirect Looks to be a clear case of WP:1E. I see no evidence of notability aside from his involvement in MICEMEAT. The existence of an obituary only proves that he died. Intothat darkness 14:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
    • It proves that he died and that Britain's premier national newspaper of record thought he was important enough to publish an obituary written by one of his colleagues. A rather different thing. Most people die without a summary of their life and achievements appearing in The Times. Bear in mind that The Times wouldn't even note the deaths of many of the pop culture figures with no long-term significance whatsoever who have articles on Wikipedia, let alone publish something more substantial on them. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
      Sure, but it's also quite possible the obituary was run on the strength of who wrote it, and not the notability of the subject. We're also not discussing pop culture figures, and if they should have articles or not doesn't really bear on this particular article. Intothat darkness 15:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge or Redirect to Operation Mincemeat unless better sourcing is found. I'm not seeing any indicia of this being more than WP:BIO1E. - Ljleppan ( talk) 10:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • keep based on the obituary in the Times and involvement in an important intelligence operation. Without the obituary it might be a BIO1E case but an obituary in the Times indicates continued relevance and enough relevance for the newspaper to run the obituary. -- hroest 04:03, 5 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Passes GNG, BASIC: Two of the sources (Smyth 2010, Macintyre 2010) have SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. See below:

Source assessment table: prepared by User:TimothyBlue
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/the-war-on-paper-operation-mincemeat Yes Independent Yes RS No Article only mentions subject in "together with Squadron Leader Charles Cholmondely". No actual information. ✘ No
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/17910065 Yes Independent Yes RS No Name mentioned in list, no SIGCOV ✘ No
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/36544/supplement/2584 Yes Independent Yes RS No Name mentioned in list, no SIGCOV ✘ No
Montagu, Ewen (23 June 1982). "Mr Charles Cholmondeley". The Times. No. 61267. p. 12. ? Independent ? RS ? Obit, uncertain of how independent or the editorial oversidght/fact checking of obits. ? Unknown
Macintyre 2010 Yes Independent Yes RS Yes I own this work, it does have SIGCOV about the article subject (See index) ✔ Yes
Smyth 2010 Yes Independent Yes RS Yes I own this work, it does have SIGCOV about the article subject (See index) ✔ Yes
Foot 2004 Yes Independent Yes RS No Mentioned, no SIGCOV ✘ No
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}}.

 //  Timothy ::  talk  04:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Then please add the detail to the page so those of us who don't own the books can see what they say. I certainly agree with you that the Montagu "obituary" doesn't count towards GNG Mztourist ( talk) 04:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply
@ TimothyBlue: given that the primary concern is WP:BIO1E, it would be helpful if you gave a brief rundown of how extensive and far-reaching the coverage in Macintyre and Smyth is beyond MINCEMEAT. Simply asserting significant coverage in this context is not very helpful, especially since both Macintyre and Smyth appear (based on the titles) to very much be about the operation. Ljleppan ( talk) 06:40, 7 March 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. Some of the issues here (out of date / duplicated content) can probably be resolved through editing, unfortunately no consensus has formed for either the merge proposal or deleting this article at this time. No prejudice against a further nomination at a later time if issues around how to present this content are still unresolved – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 10:14, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Predicting the timing of peak oil

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

Firstly hopelessly out of date as it seems to assume that oil will peak due to lack of supply rather than demand.

Secondly the topic is covered much better in Fossil fuel phase-out.

By the way my earlier proposal to merge with peak oil was rejected. Chidgk1 ( talk) 14:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete This is already covered in peak oil, and the topic is too closely related to peak oil to have its own article. Essentially, a discussion of peak oil is practically a discussion of the prediction of peak oil. There may be some salvageable information (especially historical context) that can be integrated into peak oil. -- Ita140188 ( talk) 17:33, 13 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    Good point about salvageable info - you and @ EMsmile have now convinced me I favour Redirect to peak oil so that future editors can use "View history" to easily retrieve anything they would like to move to that article Chidgk1 ( talk) 06:33, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This is already covered in peak oil, but in standard summary style, just as long articles must be. Naturally, there are many <main article> summary sections on that peak oil page. This is a long topic, rightly broken down to a summary article and component articles on subtopics. Peak_oil#Predictions is a fairly vanilla use of the <main article> style of article organization (something that's apparently used in 1% of all articles). This historical background is worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia, but would give undue weight and length to the parent article if embedded there. (Presumably, this is why this page was given its own article, and why similar pages on complex subjects are broken out from their main topic, and was only reason that the earlier merger proposal was rejected.) So, I prefer the style as it is, but that's maybe just my personal preference. I want to address the three specific reasons given in the deletion proposal above. The first reason given for deletion is that: the article is "outdated"... but that's entirely to be expected of a retrospective of predictions. (Note that the lengthy Geocentric model article also uses the summary & <main article> organization.) The second reason given (in the AfD proposal) is that: "the topic is covered much better" in another article... Yet that other article actually contains almost none of the same content (on historic predictions) and really has a different focus (though not a different POV--it's not even a wp:povfork). The third proposal sentence is the killer, since it points out that an earlier merger proposal was rejected, which clarifies the intention: to excise this material from the encyclopedia. The effect of deletion would be: to remove interesting background content from Wikipedia, information that is not given on the main page or in Fossil fuel phase-out or on any other article (that I can find). If there were such parallel/fork articles, or if the merger request hadn't already been rejected, then moving this content would be a worthwhile discussion. But instead, this AfD proposal is simply a proposal to delete the detailed history of peak oil predictions. I.e. it's a proposal to erase notable and relevant background to the main article (which aleady includes this important sub-topic in summary form). We should keep this content. Outright notable content removal isn't a standard use of AfD. I don't see how deleting this article would satisfy any of the AfD criteria, but even if I've missed something in that list (that might by used to justify this deletion) the two reasons given in the proposal don't conform to any of the 14 reasons listed be the AfD policy (as well as being unclear reasons for deletion in themselves). -- Wragge ( talk) 04:51, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    Reason 14 which covers anything else - because “A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject” As you rightly say the article is a detailed history of peak oil predictions. In fact it is so detailed and out of date that I contend that a reader would not be able to see the wood for the trees and would misunderstand the subject as we understand it today. I am not an academic but as I understand it nowadays (since the invasion of Ukraine) the peak year is most likely between 2022 and 2025 and depends on energy security and Russian drills falling apart, price caps, IRA and carbon taxes etc - this can perfectly well be summarized in a few paragraphs in the peak oil article. But I suspect editors are reluctant to update anything to do with peak oil because they fear getting tangled up in many pages of historical details. Chidgk1 ( talk) 12:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    I should also have mentioned Phase-out of fossil fuel vehicles as another article which seems far more useful to the reader and which could be used to hold any bits of info which are actually summary style Chidgk1 ( talk) 13:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply
I think I would support Chidgk1's proposal although a whole sale deletion sounds a bit harsh. I would assume some content could be salvaged in a kind of "history" section as part of peak oil. Actually this coincides with the proposal by Ita140188, so I agree with them. An alternative might be to give the article a name change to History of peak oil predictions. - Can we please have the link to the earlier discussion of merging it into peak oil? Oh wait, I found it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Peak_oil&oldid=1136640945#Merger_proposal EMsmile ( talk) 15:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply
We agree that there's a problem, but might differ on exactly what it is. For me, the key problem isn't the overabundance of historical predictions, but is the lack of detail on the most material point that the average reader would probably want to know: what is the best & latest estimate for the peak oil year? I think has Chidgk1 has put their finger on this point (in the comment above). The strange thing about all three of these articles is that (despite being very long) none lead with this date. This absence might be explained by an overinterpretation of WP:CRYSTAL, but whatever is the cause, the gap is glaring. (How can we have an article or a section on "predicting peak oil" without daring to give the consensus prediction?) And closing this gap can't be achieved by deleting material; it should be solved in the normal way: by boldly editing these articles to foreground the best estimates from the literature. (Ideally, this expected date would be in the first sentence of Peak_oil#Predictions and would be covered in more detail at the start of this <main> article.) In the current state, the most daring answer given to the main practical question is in the Peak Oil lede: "as of 2021, forecasts of the year of peak oil range from 2019 to 2040"... If that's really the best we can do, then it's not an argument for deleting (most) of the content in this article (maybe it's an argument against the deletion, since we need more detail on the reasons for uncertainty). Alternatively, if we can be more specific then a bold edit should solve it. -- Wragge ( talk) 02:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Wragge If you or anyone else would like to spend the time and effort to bring the article up to scratch good luck with it - but I doubt there is enough good info to justify both this article and peak oil. If there was only one article I suspect editors would be keener to improve it Chidgk1 ( talk) 06:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - IF the article is kept, and I am neutral on that point, the title needs to be changed to something more noun like. I'm aware "Predicting" is technically a gerund in this context, but it doesn't read like one. PianoDan ( talk) 17:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep; subject is notable enough to justify an independent article. InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 22:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply
I agree the subject is notable - but I disagree that is enough to justify an independent article Chidgk1 ( talk) 06:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 03:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Redirect to peak oil per nom RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 05:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy ( talk) 03:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep The meat of this article is the detailed history of past and present prediction methods. Good encyclopedic material, and demonstrably quite extensive. I don't see why this should not be spun out into a separate article that is suitably linked and summarized in the main article. Peak oil is not unmanageably big but it's certainly getting into the range where we should think twice about ramming in further material that makes good standalone sub-topics. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 13:53, 6 March 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 04:26, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

@properties

@properties (  | talk | history | 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 meeting CORP, sources are all press-releases or the like. No coverage in RS found, beyond routine mentions of business transactions. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:58, 28 February 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:46, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Dominique Brown

Dominique Brown (  | talk | history | 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 does not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for sports and athletics. This is a guy who was not selected in a professional football draft, never appeared in a professional football game, never won a college football award, etc. Dennis C. Abrams ( talk) 02:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep per sources shown by Cbl62. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 21:37, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. He rushed for 1,795 yards in his college career and scored 18 touchdowns for a Division I FBS program. See here. This level of accomplishment leads me to think that there's likely to be SIGCOV. A quick search of Newspapers.com does turn up some. E.g., this ( part 1/ part 2) and this. I will try to do a deeper search later but this look like a possible GNG pass. Cbl62 ( talk) 20:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Hmm... I didn't see those sources when I searched. I'll strike my vote for now. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 21:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Finding some more. E.g., this ( part 1/ part 2), this/ this (same AP piece picked up in different newspapers), this, and this, this. Cbl62 ( talk) 21:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Wow! I must have really screwed up in searching to miss all those. I'd say its enough for GNG. I've !voted keep. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 21:37, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Brown was a NCAA Division I FBS starting quarterback/running back. His career was exceptional enough to win him an invitation to play in the East–West Shrine Bowl, a college football all-star game. See here. Not surprisingly in light of his accomplishments as a major college player, he received considerable WP:SIGCOV and thus passes WP:GNG. Examples of the SIGCOV are linked above. Cbl62 ( talk) 21:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Meets GNG per sources from Cbl62. ~ EDDY ( talk/ contribs)~ 22:02, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Cbl62's sources. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 03:20, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG with the sources found by Cbl62. Alvaldi ( talk) 08:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Passes GNG with the improvements made by Cbl62. Hey man im josh ( talk) 14:07, 6 March 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 am persuaded by the arguments that WP:SYNTH is a fundamental problem in this article and that it warrants its deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Albanian Resistance in Yugoslavia

Albanian Resistance in Yugoslavia (  | talk | history | 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 bulk of the article actually discusses topics which already have articles of their own ( Albanian–Yugoslav conflict, 1981 protests in Kosovo, Adem Jashari, Insurgency in Kosovo (1995–1998), and Kosovo War). Leaving all of that out, we are left with a text about a supposed plan by the Communist-era leader of Albania Enver Hoxha to invade Yugoslavia after Josip Broz Tito's death which never materialized; content that can easily be merged into the Hoxha article or another.

The bigger problem is that the article links up various events in Kosovo post-Cold war era and declares that they were all part of one conflict that lasted from 1948-1999 with the direct involvement of Albania. It's a WP:SYNTH of sources and likely WP:OR on the part of the creator. This is not how bibliography or sources generally treat the subject. The level of involvement on the part of the government of Albania in the push for Kosovo independence or unification with Albania is also disputed. Even one of the sources cited, Julie Mertus' Kosovo: How Myths and Truths Started a War, says that "If Albania was, as some Serbs suggest, helping Kosovo Albanians in 1981, that move would have been against Albanian policy. Albanian had indeed beamed its television and radio programs and sent books over the border to Kosovo, but it did little more to encourage Kosovo Albanians to "unite with the motherland".. never wanting to create tensions with Yugoslavia, Albania had even returned members of illegal Kosovar groups who had sought shelter within its borders." Albanian influence in these various matters is something that could be mentioned but doubtful as an umbrella article of its own. Griboski ( talk) 22:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Albania. Shellwood ( talk) 23:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Kosovo, and Yugoslavia. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Enver Hoxha had many conflicts with Yugoslavia or with Tito, about whom you also said that Enver Hoxha didn't want anything to go into any conflict with Yugoslavia, then tell me why Enver Hoxha had many plans with Mehmet Shehu to found Kosovar Albanian rebels, about whom Enver Hoxha also knew that there were many Albanians in Kosovo who made attacks on the Yugoslavs and Enver Hoxha withdrew and did not support Tito. NormalguyfromUK ( talk) 15:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Then to the protests in 1981 many Kosovo Albanian rebels like Nuhi Berisha and Rexhep Mala made attacks on Yugoslav policemen. Enver Hoxha supported their party and the Kosovars a lot during the crisis in Yugoslavia. Also because of this, Enver Hoxha made a plan to attack Yugoslavia during the 70 years in order to retake Kosovo. NormalguyfromUK ( talk) 15:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Please read more carefully. The issue is whether this topic deserves a stand-alone article. The article is mostly a rehashing of already existing articles. And I was not stating my opinion, I was using one of the sources you cited which stated that Albanian involvement in the 1981 protests was meager. -- Griboski ( talk) 18:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply
I understand, however, there is no reason to delete the article. Maybe if we want, we could add tags to this article with More sources to improve, but I don't understand this as deletion. Resistance also existed and ended like that when the Kosovo war ended. You yourself agreed with me, Yes, many of the articles were also taken from the Wiki article, but this is part of the Resistance, I will add the main articles again. Even if it could be improved, deleting the article makes no sense to me! There were also several protests by Kosovar Albanians in Yugoslavia, which I would like to add to the Resistance. NormalguyfromUK ( talk) 19:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The situation is not a linear conflict that lasted from 1948-1999. You're also conflating two different things. On the one hand, you're talking about Kosovar Albanian resistance to the incorporation of Kosovo into Yugoslavia (which pre-dates 1948 btw) and on the other hand, the Government of Albania/Hoxha's covert attempts to secede Kosovo from Yugoslavia and unite it into Albania. IF the article is salvaged, it has to focus on a single topic. It's also much more complicated than "resistance", which implies there was an armed resistance throughout this period when in fact much of the Cold War period in Kosovo was marked by relative stability. The protests themselves were for different reasons with some merely seeking more rights. When creating an article, you have to make sure that it's a notable topic that's covered in reliable sources, is not original research, synthesis of sources or a WP:CONTENTFORK -- Griboski ( talk) 20:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -- There has been a longstanding nationalist movement in Kosovo, but how far this was promoted from Albania is doubtful. The militaries of many counties prepare plans (on paper) to invade their neighbours. What plans Albania may have developed may be interesting, but such plans are generally NN. I remain dubious of the merits of this article, but am not formally voting. Peterkingiron ( talk) 13:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge -- In addition to the aforementioned pages, the content can also be merged into Greater Albania. As mentioned previously, the events listed in the article are not connected and one would be extremely hard-pressed to find any reliable sources connecting these events. The content can be recycled as there is nothing wrong with it. ElderZamzam ( talk) 23:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Delete -- Upon review of the possible pages for a merger, I can not see a way in which the content can be merged in a coherent manner. ElderZamzam ( talk) 21:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • This certainly seems to be a lot of improper synthesis. The 1981 stuff and beyond is especially jarring, because when I was reading sources about those protests, and a lot of them were Serbian, there was barely any mention of this kind of meddling by Albania. I remember recently reverting an edit like this at the protests article as well, I guess it spilled over... certainly I don't think it's appropriate that we talk in an encyclopedia about "plans" to attack Yugoslavia in the 80s in a B92 article that relays a Jutarnji list article. This is far enough in the past that we can require serious scholarly, historical sources, as opposed to this. The mention of Hoxha's November '82 speech is also weird, because the suppression of the protests started in April '81, and we have post mortem coverage from July '81. This needs to go. Albania–Yugoslavia relations can be as good as place as any to salvage the few paragraphs that make sense. -- Joy ( talk) 11:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:23, 28 February 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. WP:SNOW; all the votes are in favor of keeping and the rationale is almost entirely WP:GREATWRONGS-based. (non-admin closure) Dronebogus ( talk) 09:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Tri-Ess

Tri-Ess (  | talk | history | 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 "organization" is an individual whom is spreading misinformation about what a trans person is and encouraging cult-like and harmful practices. This individuals blog is full of racist comments and they believe a transgender person and a cross-dresser are one and the same a harmful view to be promoting. The "Pledge of Membership/Code of Conduct" on their website includes "When in public, a members presentation will be either 100% feminine or 100% masculine, no mixing of the two. This also would include the presence of facial hair when enfemme." meaning they are not willing to recognize nonbinary people http://www.triessmn.com/membership-pledge-code-of-conduct.html . The individual is a heterosexual male whos only part in the LGBT community is crossdressing. Their website is also not up to the standard of a real organization and sites no sources for the misinformation it provides on any of its 6 pages. It is also copywrite 2013. On the page "terminology" they wrongfully state : "The term "transgender" has become an umbrella term encompassing a wide variety of those who consider themselves to be one of the "gender variant". The term transgenderist was first coined by Virginia Prince, one of the co-founders of TriEss to differentiate somebody who wished to live their lives as the opposite gender, but has no desire to physically change their bodies. It recognizes that "sex is between your legs, gender is between your ears". " they again site no source for this claim and make several more incorrect statements about the history of terminology surrounding transgender people.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Frogwizard420 ( talk • contribs) 20:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Weak Keep. I can admit that the sourcing of this page is not great, but I also see it as a bit valuable and worthwhile, as it publishes "The Femme Mirror" (which is how I first heard of it) and other publications. I am worried that the comment by the OP provides no sources for their claims apart from one link to the tri-ess website, making me a bit skeptical of their claims. I would support making the article a re-direct to another page, if it comes down to it, but for now, I stand by a weak keep. Historyday01 ( talk) 02:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Week Keep per @ Historyday01. I also want to add that I've come across this organization in my research of trans history often before so I know there are much better sources than used in the page. I'm surprised the article isn't more developed and frankly that the organization's still going, as I thought they'd fizzled out a while ago. The article needs serious work, no doubt there, so to leave for myself or whoever gets to it first: google news search (73 results) and google scholar search (264 results). I believe quite a few also contain criticism of their views/positions so those can be included as well. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 03:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
I can agree, and it would be great to expand on the article with some more criticism. I really only heard of them tangentially, like you, during research on trans history. Historyday01 ( talk) 03:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Weak keep - per others, clearly there are reliable sources on the topic. WP:ATD The void century ( talk) 05:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment: I'm not sure what the deletion rationale actually is here. The fact that the subject spreads misinformation, or says racist or transphobic things, is not a reason for deletion; Wikipedia writes articles on notable people and organisations regardless of whether or not we agree with their views. The sourcing on the article looks dubious at first glance, but nobody actually seems to be arguing that the subject is not notable. Caeciliusinhorto-public ( talk) 09:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep seems notable. Is discussed in a Dear Abby column [6], so it's not an unheard-of organization. The links given are not the best, but it's at GNG. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Total WP:NCORP fail. Brief mentions, etc., aren't enough. Levivich ( talk) 16:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United States of America. Levivich ( talk) 16:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Weak keep per newly-added sources. The SAGE Encyclopedia has a fully entry on it, about one page long, that's WP:SIRS. "Weak" because I'm not sure there's a second; the "Transgender Communities" chapter has about a paragraph on the organization. But the sources together have enough for a policy-compliant article, and it's not like a for-profit company, so keep. Levivich ( talk) 23:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per @ TheTranarchist. There is enough notability, although the quality of the page certainly leaves a lot to be desired. Suitskvarts ( talk) 20:03, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    For all the keep !voters: can you give two examples of WP:NCORP sources about Tri-Ess? Because I see 0, and I don't think keep !voters simply asserting NCORP sources, without specifically pointing to them, is sufficient. The only source I've seen in this AFD is the Dear Abby column, and that's obviously not an RS nevermind GNG nevermind NCORP. Levivich ( talk) 20:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Update: I've gone ahead and updated the article significantly to use a bunch of WP:SIRS sources. Should be no issues keeping it now. Please feel free to take a look and revise if you feel it needs it. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 22:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)TheTranarchist reply
    Which two are WP:SIRS of Tri-Ess? Levivich ( talk) 22:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    SAGE Encyclopedia of Trans Studies, Transgender Communities: Developing Identity Through Connection, and Virginia Prince: Transgender Pioneer to name 3. I added 5 sources total, removed some bad ones, and they provide a pretty good overview of the organization and its history at this point. If you still think there aren't enough I could always add more. Or you could. Anyone want to weigh in on if they think more sources are required? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 22:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    Thanks, I updated my vote. Levivich ( talk) 23:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    Btw, when I get the chance I'll try and clean up the article more and see if there are some more sources that cover it. Additionally, I believe, but I'm not sure, that there are some WP:SIRS and WP:RS on the Foundation for Personality Expression, which I'll also work in. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 23:19, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    Thank you for expanding it. If it has an entry in the SAGE encyclopedia, I have no doubt there are other SIRS sources about it, and (as no doubt you know) gender studies papers from the 20th century may not be as easy to find online like other topics. Levivich ( talk) 23:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    No problem! And certainly lol, but with the Wikipedia Library and my college's library I usually manage TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 23:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - per WP:HEYMANN. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ( work / talk) 02:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep per the above – this seems to be something which has a lot of passing coverage (which I know is not good enough for Wikipedia standards) and a few good sources already included in the article. Although I do agree that it needs a big overhaul as it stands, this is not grounds for deletion. -- EggsAndCakey ( talk) 14:10, 1 March 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! 07:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Interchill Records

Interchill 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)

I can't find a notability criteria for record labels but this one has no references on the page as it stands and I can't find anything that looks like a RS to show notability. JMWt ( talk) 17:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment found some pages on what seem to be record label info aggregators(?), but still nothing that would seem to indicate SIGCOV in independent RS. BhamBoi ( talk) 06:55, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Would need to meet WP:NCORP by having references meeting WP:ORGCRIT. Cannot find anything to support the notability under that criteria. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 05:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy ( talk) 00:13, 28 February 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 04:26, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Animesh Nandan Sahay

Animesh Nandan Sahay (  | talk | history | 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 CEO or Engineer. Possible COI. Misterrrrr ( talk) 10:54, 13 February 2023 (UTC) - WP:SOCKSTRIKE - Beccaynr ( talk) 18:47, 16 February 2023 (UTC) reply

The Economic Times, The Washington Post and The Hindu Businessline have covered his work. Why is this not considered impactful? Google scholar has researchers not businessmen. Above are major media internationally. This person awarded First Achiever of Odisha award by the Times group, why is that non-notable work? Sugudoo ( talk) 00:51, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep: In addition to above media, also added coverage in The Hindu (1,415,792 Daily (as of December 2019)) along with citation in The Times of India (1,590,784 (as of June 2022)).
  1. "Achievers felicitated by TOI in Bhubaneswar". The Times of India. June 14, 2015. ISSN 0971-8257. Retrieved February 14, 2023.
  2. https://www.thehindu.com/sport/hockey/hi-ropes-in-mcl-as-principal-partner-for-champions-trophy/article6567615.ece
Sugudoo ( talk) 01:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to consider sources brought up in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 15:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More opinions on the sources provided are welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy ( talk) 00:12, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per lack of notability and coverage. I checked the page sources, as well as did my web-search. Suitskvarts ( talk) 20:28, 28 February 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_February_28&oldid=1143494283"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE