Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 December 30

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< December 29 December 31 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha, North Dakota

Alpha, North Dakota (edit | talk | history | 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 barn shown in the article is the only building in this place, and the article all but admits that the place isn't notable. Mangoe (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 04:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neogene Mediterranean desiccation and mega-flooding

Neogene Mediterranean desiccation and mega-flooding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly a notable topic(s?), but duplicates the scope of the already existing (and substantial) Messinian salinity crisis and Zanclean flood, not really a good redirect to either one of them, and the name seems like an unlikely search target regardless. Not sure if there is any content worth merging. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons mentioned by Hemiauchenia. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗plicit 23:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hirschville, North Dakota

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

According to the website cited in the article, this is a town which never really happened. Beyond that site, which really doesn't cut it as a reliable source, I get nothing of any substance. There definitely was a church there, and I suspect that what looks like an ag supply business now may have evolved out of the businesses started by Mr. Hirsch, but while there are plenty of signs that people thought of this as a larger locale, but indications are that there wasn't a settlement here. Mangoe (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify this comment. Hirschville is commonly referred to as a community, and it is unincorporated. If you feel that places are inappropriately categorized, the solution is not to delete the articles, but to change the categorization. Doremo (talk) 06:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional Youth Marching Bands Association

Traditional Youth Marching Bands Association (edit | talk | history | 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:NORG. No significant coverage in media. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete - G4. GiantSnowman 15:55, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gassama Alfusainey

AfDs for this article:
Gassama Alfusainey (edit | talk | history | 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 soccer player who fails to meet any criterion from WP:NFOOTBALL. Celestina007 (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of environmental degree-granting institutions in the United States

List of environmental degree-granting institutions in the United States (edit | talk | history | 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 list is so wildly incomplete it's useless. I looked up the first three universities not listed that came to mind (Washington State, Georgia Tech, and Purdue), and all three have environmental science programs, as I'd expect for virtually any major university. Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of universities with computer engineering programs, even if this were more complete it'd be an unencyclopedic directory. Reywas92Talk 22:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 13:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Pearson (fighter)

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

While he does pass WP:MMABIO, it has become apparent to me that MMABIO essentially means nothing if the subject cannot meet WP:GNG. His coverage is mainly through routine sporting report. Pearson has not fought in over 4 years and is in his 40s, the chances of him meeting GNG are highly unlikely. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 20:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep; Though he hasn't fought in four years, and the coverage does seem routine, that doesn't preclude WP:GNG, and don't forget that notability isn't temporary. I do understand the premise for the AfD, but I think this should stay. Spf121188 (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If all the coverage is routine, how does he pass WP:GNG? Unless you can show some significant independent coverage, all you have is WP:ILIKEIT. Papaursa (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Papaursa, the references [1], [2], [3] from Sherdog and Bleacher Report (among others) are independent and aren't necessarily routine. I know very little about MMA and this particular fighter, so WP:ILIKEIT doesn't apply to me. My main reason for this being a Weak Keep is because though notability for this fighter may be dated, notability is not temporary. Spf121188 (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first reference seems to be promoting his "fight coming up next Friday" and that "if you are anywhere in driving distance ... go out and support Pearson". It also says if you want more information about Pearson you should contact the article's author. Hard to see that as independent and neutral. The second reference is a one sentence mention of a fight result where he was knocked out 20 seconds into the fight. The third source mentions him in a list of "50 Random MMA Facts You Never Knew" for winning 22 fights by triangle choke. I'd call that independent, but not significant. The question isn't about whether notability is temporary, it's whether he was ever WP notable. Papaursa (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pearson never was WP:NOTABLE. Wikiprojects create their own notability guidelines to allow pages to created in hopes of them meeting WP:GNG, Pearson only ever passed WP:MMABIO but now that he's essentially retired it's important to go through his coverage to see if he meets GNG, to which he does not. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 10:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cornerstone Roots

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

Poorly sourced. Tagged since 2016. A search for sources doesn't turn up anything significant. The band exist, but do not meet our notability guidelines WP:BAND or WP:GNG. SilkTork (talk) 16:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that the article has been sufficiently improved to meet notability guidelines. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Lind

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

According to the SNG, it is likely that sufficient sources exist to meet GNG if a player has played in one or more professional games, however this does not guarantee notability. WP:BEFORE search did not return sufficient coverage beyond basic stats to meet this standard. –dlthewave ☎ 20:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair points made and it's not been outright determined that his football career was notable. I voted keep weakly and without much conviction as there are publications about him in his current line of work, but whether this is because he was a footballer or by co-incidence is up for debate. I wouldn't say it is a clear-cut/outright keep though, however I am not in a position to scrutinise sources in a language of which I have no knowledge of. Bungle (talk • contribs) 19:16, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've further expanded the article somewhat. I'd like to point out that Lind wasn't just any player. He was a fairly central part of a team which won the Swedish national championship, Allsvenskan, in 1989. When fans of IFK Norrköping last year were asked to vote on who best represented the team in the 1980s, on SvenskaFans.com, the major Swedish sports website, he shared the second spot in the vote. He was named the best player in Östergötland in 1992, a year when IFK Norrköping won the regular season (but failed to win the championship). /Julle (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article has been improved - now meets NFOOTBALL, and I agree with Julle points. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Julle's comments above Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 01:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Simply playing X number of games in a semi-professional league according to a database with very low inclusion criteria, is not sufficient, by itself, to show notability. However Julle has added sources that are inaccessible to me but, assuming they support the description of Lind given above, I will (AGF) assume substantiates keeping the article. FOARP (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They're not the best sources imaginable, but they do substantiate what they claim to substantiate, and are good enough for that, I'd say. (I've reached them through a digitalised archive, so I know no good way of linking to anything.) /Julle (talk) 01:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Pippin

Orange Pippin (edit | talk | history | 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 only source apart from the website itself is this blog post, which does not qualify toward GNG. Doing a proper WP:BEFORE is complicated by the common name, but "orangepippin.com" in quotes returns nothing useful, and overall I can't find a single good source. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Consensus is abundantly clear in favor of notability. This is not the place to discuss nominator's history, if people want to do that. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mikael Blomberg

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

According to the SNG, it is likely that sufficient sources exist to meet GNG if a player has played in one or more professional games, however this does not guarantee notability. WP:BEFORE search did not return sufficient coverage beyond basic stats to meet this standard. –dlthewave ☎ 20:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you conducted a source search in Swedish? –dlthewave ☎ 20:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting to see Geschichte presenting himself as an authority on these matters again, particularly since he was found to have been flooding the encyclopaedia for years with these under-referenced sub-stub BLPs of often completely non-notable semi-pro Scandinavian footballers! This suggests to me he possibly is not best placed to diagnose lack of competence in others in such matters. To put it mildly. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 15:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your notion is completely unfounded, seeing as if there was a change of consensus, it happened several years after the articles in question were created. When it comes to Swedish, I was referring more to the ability to read the language fluently, knowledge about reliable and useful newspapers and other outlets, and access to said outlets. Geschichte (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:27, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - over 200 professional appearances, meets NFOOTBALL by miles. GiantSnowman 21:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've added a couple of sentences. I'd say there is enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, after having taken a brief look in Mediearkivet, the major digital Swedish newspaper archive. /Julle (talk) 10:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Given Blomberg's football career extended into an era when most Allsvenskan players were full-time professionals, WP:NFOOTBALL probably is met here. Julle says there is sustained non-trivial coverage in Mediearkivet (but apparently couldn't be bothered to present any here – while the inaccessible ones added to the article look like decidedly trivial local paper stuff) so I'll AGF that perhaps WP:GNG is covered too. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 15:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly per the world football link in the article show he has clearly played huge amount of top flight football, clearly WP:BEFORE has not been done, the nominator should be slapped with a trout. Govvy (talk) 16:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Rather than just asserting (spectacularly circular) notability, can someone actually produce the required GNG sourcing? I'm not necessarily doubting it exists, but come on, you can't complain about a BEFORE not being done if you haven't actually rebutted the nom's claim that GNG sources don't exist! JoelleJay (talk) 03:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - passes GNG simply on the basis of number of games played, as per User:Govvy and even User:Bring back Daz Sampson. As for TROUTing the nominator, I wonder whether it might be getting past that: User:Dlthewave is now building up quite a record of unsuccessful nominations for deletion without WP:BEFORE of articles requiring knowledge of non-English languages for sourcing, to the extent that his/her nominations are starting to become disruptive. He/she has a far better track record on those with English-language sources - perhaps stick to those in future. Ingratis (talk) 03:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakest possible keep - Simply saying "they played X matches" should never be sufficient, by itself, to show that someone is notable. You have to actually show coverage. Similarly, competence is required for creating an article, so demanding that articles can only be nominated for deletion by someone who can speak the languages needed to find sources that the article lacks gets things the wrong way round: those sources should already be in the article. Like Bring back Daz Sampson I can only AGF that the sources added do actually have SIGCOV in them and aren't e.g. just match reports where the player is mentioned in passing, and vote keep on that basis, but it would be great if Julle could explain what it is they actually say. Contra Ingratis, no, this is not a bad nom, though I think it could be called brave, since there is no clear indication of notability here beyond the number of games played (which is not enough by itself). FOARP (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. What type of search was performed before creating this article? Why was it created in mainspace (where it's subject to AfD if notability isn't demonstrated) instead of incubated as a draft? This all could have been avoided if sources had been provided in the first place.
It's often implied that the article creator is the only one competent enough to perform a WP:BEFORE search in the appropriate language. If this is the case, then the burden to find sources will have to fall on them. –dlthewave ☎ 17:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's the old "Articles can be mass-created based solely on a single low-quality database, but you have to do a kind of super-BEFORE on them where you search offline/pay-walled/foreign-language sources before AFD'ing them" dichotomy. No, if the article was created without any real and clear claim to notability, and sources supporting one can't be found by a reasonable search, then AFD is exactly the right place to go. Reviewing the titles of Julle's sources I guess they are likely about Blomberg (I think "Blomma" is a nickname for him) so I'm voting keep, but this is without any judgement on the nomination of this article which seems to have been justified and is not at all invalidated by the finding of sources that are not available to the vast majority of editors. FOARP (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

István Kovács (footballer, born 1991)

István Kovács (footballer, born 1991) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Found during cleanup after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/János Birtalan. Fails GNG and the spirit of NFOOTBALL, his professional play being limited to only 1 game. Geschichte (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daisy Marie

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

Sourcing is pretty much all porn ecosystem noise and nothing substantial. Awards no longer count so fails ENT and GNG. Spartaz Humbug! 19:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:55, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Society for Healthcare Materials Management

Georgia Society for Healthcare Materials Management (edit | talk | history | 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 our notability guidelines for organizations. The article cites only non-independent sources that are connected to the Society in some way (e.g. other organizations with which it associates), and a thorough WP:BEFORE search does not find any in-depth coverage in sources that are unrelated to the organization. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted under WP:CSD#G5 criteria; created by confirmed sockpuppet of User:Bmusique99 (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bmusique99) --Hammersoft (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Dr Jules

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

BLP of a DJ who is apparently big in Cape Town but I don’t find any coverage that would support notability. Mccapra (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment : Okay i agree to have the article deleted, i seriously thought someone like him is notable as he is talked about often in South Africa mostly by (Word Of Mouth) I've realized, I always remembered reading and hearing people talk about him and his associated act DJ Ready D and did a quick search about him and tried to make it a stub as i personally couldn't really find much on the subject, I've realized someone who is less in public eyes has more press and notability than him and my mind automatically thought he was more notable than most subjects I've been doing research on since joining the encyclopedia, this is weird. StephenWilliams021 (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete as the author and sole contributor has been blocked as a sock of a banned user. Hut 8.5 18:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chainge

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

Poor sourcing, either unreliable, not independent, or press releases or equivalent. Closer to advertising than an encyclopedia article. Citing (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I should have been more explicit and just cleaned out the unreliable sources first before submitting this to AfD (as I did here). This article was a clear case of citation bombing of trivial mentions, blogs and social media posts, cryptocurrency news sites, event listings, app websites, etc. Sweeping those away we're left with one reliable source, Yahoo Finance, which says: "Financial experts, such as Vlad Tirla, CPO of Chainge Finance," and then proceeds to talk about something else.Citing (talk) 04:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dilip Sinha (actor)

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

Nothing to show this person meets WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG Ravensfire (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alwan (organization)

Alwan (organization) (edit | talk | history | 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's aims are admirable IMO, but I just don't see any coverage in independent sources that would count towards WP:NORG. (t · c) buidhe 16:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Mortimer

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

WP:BLP of a borderline notable subject. The two sources given in the article (the Herald and STV) seem to be the only sources out there on this subject which could be considered significant and independent. This Daily Record article briefly quotes the article's subject, but the quote is regarding the Knockhill circuit and not the subject of this article. If this were not a WP:BLP then I would probably consider this article to squeak through the WP:GNG, but as it stands my concern for potentially-defamatory vandalism in BLPs leads me to believe that sufficient notability has not been established. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 13:19, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – The Grid (talk) 16:15, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Good analysis by the participants. Mojo Hand (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joshuya Brasserie

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

Closed restaurant of unclear notability; refs are incidental mentions in lists apart from the dailycal.org which covers a routine business announcement of reopening; local coverage only with no indication of regional or national importance Dialectric (talk) 15:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) applies here, and local coverage is specifically addressed by WP:AUD, which says that 'at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary.' The EaterSF is regional, but there is no statewide or greater coverage, and the EaterSF and Mercury News articles are in my opinion trivial or routine coverage, as discussed in the organizations and companies guideline, of a restaurant reopening with a different menu and owner.Dialectric (talk) 15:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dialectric I don't think AUD is an issue if The EaterSF is considered regional (as in AUD says "at least one"), and I think that the Mercury News article (aside from the first 5 paragraphs) provides non trivial coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH. This is definitely a borderline case so thanks for your analyses :D Justiyaya 16:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
EaterSF isn't regional, it's the local area to San Francisco. —valereee (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee Oops you're right, another search returned no results, changed vote above. Justiyaya 05:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. A relatively close call, but given the trend of the discussion as additional sources were found, this looks more like a keep than no consensus. RL0919 (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa Junge

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

Only reference is IMDb. Significant coverage from independent sources is not easily found. GoingBatty (talk) 16:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.emmys.com/bios/alexa-junge
    • @Kpdow360: I'm glad you're adding references to the article, but noticed you haven't added the references above to the article. Footnote #1 should be placed after the sentence(s) it supports. The Hollywood Reporter article is a passing mention of Junge, not significant coverage. I hope the NYT article has more about Junge. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 23:25, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Lacking in substance and doesn't satisfy WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Lacking in substance" isn't a meaningful deletion argument. pburka (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Concur with Pburka there; the question isn't about the quality of the article, but rather whether the subject is sufficiently notable to merit an article at all. Many articles on notable people began as stubs or starter articles, or initially were lengthy but poorly written or full of copyright violations — e.g., the Lupe Ontiveros article was one long copyvio when I first read it, to the point I practically had to start from scratch to edit it, but she's still notable.
  • Delete - I'm not convinced this subject merits its own article. While there are plenty of passing mentions of her about the relationship between Julia Roberts and Matthew Perry, everything else is either about her play Fingersmith (which is great, but, it's also localized coverage. It's not like it's a nationally recognized play and her name is only mentioned in passing as the writer) or a primary source mentioning her and 249082093843 other people were nominated for Friends in the Golden Globes and Emmy's. When a TV show is nominated, everyone and their mother is included in that nomination who worked on the show. I'm not convinced she merits inclusion. Doesn't qualify for WP:GNG, IMHO. Missvain (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think Variety is local coverage and the Boston Globe is a major newspaper (although technically local). Regarding the Emmys, she was nominated by herself in 1999. Her other nominations were all groups. pburka (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pburka: The Variety and Boston Globe articles are not significant coverage of Junge - they just mention her as the writer. The Boston Globe article has not been added to the article. You might want to update the article to specify which award nominations were groups versus solo nominations. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know the Globe and Variety aren't local - I'm a journalist who has written for many national publications and I have friends who work at both...I should have wrote originally "localized or trivial mentions." But, it's passing and doesn't qualify for GNG nor am I convinced she's got enough coverage to build WP:BASIC. So...still delete. Missvain (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (1) Those of us granted access to Wikipedia Library — or whatever you call that project where Wikipedia gives some editors the opportunity to access databases that normally might be accessible only by paying a subscription fee — can find more articles, such as the Jan/Feb 2017 issue of The Dramatist, official bimonthly publication of The Dramatists Guild, in which Junge was the interviewee for a two-page feature that concludes with mention of Fingersmith then notes, "Her plays and musicals have been produced at the Goodspeed Opera House, Studio Arena Theater, Playwrights Horizons Lab, Theaterworks and developed at New York Stage and Film, the Hedgebrook Women Playwrights Festival, MacDowell and Djerassi colonies. TV work includes Friends , Sex and the City, West Wing, Big Love, United States of Tara, Grace and Frankie, among others." Both the fact of the interview in a nationally-known publication and the venues where her work has been performed suggest notability. (2) Her work writing the fifth-season TWW episode "The Supremes" received praise at the time and still is mentioned for its excellence. Even when the subject is how that first post-Sorkin season sucked, her writing of that episode is singled out for praise, as when 'Decider' wrote, "Which isn’t to say that the season didn’t have its moments. The Glenn Close-starring episode 'The Supremes' might be one of the show’s best. ... There were some fun comedy bits along the way — not surprising since the episode was written by Friends vet Alexa Junge... ." (Bob Reid, 3 March 2016, more than a decade later)."Disaster Relief" was rewarded with an Emmy nomination for Junge and her co-writer. The popular podcast West Wing Weekly interviewed her when they covered the s5 episode "Disaster Relief," which she'd co-written. This is a podcast sufficiently well-known and popular that people traveled to DC and paid money to attend live tapings. (For anyone wondering why I don't add this info into the article, I plan to, as soon as I'm done posting this contribution to the discussion; already had to retype it once when I accidentally hit the back button!)
Update Struck through a quote erroneously crediting Junge with a different episode written by Deborah Cahn. (lwt)
(3) Here's an item from Hollywood Reporter that indicates not only did Junge write episodes for Tara, without Junge as an EP, the show might never have gotten on the air. Writing about Junge's decision to depart: "Alexa Junge, the executive producer/showrunner of Showtime's "United States of Tara," has decided not to continue on the series, which recently was renewed for a second season.
"Bringing Friends alumna Junge on board was key to securing a series order for Tara, created by Oscar winner Diablo Cody. ... Junge penned three episodes, the last of which airs Sunday." (Nellie Andreevna. “Family ties strong for Roseanne; Junge steps aside as 'Tara' topper" Andreeva, Nellie, Hollywood Reporter, 00183660, 23 March 2009, Vol. 409, Issue 4, page not given.) Lawikitejana (talk) 03:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC) P.S. Thanks for the heads-up, User:GoingBatty.[reply]
@Lawikitejana: It's great that you're using your access to the Wikipedia Library to find more articles. Remember that the basic notability criteria states "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Interviews by definition are not independent of the subject, but the interviews may also have good information in the interviewer's words. I look forward to seeing you continue to add references to the article. Keep up the good work! GoingBatty (talk) 03:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GoingBatty:

Point taken, although "independent of the subject" is more about things like not using press releases from someone's own company, or possibly articles published by an outlet that is part of the same parent (e.g., one could argue about independence when CBS reports on someone's publication with Simon & Schuster, which is owned by the same company), or possibly a White House press secretary's statement as evidence of what a president did or didn't do. Where I do think you have a point would be if I took something in the interview as proof of anything that needs supported by a secondary source. In this case, however, the interview was offered simply as evidence either that (a) she's sufficiently significant to The Dramatists Guild as a writer that they picked her from among the scores of playwrights they could have profiled or as a more reliable source than IMDb as to her credits, particularly apart from film/TV. Reminder appreciated nonetheless. Lawikitejana (talk) 06:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor Rodionov

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

Russian stage actor. Compliance WP:ACTOR is cloudy.--Владимир Бежкрабчжян (talk) 09:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:19, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dewang Subil

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

I don’t think this is eligible for A7 but it’s a BLP of a person who does not seem notable to me, or at best falls under WP:BLP1E. Mccapra (talk) 09:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Billshine: just showing up at AfDs and saying “it’s notable” doesn’t help the community understand why a topic is notable. What is the basis of your view please? Mccapra (talk) 21:43, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Sidemen (YouTube group). Anyone is free to merge any content to the target article if any. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 (HAPPY 2022) 14:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Side+ (streaming platform)

Side+ (streaming platform) (edit | talk | history | 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 proposed the article for deletion but it was removed. I do not believe that this meets the notability guidelines. It is already mentioned on the Sidemen's page "In 2021, the Sidemen launched a subscription service known as Side+.[1]". I do not think that it should be redirected because Side+ already redirects there. Sahaib3005 (talk) 11:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Converted barn. ✗plicit 11:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barndominium

Barndominium (edit | talk | history | 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 a notable neologism. Apart from the stealth advertising for a website, we just have a few unrelated developments using the term as an advertising gimmick. 力猫 (talk) 03:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Deep Sea Drilling Project. Any merging to the parent article can be done from the history behind the redirect, by any interested editor. Daniel (talk) 13:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Antarctic offshore geologic exploration

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

WP:SYNTH: loose collection of statements not directly supported by the sources. All assertions with Craddock 1976 does not exist in source. Mys_721tx (talk) 06:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to @Mys_721tx question on "all assertions with Craddock 1976 do not exist in source" There are four assertions on this page: With reference to sub-heading"Operation", please see the reference on P.724 "Although more than a dozen sites were originally planned, we were only able to attempt four holes". Withe reference to sub-heading "Discovery and accomplishment", please see P.725 Figure 1 which shows Sites 324 and 325 drilled on continental rise. Thre are included in the text of 5 wells on the continental margings. With reference to sub-heading "Sea floor spreading", please see P729 "At Site 325 the magnetic anomalies, basement depth, and fossils all suggest a late Oligocene basement age.". With reference to sub-heading "Ice-rafted debris", please see P.735 "Cores from the four Leg 35 sites were studied for evidence of ice-rafted debris in the form of small dropstones and quartz grains with distinctive microscopic surface textures suggestive of glacial transport", P.738 "...glaciation in Antarctica was weak in the earliest Miocene, moderate by the middle Miocene, extensive by about late middle Miocene, and probably full by sometime during the late Miocene...", and in Abstract "The glaciation of West Antarctica may have begun in the Eocene, but it was certainly underway by the Miocene. Interpretation of the sediments cored suggests that Antarctic glaciation was weak in the early Miocene, moderate by middle Miocene, extensive by late middle Miocene, and fully developed by sometime in the late Miocene. The intensity of glaciation subsequently declined, with several fluctuations, during the Pliocene and the Quaternary to its present moderate to extensive state"

Reply to "loose collection of statements not directly supported by the sources." This page was written purposely to avoid violating the copy right of the cited references, hence all geological technical terms have been replaced with interchangeable terms, and direct supporting statements may not be obvious. Contents of the cited text are, however, fully expressed in the page. Futhermore, the page was written with Powerpoint style, only presenting concise essential information to convey the subject of the page.

Please don't hesitate to ask further questions for clarification. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 陳建民 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Deep Sea Drilling Project which seems to be what the article is actually about. Without prejudice; if someone wanted to create an article in the future about the general concept of geological offshore drilling in Antarctica that WASN'T essentially a summary of that project, I could see it being possible. But there's nothing here now that isn't just a redirect to the other article. PianoDan (talk) 15:34, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to suggestion of Redirect. The current page focuses on scientific results specifically the breakthough discoveries whereas the suggested redirect page presents limited or none at al the geogical results and accomplishments, just lists of operation data numbers. thank for consideration陳建民 (talk) 17:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You could certainly make a case for merging the properly verified content from the nominated article into the DSDP article. But there's no reason to have on article on the project, and another on its results. PianoDan (talk) 21:09, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to "duplicate scope". Please note more than 90% of the current page content not covered in Deep Sea Drilling Project. If redirect, could those subjects be lost?陳建民 (talk) 04:23, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this vote was changed from "Redirect" to "Merge" AFTER 陳建民 made their comment, so that should address the concern. PianoDan (talk) 19:48, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 13:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flying monkeys (popular psychology)

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

Five y/o stub that originally included four sources,[10][11] two of which aren't RS (Childress and Mayfield), another doubtful (Dodgson), and another of unclear relevance (Bowen). Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:NOTABILITY: the Childress source referenced the Urban Dictionary, no new RS were found on Google Scholar, and only two were found on a "regular" search.[12][13] Note the article is linked by 59 pages excluding this discussion.[14] François Robere (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep if sources 2 and 3 in the article (the ones by Claire Jack and Christine Hammond) are considered reliable. WP:GNG is a pretty low bar, merely requiring significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Both of the sources I mentioned above contain significant coverage and are independent, so the topic just barely meets the WP:GNG threshold. However, this is under the assumption that those sources qualify as reliable. If those two sources wouldn't qualify as reliable, then ignore this comment. Mlb96 (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Karpman drama triangle or Triangulation (psychology) or delete The current RS (1) is a business writer who is using a messageboard (lovefraud.com) and a blogger as her reliable source. The other 2 RS are two bloggers - a hypnotist/life coach and another messageboard writer. To provide context, all of this is part of the popular but misguided "your ex-boyfriend (girlfriend) must have been a sociopath" culture. This is junk psychology and the harm is that the audience, people often with underdeveloped human nature skills, are buying into this stuff rather than learning how to improve their emotional intelligence. For all of this "sociopath" drama to be true the population of sociopaths and narcissists would need to be 3,000 times larger than it actually is. I'm not suggesting we post any of my comments, but they should be a consideration in deciding the future of this article.Wiki-psyc (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If it is determined that the article will be kept, it would be wise to loop in the conventional family theory concept of triangulation which is the closet psychology construct to "flying monkeys". It has a good body of helpful article on the Internet. I attempted to do this, but there are not any expert sources writing about "flying monkeys", let alone doing serious work establish similarities. Best I could find was a nationally recognized expert (Childress, UCLA) who makes the connection in a newsletter between flying monkeys and tribulation and a RS to a prestigious academic source, the Murry Bowen Center for the Study of Families at Georgetown University. Redirecting would be best. If we delete, the article will just come back. Wiki-psyc (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Once the bulk of the unreliable sources had been stripped from the prior longer version of this article, all that was left was a stub. Of the remaining three references to support the stub, two are blogs that do not qualify as reliable sources. If it can be redirected to a single sentence in a substantive article on the broader subject, that it fine. As an aside, this article appears to have been one of hundreds on pop psychology written by the same person, who apparently departed Wikipedia a couple of years ago. A quick survey of them reveals that most suffer from the same or similar deficiencies as this one, but no-one has bothered to clean them up. Banks Irk (talk) 17:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:The Psychology Today source is a blog post and not a news release. And the PsychCentral post is also part of a blog/opinion column. Both sources cannot be used to establish notability, as blogging content in major mass media outlets tend to be written by non-authoritative producers. The BI source only includes a subtle passing mention. Multi7001 (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:53, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Kaveri. Sandstein 09:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kaveri Crater

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

Not seeing how this passes the WP:GNG. It has so far only received coverage in one 2017 paper than has zero citations, and 2019 article in The Hindu. No prejudice against later recreation if this later gets more substantial coverage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of any traction in the geology community. The reports of breccias are suggestive, but in the absence of further corroborating findings, this does not merit its own article. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 00:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective merge to Kaveri as a mention of the basin. Agree with the lack of coverage on this topic despite the very well-written article; however, the 2017 paper seems definitive enough to mention as a scientific finding related to the Kaveri river basin. Caleb Stanford (talk) 05:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. There obviously is no clear consensus either way, with good policy-based !votes on both sides. No prejudice to a renomination after, say, 6 months. Randykitty (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Enzo Tonti

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

Article appears to be self-promotion of a non-notable academic. Although the citation count on Google Scholar is quite high, it's hard to ascertain what the quality of those citations are, or how germane his work is to the articles. Straight Google search for Tonti doesn't reveal much evidence of notability. Article for "Tonti Diagrams" was already deleted for being awful self promotion. (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tonti_diagram) Definitely has the aroma of WP:FRINGE although it may be notable fringe. PianoDan (talk) 23:22, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep he is the only contributor to his 9 highest cited works listed on Google Scholar here so it seems obvious that he is the main contributor and calls into doubt the entire rationale of the nominator. He passes WP:PROF witn nine works cited over 100 with the highest being 277 so there is no need for deletion in my view. There is no evidence the article is an autobio so that is another dodgy assertion, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT and the dubiousness of the wiki-notability case to begin with. Apart from a stub-sized section of biographical material, the content is incomprehensible and overblown. The citation record does not actually stand out as above average for the relevant field. The article was created by a single-purpose account, lending credence to the idea that it was the work of a friend/employee/fan. In short, the page is broken, there's no driving need to fix it, and doing so would be a waste of volunteer time. XOR'easter (talk) 03:17, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TNT and SPA are not policy based deletion reasons Atlantic306 (talk) 05:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A call for blowing up an article is grounded in policy when the reason to do so is that it is irreparably promotional, like the unclear-yet-grandiose claims which make up the majority of the content here. XOR'easter (talk) 15:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment@DGG: is correct. Thaks for pointing out my error. GNG is indeed completely seperate to WP:PROF, which this does not also satisfy IMO. I do not see significant impact in this person's scholarly discipline, any significant awards, etc. Such-change47 (talk) 08:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. not meeting GNG is irrelevant; WP:PROF is an independent guideline, tho e people meet both. WP:PROf's basic requirement is influenti al in the field, and the extent to which one is cited is one of the measures of influence. I'm not voting! keep, because a highly promotional article is enough reason to delete. --it violates one of the basic policies at WP:NOT, Being free from self-advertising is much more important than just where we draw the boundary of notability. DGG ( talk ) 07:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep despite the promotionalism . I changed my !vote to emphasise that impact on a scholars discipline is usually measured by citations--the other factors such as awards are mostly shortcuts, because anyone with such awards or named professorships invariably has enough citations that there is no point in looking. Mathematical physics is not a very high citation field, like experimental biology. Even in biomedicine, the highest citation field of all, we have always accepted 2 papers with over 200 cites as sufficient. In his case there's the additional influence of having a standard method of analysis named after him. Asking for major awards in addition is changing the meaning of notable to mean famous, equivalent to changing the definition for authors to winning at least a Pulitzer. In most European universities, full professor is the highest possible rank. Promotionalism is indeed an important factor, but I can and will write the article to remove it. If I were not prepared to rewrite it myself, I would have been hesitant to !vote keep, , because that would be putting the burden on other people. DGG ( talk ) 19:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It would appear that he probably held an established chair at the University of Trieste, which satisfies WP:NPROF #5. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I could only find statements that he held a full professorship, which is a lower level of recognition than a named chair or distinguished professorship. XOR'easter (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're looking at it from an American point of view. The guideline actually says: "The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon." Like Europe, or in fact most of the world outside America, where very few chairs are named and distinguished professor appointments rarely exist. An established (as opposed to personal) chair is generally equivalent in prestige. It appears he did hold an established chair, as he moved to Trieste to take it up (personal chairs usually involve promotion from a lower rank within the same university). -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, different countries have different practices, but without more detail, saying that his position is equivalent to a named chair/distinguished professor/University Professor/Chancellor's Professor/etc. is too shaky an inference for me. XOR'easter (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • XOR'easter is correct, his information says he was only made a professor, which is generally a lesser position to a chair position - a chair position being a particularly distinguished professor lecturing/researching in the area. Simply being a professor doesn't qualify you as notable.Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • All professors hold a chair. But there are two types of chair. An established chair is a post that always exists and to which another individual is appointed when the previous incumbent leaves. A personal chair is merely a promotion of an academic below the rank of professor to professor for reasons of personal merit. For instance, in a university history department there may be several people described as a professor of (or in) history (personal chairs), but often only one who is the professor of history (established chair). Outside the USA, these established chairs are very often not "named", but that does not make them any less prestigious, hence the "equivalent" clause in NPROF #5. Usually, when an academic (professor or not) at one university moves to a chair at another university, as Tonti did, then they have moved on appointment to an established chair, as personal chairs are usually conferred on promotion within the same university (often to academics who have been there for years, but for whom there is no established chair available). If we only accept named chairs as evidence of meeting NPROF #5 then we are in danger of making NPROF very Americanocentric, as this naming of established chairs, so common in the USA, is not generally common practice elsewhere. As to the distinguished professor, etc, appointments, these too are generally confined to the USA. -- Necrothesp (talk) 02:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • As has been said, the position of chair is an American concept, and actually not relevant here.... because he's not American. Outside America, we don't have chair positions. In my country, we have Professors, and Associate professors and adjunct professors..that's it. He is a professor, and being a professor (in itself) is not a guarantor of notability and doesn't qualify you for a wikipedia page.Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                • "Outside America, we don't have chair positions." Yes we do! I'm not American and what I said above was not referring to America. All full professors hold a chair, either established (named or otherwise) or personal. It's not an American concept at all. It was invented in Europe in the Middle Ages long before any university was established in America. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, essentially per MarkH21. He has a respectable number of citations, but in a very high citation field, so I don't think this is a sign of the kind of impact we're looking for. No sign of other NPROF criteria, in particular I do not see any sign that his position was the kind of thing that WP:NPROF C5 refers to. I also did not find reviews of his book for a possible combined WP:NAUTHOR case. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep based on GS this is a borderline case but with no additional recognition, awards etc I initially agreed with MarkH21 -- however it seems that in the literature "Tonti diagrams" are an established and independently documented approach [15] [16] which would support the impact he had. Together with a decent number of citations and highly-cited papers I suggest to keep. --hroest 16:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No sufficient impact in his discipline. I don't think his contributions belong to theoretical physics, mathematical physics, or foundational physics because almost all of his scientific work (papers and books) is published in engineering journals. His citations records are not distinguished for a scientist working in engineering science. In my opinion, this is the main reason why his foundational research was not recognized by the community, because he was publishing in not-related journals and the mathphys community never heard (and scientifically judged) his work. --SimoneD89 (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The citation numbers and (more strongly) papers by others specifically about his work with his name in their titles [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] show that despite targeting an odd collection of journals for what he did, he did end up making an impact. Incidentally, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics at least is not an obscure journal. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:41, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing special here. No indication of notability. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amb Prayer Pemu

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. It is sourced entirely to press statements. A BEFORE search brings up more press statements. Princess of Ara 20:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep : I have read both the WP:GNG and the WP:NPOL most especially. There’s no default reason why article should be deleted because the subject passes all. WP:NPOL never said anything about press statement meanwhile as a politician things like that are expected and they are even said on notable reliable sources and also he is the special assistance to the Delta State Governor Ifeanyi Okowa but that doesn’t guarantee him notable according to WP:NPOL last statement but he passes all in WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. I was unable to write more because that’s all I know about him. --Gabriel601 (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You may have read the policy pages like you claim but I don’t think you understand them because WP:GNG says a subject is considered notable if they have had significant coverage in multiple reliable sources which are independent of the subject. Press statements are neither independent nor reliable and cannot be used to assert notability. Also, NPOL requires an elected statewide office. Being Okowa’s aide is not a claim to WP:NPOL. I encourage you to read the policy pages again for better understanding. Lastly, Wikipedia is not a repository of stuff you know about a subject but about what is documented in reliable sources. I think you should see this for better understanding. Regards
    Princess of Ara 21:23, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
“Press statements are neither independent nor reliable and cannot be used to assert notability.” No such statement was said at WP:GNG. Secondly I’m not a newcomer as you referred me for a better understanding. Have been here 5 years but not active, you have been here 10 months with nice articles created which is nice. Compliments to your contribution and happy Sunday. I might not be responding to your next reply due to my offline activities, I leave this section to other contributors --Gabriel601 (talk) 11:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is very clear about her requirements for a notable politician. You should be elected into an office, not appointment. To be a notable entrepreneur, my interpretation of the standard is even higher. I can't see any evidence that demonstrate the subject passes any of both, which implies failing WP:GNG.HandsomeBoy (talk) 13:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Noticed the subject has a statewide appointment, which can be interpreted as meeting one of the criteria for NPOL. However, in practice, we don't automatically deem special assistants to governors in all countries as automatically notable, Wikipedia will be a mess if that was the case as most statewide special assistants have little or no reliable sources covering them (as the case in Nigeria). If you can establish that "Office of Special Assistant, Information, Culture and Tourism to Delta State Government" is a consistent and reputable office, I might change my !vote.HandsomeBoy (talk) 13:37, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @HandsomeBoy, there has been a consensus at AfD that state commissioners (who have a more established office) do not meet NPOL so their notability is assessed by GNG. I think the same should apply to special assistants. Princess of Ara 15:21, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is a logical consensus that I definitely support when contextualized. HandsomeBoy (talk) 18:19, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:45, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Subject is notable from Google search but needs enough improvement such as citations.--Tcgchv (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tcgchv, subjects are only notable by evidence of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and not by google hits. Princess of Ara 17:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete! Nothing looks notable here or satisfies Wikipedia's GNG or NPOL criteria, the only position he holds is the "Special Assistant" and this is a common appointment in Nigeria, many governors have hundreds of them. Governor DanKwanbo's 229 Special Assistants, Special Advisers Taraba State, Governor Ben Ayade's Special Advisers, Obaseki Appoints 72 other aides. User:Em-mustapha talk 03:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Troy, Michigan. Anyone is free to add any content to the target article if any. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 (HAPPY 2022) 15:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Barnard

Norman Barnard (edit | talk | history | 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 person is not notable, and the source is not enough to show a hyper local politician is notable. Barnard was Township supervisor in a township that was on the verge of large scale growth and had seen some of its area annexed by the city immediately to its south. This was Troy, Michigan and Royal Oak, Michigan, but the year was 1956. The article seems to indicate Barnard did not hold a position in the new city government, or at least not mayor. He was later a probate judge, but that is not the level of judge, a county level judge dealing with estates and the lke, that is notable. Generally only appelate level judges at the state level are considered default notable. In 1960 Troy, Nichigan had a population of just under 20,000, being some raised well under a mile from the city boundary of Troy in the larger by population city of Sterling Heights, Michigan, and having read extensively on the history of Detroit, where I now live and work, and of metro-Detroit, it is clear that in 1956 Troy Township had a smaller population than Troy did in 1960. We are talking about actions in a place with under 20,000 people that was even then clearly within the Detroit Metro Area. There may be township supervisors that are notable, but we would need much more entensive coverage to show that. This article also suffers from about a third of it really being coatracking the history of the house Barnard lived in onto this article. If his house is notable, we should have an article on it, not coatrack the information onto a non-notable hyper local politician. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Deacy

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

Fails WP:GNG, mostly cited material in the article, he's has small parts and occasionally sings Yousef Raz (talk) 02:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 10:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of place names in Poland of German origin

List of place names in Poland of German origin (edit | talk | history | 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 started this ages ago, and it is really poor. For One, it is poorly cited, so it is not known, for example, the true causality in some of these cases. Without proper sources, it’s not possible to know whether the Polish name actually predates the other, or whether both share a common separate source. Two, unless a similar article exists with Polish place names in Germany (to emphasize both countries intertwined cultural history), I am always worried (perhaps unreasonably so) that this will appeal to dumb irredentist passions. And that would be horrible. Three, all this info is just taken from random other articles, and is covered with German exonyms article.--Simen113 (talk) 06:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC) Simen113 (talk) 06:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC) Liz Read! Talk! 05:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saulo Oliveira S.

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

BLP does not meet WP:NBIO. Musician, fails WP:CREATIVE and GNG. Draft declined five times at AfC before creator moved it to Mainspace. Many of the references are not Wikipedia reliable source (Soundcloud, Genius, own website, Spotify, IMDb...) Lead copied from his website. David notMD (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities by GDP (PPP) per capita

List of cities by GDP (PPP) per capita (edit | talk | history | 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 list is a nonsensical conflation of information. It appears at first glance to be a list of all cities over a certain GDP, ordered by GDP, but it is actually cherry-picked from data from individual countries that is not comparable. For example, for this list to be accurate, you would have to believe that there are zero cities in the U.S. with a GDP of over $7,000 but under $20,000 (which is nonsensical). You would similarly have to believe that 100% of the world's cities with a GDP between $7,000 and $15,000 are in either Mexico or Columbia. This list also conflates cities with counties (and, for some reason, the U.S. state of Oklahoma), which are different kinds of geographic entities. It engages in this conflation and misrepresentation of information because it relies on a single source, and draws inferences from that source that can not properly be drawn. The further down the list, the more problematic it becomes for this purpose. This could conceivably be kept if it were limited to some number reasonably susceptible to confirmation by a second source, such as the top 100 or even top 200, but as it stands it is an innacurate synthesis. BD2412 T 05:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Geire Kami

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

Doesn't seem to be notable as a writer/playwright or actor, none of the theatre works or productions cited appear to be significant and the TV roles are uncredited or very minor. Winning a Australian Commercial Radio Award as a radio documentary maker doesn't seem enough for notability either. Boneymau (talk) 04:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR. WWGB (talk) 04:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete can't find sources to meet WP:GNG/WP:SIGCOV. (sources currently cited are all passing mentions and none meet reliability standards). I can't see any argument for meeting another set of notability guidelines (ie. NACTOR). Willing to reconsider if anyone finds sources, but I can't dig anything up. Samsmachado (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non notable playwright and actor. fails WP:NACTOR. NatalieRci (talk) 00:26, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep PROD tag removal: Passes general notability guidelines. Recently updated with primary sources. Suggested significance due to national award as per Australia Commercial Radio Award; known author/playwright. (Geoff_Berlin) (talk) 2022-01-01
  • Delete fails WP:NACTOR. Lacking in depth coverage. LibStar (talk) 14:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Credited actor. Work archived in National Library. Passes WP:NACTOR. Significant award for documentary on Australian Special Forces commando killed in action. Passes WP:Notability. MagentaSwann (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Just for clarity, credited actor is not the WP:NACTOR standard and the National Library of Australia contains every book published in Australia so it's no marker of notability for WP:NAUTHOR. The one material issue is whether the radio work including the award is sufficient as WP:NCREATIVE. Boneymau (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The National Library of Australia may have a record of every ISBN published but only significant work is physically archived (for obvious reasons) which fulfills WP:NAUTHOR. Interesting point about radio work with national award and WP:NCREATIVE. While some things may be less significant, taken in totality, it is significant enough to deserve attention. MagentaSwann (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're of course welcome to have your own view about notability as we all are. But with respect to facts, the statement implying that NLA considers the book published in 2002 as significant because it archives a physical copy is not correct. See: https://www.nla.gov.au/legal-deposit/what-is-legal-deposit Boneymau (talk) 05:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The link you have provided above refers to electronic publications, where this refers to physical archives. See https://www.nla.gov.au/content/collection-development-policy-2020/what--we-collect#Manuscripts "Based on the priorities set out in collection principles the NLA focuses on collecting physical archives of: Australians of national significance, either resident or expatriate...etc." MagentaSwann (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, the link does not refer solely to electronic publications, but my intent was to more inform you about legal deposit in general and assist you to consider what this meant in 2002 prior to digital copies of many published books. I have no idea why you are referring to the Manuscripts collection policy when the relevant publication is a published Book where the NLA's approach at the link you provide is "collecting a copy of each Australian book with original content that has been made available to the general public." Whether you are just misunderstanding or being deliberately misleading, other editors can view all this in context so this is where I'll end replying. Boneymau (talk) 02:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • With all due respect, this is not a book; it is a stage play. The collection which is being referred to here is part of the NLA Manuscripts Collection. Before you suggest people who contribute are being deliberately misleading you might check these facts. MagentaSwann (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't know why I am continuing to respond to this, but you are just plain wrong. It is not part of the NLA Manuscripts Collection. On what basis are you saying this? Go look at the NLA's collection record for the work, it literally says Format: Book. When stage plays are published the published work is a book which is subject to legal deposit at the NLA. In contrast to Format: Manuscripts that you'll see for items in NLA's selectively acquired manuscript collections for like a draft version or a letter.Boneymau (talk) 04:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • I do not know why you are responding to this with incorrect information. It is quite hard to fathom. The reason that I say this is in the manuscript collection is that I have examined it (location Canberra). MagentaSwann (talk) 08:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • This entry at the NLA makes clear that Kami did not produce an entire book. She just contributed one chapter (one play) to an anthology edited by others. Makes her notability even less evident. WWGB (talk) 05:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • The book mentioned above is not the full length play held in the collection of the NLA. MagentaSwann (talk) 08:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • A search for Geire Kami in the NLA catalogue brings up only one entry (the collection).[23] Please provide a link to the "full length play". WWGB (talk) 10:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • Are you possibly referring to the copy of Kami's play Punch, alongside hundreds of other working items, in the David Branson papers at the ACT Heritage Library (i.e. the Australian Capital Territory library) in Canberra? That has nothing to do with the National Library of Australia, apart from a collection record being recorded on Trove. If that's what you're referring to, it is no claim to notability at all. Boneymau (talk) 10:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jason English

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

Businessman BLP does not seem to meet WP:NBIO- references are largely interview-based articles. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ihor Serhiyovych Vasylyev

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

BLP does not seem to meet WP:NBIO. The references indicate that he contested an election and came 2nd with 14% of the vote. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Who are the Sidemen? How KSI and friends amassed 123 million followers". The Times. 23 October 2021. Archived from the original on 24 October 2021. Retrieved 24 October 2021.
  2. ^ "Електоральна пам'ять". ukr.vote (in Ukrainian). Retrieved 30 December 2021.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Freddie and the Dreamers. ✗plicit 03:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Quinn

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

NN musician, fails WP:CREATIVE and the GNG as a standalone article, and one of a number of articles about 1960s beat musicians (created by an editor who's been fighting redirects tooth and nail and without edit summaries) which are now up at AfD. Complete lack of significant coverage to the subject. Seeking a redirect to Freddie and the Dreamers, the notable group of which the subject was a member. Ravenswing 03:17, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Gerry and the Pacemakers. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Freddie Marsden

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

NN musician, fails WP:CREATIVE and the GNG as a standalone article, and one of a number of articles about 1960s beat musicians (created by an editor who's been fighting redirects tooth and nail and without edit summaries) which are now up at AfD. Complete lack of significant coverage to the subject. Seeking a redirect to Gerry and the Pacemakers, the notable group of which the subject was a member. Ravenswing 03:17, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 11:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vydubychi railway station

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

Vydubychi railway station

Railway station that does not satisfy general notability and so does not satisfy notability for geographic features, including artificial features that are infrastructure. The one reference states that the station exists, and that trains go through it. However, the guideline states that features related to infrastructure are notable based on general notability, and there is no independent significant coverage.

This article has been pushed back into draft space twice, by User:John B123 and User:Onel5969, and moved back to article space twice. Rather than move-warring, a deletion discussion is in order. If sources can be found within seven days that establish notability, then the station is notable; and if not, not. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. The arguments of Soman regarding coverage and parliamentary representation were never refuted. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 23:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Workers Party (Peru)

Socialist Workers Party (Peru) (edit | talk | history | 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 a notable organisation. Google searches in English and in Spanish (i.e. Partido Socialista de los Trabajadores Peru) return only primary source results or mentions in leftist blogs/magazines. Nearly no mentions by secondary or tertiary sources aside from mere mentions of its existence (i.e. Confirming the organisation's existence but making no claim to its significance). CentreLeftRight ✉ 23:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 01:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW close. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mehmet Yıldız (politician)

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

Not Notable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:22, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to England–Wales border. I find Peter's contribution the most persuasive in a discussion filled with not-strongly-held positions. Daniel (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh Lost Lands

AfDs for this article:
Welsh Lost Lands (edit | talk | history | 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 page seems to be nothing but original research, lacks any clarity both official and significance. Also appears to be another form of "Border wars" with Wales lost this to England while England gained from Wales affair. The article would be better off being deleted as there is nothing about Welsh Lost Lands...DragonofBatley (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but consider moving it to something like Welsh irredentism and expand if possible. --Killuminator (talk) 01:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- The lost lands issue might make an appropriate section in England–Wales border. Welsh yearnings to return to ancient periods before Anglian conquest might be worth a fuller discussion somewhere. Certain border counties (despite being subject to the Council of the Marches in the Tudor and early Stuart periods were always part of England. The logic of what boundaries were adopted in 1536/42 is lost in the mists of time. The Welsh marches had expanded in the medieval period, partly by conquest in the anarchy of Stephen and partly by marcher lords claiming that border property was exempt from interference by the sheriff. These encroachments were reversed by the 1536 Act. I see little in this article that adds much to my target, except the alleged movement to reclaim lands. Another editor has drawn attention to a potential Whitehall blunder. The Wye catchment was in the days of Water Authorities the responsibility of Welsh Water and the Severn catchment of Severn-Trent Water (including parts of Montgomeryshire). I am not clear what happened on this when Welsh devolution was strengthened. Agricultural nitrate pollution of the Wye is however an active issue on which CPRE Herefordshire is organising research, in a volunteer-led project. This is a function of the direction in which rivers run, from Wales through England, not one of the extent of Wales. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to England–Wales border; overlaps with that topic. Sandstein 09:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kozma Kumani

Kozma Kumani (edit | talk | history | 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 individual and article likely created for vanity purposes. Only source that turns up on Google to validate this individual existed is already linked on the page, and its content fails to establish the subject's notability Jkaharper (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_December_30&oldid=1096378646"