Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 December 30
![]() |
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:14, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:14, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment It seems to have once had a post office, according to this maybe it was more back in the days BCE (Before Car Era)? If it really isn't notable at all, then redirect and merge with Golden Valley County, or something like that. Mako001 (C) (T) (The Alternate Mako) 07:44, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete or Redirect to county level. GNIS spam puffed out with a reference to a regional climate (i.e., not that of the town per se). Simply having a post office does not confer legal recognition as these were often just run from a store/station. FOARP (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as GNIS spam. Avilich (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per FOARP. Neo-corelight (Talk) 00:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Delete for reasons mentioned by Hemiauchenia. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - yeah, someone didn't check for existing material there... and that is not a good (or even reasonable) search term for redirection. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:42, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Delete no need for duplication. PianoDan (talk) 18:02, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Per Elmidae, as it isn't even a useful redirect. It Duplicates the scope of existing articles, and fails to even mention the names of the two individual events that make it up. Mako001 (C) (T) (The Alternate Mako) 02:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, Per Nom. Alex-h (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Devokewater (talk) 03:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:14, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:14, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: There are hundreds of references to Hirschville as a community at newspapers.com, and it continues to be mentioned as a community in newspaper articles in the 21st century. Doremo (talk) 04:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:HEY. Article has been improved to show evidence of a small community. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 02:16, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep As per WP:HEY -enough RS here after article improvement Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, Article has enough information and RS. Alex-h (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- comment The state of the article puts it in a similar state as we have with Trotters: there's material on the church especially, but nothing which says that there was actually a town here. What are you going to say it is, since it isn't an apparently never was an "unincorporated community"? Mangoe (talk) 05:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- Keep As per WP:HEY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom, no RS here at all to establish notability for this org. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete - this may meet WP:G4. This is the 4th time that User:Thaiais has posted this exact same article and I can't see any improvement. If this version is at all different, then the difference is trivial and there is no attempt here to address the concerns from the previous AfD. I also would suggest extending WP:SALT. This was salted earlier this year but it has expired, which is presumably why Thaiais has reposted it. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - this article was salted in Jan 2021 for one month and then salted in Mar 2021 for three months. It may require a lengthier salting this time. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 22:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:09, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Pretty much every large university has an environmental sciences program. Pointless list, and given how unfinished it is, highly misleading. Mlb96 (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete almost pointless. AnM2002 (talk) 13:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete not notable Devokewater (talk) 03:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and almost every large university has a environmental sciences program and it is incomplete.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 20:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 20:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 20:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
- Striking vote The below users make a more convincing argument, and know more about this topic than I do, so I will strike my vote. Spf121188 (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
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)- 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)
- 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)
- Delete At this time, I don't see coverage that shows he meets WP:GNG. I'm afraid this overshadows his 78 fight career when it comes to WP notability. I don't think the fact that none of his professional fights, after the first one, went the distance is sufficient to meet any WP notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Fails notability guidelines. Cassiopeia talk 08:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SilkTork (talk) 16:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
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)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 20:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 20:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- Keep - over 50 professional appearances, meets NFOOTBALL by miles. GiantSnowman 21:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Keep (weak), I found this article from eon.se, this article from bioenergitidningen.se and this article from ne.se about him, although the latter is behind a paywall. If loaded in chrome browser you can auto translate. I think it's plausible that there will be native swedish sources about this former player and likely in his current career. I can't easily verify or search non-english though so it's harder to check this out, but i'm inclined to err with keeping the article. Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per GiantSnowman passes WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per guidelines and the coverage that would stem from over 50 pro games. Geschichte (talk) 12:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. I've added a couple of brief sentences using sources listed here in the conversation here. /Julle (talk) 10:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - As Bungle's first (non-independent) source makes abundantly clear, he was a part-time footballer in a semi-professional league, so fails WP:NFOOTBALL. When he retired in 1998 after three years in the lower leagues fewer than half of the players in the top Swedish league were full-time professional. Anyway, the first two sources are more about his civilian career as an E.on manager - the first one does nothing to establish WP:N because it's a promotional interview published by his employer. I suppose at least it does briefly mention his days as a semi-pro footballer, unlike the second source which only tangentially mentions him as being present at the installation of a boiler in his day job. The third source remains a mystery so we're a distance short of WP:GNG being met. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 15:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Keep - Article has been improved - now meets NFOOTBALL, and I agree with Julle points. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per Julle's comments above Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 01:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Plenty of hits about the apple cultivar Orange Pippin, zippo about the website. Oaktree b (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, the most I could find where passing mentions in these [4] [5] articles which don't provide sufficient evidence of notability. Suonii180 (talk) 15:36, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 20:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 20:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, played recently enough to meet WP:NFOOTBALL and the nominator is far from competent to conduct a source search in Swedish. Actually, the margin of meeting NFOOTBALL is very, very large, with the subject having played at least 228 Allsvenskan games. Geschichte (talk) 20:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Have you conducted a source search in Swedish? –dlthewave ☎ 20:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Have you conducted a source search in Swedish? –dlthewave ☎ 20:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- Keep - over 200 professional appearances, meets NFOOTBALL by miles. GiantSnowman 21:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Keep passes WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:22, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:22, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:22, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:45, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 21:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - his profiles at MLSZ and HLSZ show no top tier appearances at all, meaning that he quite probably doesn't pass WP:NFOOTBALL. I also can't find any evidence of WP:GNG and there is no corresponding Hungarian article either, which makes it hard to start a search. This is a ludicrously common name in Hungarian - my searches didn't yield anything that appeared to be about this Kovács István but that's not to say that there couldn't be something about him hidden away somewhere. Please ping me if something comes up but, for now, I suggest delete on basis of failing GNG and SNG. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, I couldn't find sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Delete agree with nom. Oaktree b (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:55, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Keep notable porn star thatcwas covered in reliable sources, also I found [6] has significant coverage. Brayan ocaner (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- The Daily Star is as tabloid as the UK press gets so isn't an RS. Please highlight what sources meet the GNG and why so we can assess it your vote is just a bare assertion? Thanks Spartaz Humbug! 19:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Invalid keep, tabloids are not usable sources. Zaathras (talk) 15:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Nothing in the article is a usable reliable source to count towards notability. Zaathras (talk) 15:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. I couldn't find anything when I checked newspapers.com. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete The article lacks enough sourcing to show notability, and no significant additions of reliable sourcing have been identified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: this sort of organization (really it's a service of the state hospital association, not even a stand-alone organization) is inherently unnotable unless something extraordinary happened. And that's not the case here. WP:BRANCH-- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 19:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: I created the article and I am ok with the deletion. I have copied the relevant content to the Georgia Hospital Association page. If deleted, please redirect this article and GSHMM to the Georgia Hospital Association article. Mr.Atoz (talk) 11:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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).
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Keep : He is a radio personality from Good Hope FM, isn't it possible to leave it a stub? i need time to find verifiable information but he is live on radio everyday and is associated with the SABC.StephenWilliams021 (talk) 18:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- Delete - Looks like an attempted resume. The article's text is copied from paid promotional sites like this: [7], among others. He is only visible in sites like that plus the usual social media services, so he does not have independent and reliable coverage as required for notable music artists. His job at the radio station also lacks the necessary coverage, and his presence there can be mentioned briefly at the station's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, non notable individual. -Xclusivzik (talk) 19:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, Fails WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG. NatalieRci (talk) 23:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Delete or Move [to draft] - I've did a deep search on this subject and can't find significant coverage. I remember this guy had a head on controversy with the SABC, for some reason I thought the job he does renders him notable and of importance to the cape town industry but I was wrong and vote to have this article to either be deleted or moved to draft space so I can do deeper research using my coding abilities to run his keywords across the net. StephenWilliams021 (talk) 11:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Draftify Maybe StephenWilliams021 can find something on him with a bit more time, if he runs his "deeper research using [his] coding abilities"? Many other DJs manage to have enough coverage for an article, maybe stuff for this chap is just harder to find than for some others? (Before anyone mentions it: Yes, I do know about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) If Stephen can't find anything, then it can die quietly in draftspace after 6 months. (BTW, Stephen, I hope you don't mind me clarifying your !vote above?) Mako001 (C) (T) (The Alternate Mako) 02:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - I agree with Doomsdayer's comments Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, Does not meet WP:GNG Alex-h (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Citing (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Citing (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Citing (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Keep Seems to have adequate sourcing to establish notability. Any content issues (although it looks pretty objective to me) can be fixed through clean-up. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- Delete If the only independent WP:RS is the Yahoo Finance article, then coverage is insufficient to meet WP:NCORP. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
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)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: per nom. Lacks reliable sources to meet NACTOR or GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 11:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete upcoming fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 16:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 16:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 13:19, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 13:19, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 13:19, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
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)
- Delete - White GNG is met (only barely), the very low notability of his achievements and low WP:POTENTIAL for further notability does not warrant an article on Wikipedia. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 18:54, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
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)
- Delete. I would say neither source is remotely SIGCOV. The first is 4 brief non-quote sentences, the second has just ~130 words directly on him and is written by a "Media/PR advisor for leading motor racing drivers currently competing in UK and Europe", so may very well not be independent, either. JoelleJay (talk) 01:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
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)
KeepDelete per debate below: Found 2 sources to satisfy GNG: https://www.mercurynews.com/2011/10/17/review-berkeleys-joshu-ya-gets-a-complete-redo/ Mercury News and https://sf.eater.com/2011/8/15/6660739/inside-joshu-ya-brasserie-now-open-in-berkeley Eater.com apparently owned by Vox Media Justiyaya 16:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)- Comment: I'm still not 100% confident that the two sources count towards GNG so please check them before !voting Justiyaya 16:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Run of the mill restaurant, fails GNG. College paper saying it's the best sushi restaurant in Berkeley (pop 120K) one year doesn't say much when the surrounding SF metro area is 8M people. Best burger in the Bay isn't a well-known and significant award. BBQboffin (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Hi BBQboffin, you mentioned that the article fails GNG, I found 2 sources above that might satisfy GNG, which of these sources are you opposing and why? Thanks Justiyaya 08:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- I'm a novice editor so I'll be the first to say I could be mistaken about my understanding of policy here and am wide open to correction/education. As I read WP:MILL this seems to me to be what this restaurant is. It opened, it got reviewed in local papers, it changed its menu, it closed. The first guideline under "What not to create" is "A restaurant that has been given reviews in the local papers". I added an East Bay Express source which is similar to the Mercury News source. These sources do prove they got a new chef and remodeled the place, but why is that notable when restaurants do that all the time? To overcome WP:MILL it has to be unusual or unique in some way. I do personally remember this place from my UC Berkeley days and I'm sad to see it close. I'd nominate it for a lunch run for sure, but not for inclusion in an encyclopedia. BBQboffin (talk) 15:33, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- @BBQboffin thanks for your analyses there, I might be wrong but I think for an article to be notable, It doesn't need to meet WP:MILL as it's only an essay and because it's an essay and not a guideline like WP:GNG or WP:ORG, an article does not have to satisfy WP:MILL to be notable. Regardless, I don't think the essay says that if an article is "run of the mill", it should be deleted, but sort of points back to WP:Notability with "If something is truly not notable or is likely not to be considered notable, it may be nominated for deletion." Justiyaya 16:16, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- I'm a novice editor so I'll be the first to say I could be mistaken about my understanding of policy here and am wide open to correction/education. As I read WP:MILL this seems to me to be what this restaurant is. It opened, it got reviewed in local papers, it changed its menu, it closed. The first guideline under "What not to create" is "A restaurant that has been given reviews in the local papers". I added an East Bay Express source which is similar to the Mercury News source. These sources do prove they got a new chef and remodeled the place, but why is that notable when restaurants do that all the time? To overcome WP:MILL it has to be unusual or unique in some way. I do personally remember this place from my UC Berkeley days and I'm sad to see it close. I'd nominate it for a lunch run for sure, but not for inclusion in an encyclopedia. BBQboffin (talk) 15:33, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Hi BBQboffin, you mentioned that the article fails GNG, I found 2 sources above that might satisfy GNG, which of these sources are you opposing and why? Thanks Justiyaya 08:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- @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)
- EaterSF isn't regional, it's the local area to San Francisco. —valereee (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Valereee Oops you're right, another search returned no results, changed vote above. Justiyaya 05:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- EaterSF isn't regional, it's the local area to San Francisco. —valereee (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- @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)
- Delete Routine local coverage only, as expected for many generic restaurants. Reywas92Talk 23:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GoingBatty (talk) 16:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GoingBatty (talk) 16:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. GoingBatty (talk) 16:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GoingBatty (talk) 16:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:01, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:02, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Many hits in GNews about her writing on friends, but most are just quotes or one or two line statements. Nothing to establish notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: as above, many hits on Twitter and LinkedIn, all user generated sources. Nothing verifiable. --Whiteguru (talk) 02:59, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- I believe the WP:V problem you raised has now been addressed with the sources added by Kpdow360. pburka (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. At the very least, her play, Fingersmith, is notable (Boston Globe, Variety, WBUR), and there's independent coverage of her screenwriting (e.g. Marie Clare). pburka (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Pburka: There may be enough independent reliable sources for an article about Fingersmith, but we're looking for significant coverage about her. The Marie Claire article isn't about her writing - it's an anecdote where she objected to someone else's writing and was ignored. GoingBatty (talk) 23:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- We could move and rework the page as you suggest, but then Fingersmith (play) might well become a WP:COATRACK for additional information about her newsworthy career and we'd have WP:BLP page masquerading as a play. Far better to keep it all on this page, in my opinion. pburka (talk) 22:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Pburka: Note that I did not suggest you could "move and rework the page" into an an article about Fingersmith. I simply meant that you may be able to use the references you provided to create a separate article about Fingersmith, regardless of what happens with the article about Junge. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:11, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
- Having an article about the play and another article about the playwright seems excessive at this time. If we had both I'd support merging them; since we don't, let's just maintain the status quo. pburka (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Pburka: I see you have now created an article called Fingersmith (play). GoingBatty (talk) 04:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- Having an article about the play and another article about the playwright seems excessive at this time. If we had both I'd support merging them; since we don't, let's just maintain the status quo. pburka (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Pburka: Note that I did not suggest you could "move and rework the page" into an an article about Fingersmith. I simply meant that you may be able to use the references you provided to create a separate article about Fingersmith, regardless of what happens with the article about Junge. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:11, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
- We could move and rework the page as you suggest, but then Fingersmith (play) might well become a WP:COATRACK for additional information about her newsworthy career and we'd have WP:BLP page masquerading as a play. Far better to keep it all on this page, in my opinion. pburka (talk) 22:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Pburka: There may be enough independent reliable sources for an article about Fingersmith, but we're looking for significant coverage about her. The Marie Claire article isn't about her writing - it's an anecdote where she objected to someone else's writing and was ignored. GoingBatty (talk) 23:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. She has been nominated for four Emmy awards which is verified by the television academy [1]. There's independent coverage of her accomplishments and contributions in screenwriting by trade publications (e.g. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/showtime-picks-up-tara-113150/) and in other reputable publications (e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/arts/television/11mcdo.html) --Kpdow360 (talk) 21:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC) Note to reviewers This is a new account and this editor has only edited this AfD and the nominated article
References
- @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)
- Delete: Lacking in substance and doesn't satisfy WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
- "Lacking in substance" isn't a meaningful deletion argument. pburka (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- "Lacking in substance" isn't a meaningful deletion argument. pburka (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.
- @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)
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)
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)
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)
- Keep This article has been greatly improved since it was initially nominated and I hope the good work continues. Passes WP:NAUTHOR. Bondegezou (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Kudos to Lawikitejana and Thelarrydoyle and others who saved this article by finding sources to establish notability. BBQboffin (talk) 01:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep The article has been improved a lot (and sources about a writer's work do count towards their notability). BuySomeApples (talk) 08:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment/Mild Delete I get one hit in Kommersant in Russian, but it doesn't appear to be about the stage actor. Might need to look in Russian-language sources, I don't think Soviet-era stage actors got much attention in the non-communist world at the time... Oaktree b (talk) 16:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
- Weak keep: There seems to be some WP:SIGCOV in the links provided, but I can't verify how reliable some of these sources are. Might be able to squeak by with WP:GNG if these ELs are reliable. Curbon7 (talk) 21:47, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: has a biographical entry on the site of the Chuvash National Library: [8], while People's Artist is a high honor. Here's also a detailed, bylined entry on the site of the Association of Theater Workers of the Russian Federation: [9]. Meets WP:NACTOR, IMO. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
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)
- Keep as per K.e.coffman above. One of those cases where we need to be careful of biases against non-English and non-recent sources. Bondegezou (talk) 22:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - He has significant awards and honors - Stanislavsky State Prize of the RSFSR and he was People's Artist of the RSFSR. "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times", meets criterion number one for any bography. Kirill C1 (talk) 17:52, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)
- 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)
- Keep Pass WP:BLP. Person is notable. Billshine (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
- @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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 09:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 09:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 09:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 09:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
- Delete There's no notable CV and Lack of independent and reliable references. Brayan ocaner (talk) 09:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
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)
- Delete Does not meet WP:NCREATIVE and lacks coverage beyond WP:BLP1E. -- Ab207 (talk) 13:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Sahaib3005 (talk) 11:53, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Sahaib3005 (talk) 11:53, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Sahaib3005 (talk) 11:53, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 December 30. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 11:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect Side+ to Sidemen (YouTube group) per nom; no need for the (streaming platform) title. No independent notability demonstrated. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Merge to Sidemen (YouTube group). MarioGom (talk) 11:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. 力猫 (talk) 03:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
- Delete or merge - agree that this is not notable enough for its own page and that the references section is mostly being used to advertise a website. If there is any salvageable or relevant material in here (which I'm not convinced there is, but open to persuasion) we already have Converted barn --CameronVictoria (talk) 14:00, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
- Difficult to care much, but perhaps Redirect either to Converted barn, as per CameronVictoria, or else to Kit house, since barndominiums seem to be intended as new structures. Ingratis (talk) 01:08, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
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)
- Well personally I'd Delete this as a neologism without decent sources, but I'd not oppose redirecting it to Converted barn if folks prefer that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:13, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
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)
- 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 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)
- 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 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)
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)
- Keep: The citation is listed. I don't see the article has to be removed. --Beta Lohman (talk) 16:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
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)
- Merge to Deep Sea Drilling Project, duplicates scope. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Redirect to Deep Sea Drilling Project, with the possible of a selective merger from the history. This reads like a scientific paper, not an encyclopedia article, and is impenetrable to a general readership. Sandstein 09:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. François Robere (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. François Robere (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- Merge to Kaveri river. As mentioned above, there is a decent article on it so a merge makes sense. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 01:38, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. PianoDan (talk) 23:22, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. PianoDan (talk) 23:22, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
- Question Can someone translate
The reason for the existence of analogies is limited, for now, to the classical and relativistic theories of the macrocosm
into any language that actually makes sense? I'm tempted to say the text deserves WP:TNT, and the notability case is not looking great (a Google Scholar h-index in the low 20's for engineering/physics seems to be where we get into an iffy zone, in my experience). XOR'easter (talk) 23:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I am a PhD physicist, and no, I cannot translate that. PianoDan (talk) 00:03, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- TNT and SPA are not policy based deletion reasons Atlantic306 (talk) 05:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- TNT and SPA are not policy based deletion reasons Atlantic306 (talk) 05:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Probably notable. The papers are cited frequently and from a large range of authors, and there are independent publications talking about Tonti diagrams, but the current article is a mess. --mfb (talk) 05:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- Keep This article has nothing to do with WP:FRINGE: there are scientific works on regular and well recognized journals, a notable number of citations and info useful to readers. IMHO there's no need for deletion. BJohn24 (talk) 07:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC) — BJohn24 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Weak delete: The citation figures are actually not so great for the relevant disciplines in computational physics, modeling, and mathematical physics. Not enough citations/review material for WP:NACADEMIC#1 in my opinion (although this is not an obvious one and others may view this differently), and no indication of satisfying the other criteria of WP:NACADEMIC or WP:BASIC. — MarkH21talk 12:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- Delete There are some of his works listed here, including articles and books - but that's no more than you can provide for thousands of academics that don't have wikipedia pages. There's no independent RS here talking about his contributions to his field, no references to major roles he has had in organisations, prestigious positions, he's got no awards here, no interviews, no coverage in mass media or industry journals. Simply writing 5 articles that have been cited 200 times each isn't a sole reason for notability to grant a wiki page. UNless more can be provided, it falls short of WP:NACADEMIC Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment This diff on the german wiki might provide some context - I'm not sure if it's similar enough to say one way or the other but the edits made by "ProfEnzoTonti" there do look similar to the edits made on this page. - car chasm (talk) 05:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 05:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - Ok, it could be that he is writing on his own page, a violation of WP:COI? Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:08, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - Simply does not meet WP:GNG. Everything about this individual can be viewed on a primary source, with no coverage elsewhere. Therefore, insufficiently notable to warrant inclusion on Wikipedia.Such-change47 (talk) 08:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- '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)
- As we learned last time, "Tonti diagrams" are neither widely used nor always called "Tonti diagrams". XOR'easter (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- "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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Delete nothing special here. No indication of notability. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
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)
- Delete per Headbomb and SimoneD89. It's sad to delete biographical articles, but there are no explicit claims of notability, nor do the listed articles hint at anything special. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Weak keep: Per WP:PROF. I don't think I would call the article promotional, but it is borderline notable and there doesn't seem to be much consensus. bop34 • talk • contribs 03:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Princess of Ara 20:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Princess of Ara 20:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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
- “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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- That is a logical consensus that I definitely support when contextualized. HandsomeBoy (talk) 18:19, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
Keep : Subject is notable from Google search but needs enough improvement such as citations.--Tcgchv (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- @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)
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)
- Delete, doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Suonii180 (talk) 16:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as per Em-mustapha. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)
- 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)
- Merge with Troy, Michigan: Definitely deserving of a mention in the article for the town, but not for his own standalone article. Curbon7 (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- FWIW, here is his obit from the Detroit Free Press. Cbl62 (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
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)
- Redirect to Troy, Michigan. No evidence of significant coverage and hyper-local information that has little chance of ever being better covered. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect to Troy, Michigan. Doesn't appear to have enough press coverage to meet WP:NPOL as a "major local figure." Redirecting to the town seems like a reasonable target. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)
- 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)
- Delete per well-stated nom. BD2412 T 06:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Justiyaya 11:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Justiyaya 11:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Justiyaya 11:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Justiyaya 11:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:14, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment. Interesting topic, but it needs good sourcing per WP:V. If the very creator thinks this needs WP:TNTing... maybe draftify if the creator thinks they may come back to this one day? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. If the article's own creator wants WP:TNT on an article that's been mostly unsourced for its entire five-year existence, I can't see any good reason to get in the way. -- asilvering (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)
- 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)
- Speedy delete: Not notable as per WP:NBIO and non reliable sources. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 06:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, lacks significant coverage. Pikavoom Talk 14:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - Probably an attempted promotion. The musician is only visible in the usual streaming and social media services, plus the occasional placed puff piece like this: [22]. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete non-notable musician and trivial information that doesn't state why its relevant or important. Brayan ocaner (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, Does not have significant coverage from the citations. NatalieRci (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete: Clear non-notable musician trying to use Wikipedia was a means for promotion. Also, the article was created by an editor who likely have a WP:COI or is WP:PAID. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 00:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable Devokewater (talk) 03:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 05:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Hi,
- The page could be renamed as "List of OECD metropolitan areas by GDP (PPP) per capita" if you prefer.
- If you disagree with the OECD definition of a metropolitan area, then you can complain to them. We don't have to judge whether what the OECD is nonsensical or not. It's a reliable source. A455bcd9 (talk) 05:11, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- The OECD may well be a reliable source for per capita lists within specific countries, but it is not and therefore can not be used as some kind of master per capita list of the world. It covers a limited number of cities per country, and therefore the list becomes increasingly inaccurate as it descends because the OECD is not attempting to cover what the list purports to cover. That has nothing to do with the definition of a metropolitan area, and everything to do with the synthesis that this list manufactures. BD2412 T 05:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- That's why I suggested renaming it "List of OECD metropolitan areas by GDP (PPP) per capita".
- What would be the issue with that? A455bcd9 (talk) 05:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- The list would still be inaccurate. Do you think that 100% of the world's cities with a GDP anywhere between $7,000 and $15,000 are to be found in Mexico and Columbia, and nowhere else? That is what this list says right now, and that's just the tail end. BD2412 T 05:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Again, I suggested to rename the page as "List of OECD metropolitan areas by GDP (PPP) per capita".
- With such a title (limited to OECD, not the world, and to metropolitan areas, not cities) I don't understand why you mention "Do you think that 100% of the world's cities with a GDP anywhere between $7,000 and $15,000 are to be found in Mexico and Columbia, and nowhere else?". A455bcd9 (talk) 05:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Then the list is just acknowledged as a useless repetition of the single source from which it draws. Furthermore, it would still synthesize the separate lists in a way that the OECD does not. BD2412 T 05:35, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- "Furthermore, it would still synthesize the separate lists in a way that the OECD does not.": could you please explain your reasoning? I don't understand as anyone clicking on the source can then see the "GDP per capita (USD, constant prices, constant PPP, base year 2015)" in the "Economy" variables. Here's another source using this variable if you want: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/reg_cit_glance-2018-35-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/reg_cit_glance-2018-35-en A455bcd9 (talk) 05:42, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- The OECD does not present a list of cities by this characteristic that suggests that the bottom 40 cities on the list are found exclusively in two countries. That's what makes this a synthesis (and a clearly incorrect one). It is obvious at the end of the list, but likely to be more problematic higher up in the list, where the missing information is less obvious. Why not just merge the relevant information into the existing (and more substantially sourced) List of cities by GDP? At least then we would have more confidence that the final list was accurate relative to the cities already included in that list. BD2412 T 05:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- The OECD does present a list of cities by this characteristic:
- https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=CITIES# (url: "CITIES")
- Then you click on "Economy" then you have "GDP per capita (USD, constant prices, constant PPP, base year 2015)" (go on "Layout" if it's slow to load or hard to display on your device) and this is the same list as this one. With, as you said "the bottom 40 cities on the list are found exclusively in two countries". So again, I don't understand your point here.
- "List of cities by GDP" is not a list by GDP per capita. So why would we merge them? A455bcd9 (talk) 06:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- The list in the format presented by the OECD is clearly not the same list, and clearly not comparable. As for merging, it would at least preserve the relevant information in the useful context of an accurate list. BD2412 T 06:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- As far as I remember, I went on that website, exported the list, and added it to Wikipedia. So I don't understand how you can say that "The list in the format presented by the OECD is clearly not the same list, and clearly not comparable". It is the same list in the same format. (the only difference is: they updated the base year from 2010 to 2015 for PPP).
- Can you please explain your reasoning? A455bcd9 (talk) 06:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- (Please note that there are 7 pages on that link) A455bcd9 (talk) 06:31, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- The OECD list to which you have linked does not, as far as I can see, lump all of the cities together. It isolates them by country. If it did lump them, it would give the inaccurate impression (as the article here does) that this is intended to be a list of all cities of the world above a certain GDP in order. Even if the name of this article was changed, it would still give that misleading impression. It is likely useless as a guide to relative per capita GDP beyond the first few dozen items listed, and certainly useless once it gets into the hundreds. BD2412 T 06:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- You just have to click on one year to get the list ordered by GDP per capita. And again, it's a list of OECD metropolitan areas, I don't get why you keep repeating that it's "a list of all cities of the world above a certain GDP in order". In the same way that List of European Union regions by GDP and List of U.S. metropolitan areas by GDP per capita only list cities from, respectively, the EU and the US, that list only contains metropolitan areas from the OECD. You can see that the OECD uses that list in various sources: here and there for instance.
- The OECD list to which you have linked does not, as far as I can see, lump all of the cities together. It isolates them by country. If it did lump them, it would give the inaccurate impression (as the article here does) that this is intended to be a list of all cities of the world above a certain GDP in order. Even if the name of this article was changed, it would still give that misleading impression. It is likely useless as a guide to relative per capita GDP beyond the first few dozen items listed, and certainly useless once it gets into the hundreds. BD2412 T 06:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- (Please note that there are 7 pages on that link) A455bcd9 (talk) 06:31, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- The list in the format presented by the OECD is clearly not the same list, and clearly not comparable. As for merging, it would at least preserve the relevant information in the useful context of an accurate list. BD2412 T 06:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- The OECD does not present a list of cities by this characteristic that suggests that the bottom 40 cities on the list are found exclusively in two countries. That's what makes this a synthesis (and a clearly incorrect one). It is obvious at the end of the list, but likely to be more problematic higher up in the list, where the missing information is less obvious. Why not just merge the relevant information into the existing (and more substantially sourced) List of cities by GDP? At least then we would have more confidence that the final list was accurate relative to the cities already included in that list. BD2412 T 05:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- "Furthermore, it would still synthesize the separate lists in a way that the OECD does not.": could you please explain your reasoning? I don't understand as anyone clicking on the source can then see the "GDP per capita (USD, constant prices, constant PPP, base year 2015)" in the "Economy" variables. Here's another source using this variable if you want: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/reg_cit_glance-2018-35-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/reg_cit_glance-2018-35-en A455bcd9 (talk) 05:42, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Then the list is just acknowledged as a useless repetition of the single source from which it draws. Furthermore, it would still synthesize the separate lists in a way that the OECD does not. BD2412 T 05:35, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- The list would still be inaccurate. Do you think that 100% of the world's cities with a GDP anywhere between $7,000 and $15,000 are to be found in Mexico and Columbia, and nowhere else? That is what this list says right now, and that's just the tail end. BD2412 T 05:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- The OECD may well be a reliable source for per capita lists within specific countries, but it is not and therefore can not be used as some kind of master per capita list of the world. It covers a limited number of cities per country, and therefore the list becomes increasingly inaccurate as it descends because the OECD is not attempting to cover what the list purports to cover. That has nothing to do with the definition of a metropolitan area, and everything to do with the synthesis that this list manufactures. BD2412 T 05:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Even though it's limited to the OECD, it's one of the only reliable lists of cities/metropolitan areas by GDP per capita, so it's quite useful. Can you explain why it's useless?
- As I wrote in my answer to Elemimele below, here are other sources:
- https://pwc.blogs.com/files/global-city-gdp-rankings-2008-2025.pdf (p. 21)
- https://www.brookings.edu/research/global-metro-monitor/ ("View data table" then "GDP per capita" or "TABLE 1. Highest and Lowest GDP Per Capita, 300 Largest Metropolitan Economies, 2013" p. 4, PDF)
- https://www.brookings.edu/research/global-metro-monitor-2018/ (looks like Brookings publish their Global Metro Monitor every 4 years)
- https://www.oxfordeconomics.com/microsites/cities
- Therefore, I suggest adding one column per source. Some cities will only be available in one ranking, as in List of cities by GDP. It could also be merged with List of cities by GDP although splitting in two pages would be clearer, and would follow the examples of List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita vs List of countries by GDP (PPP) and List of U.S. metropolitan areas by GDP per capita vs List of U.S. metropolitan areas by GDP (and probably many other similar pages).
- What do you think? A455bcd9 (talk) 11:17, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- I think the numbers proposed in these different sources don't match, so how are we to determine and present the correct GDP per capita? BD2412 T 18:31, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "the numbers don't match"? We don't have to choose the "correct" one, just display data in each column. Similarly in List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita and List of largest cities there are different figures for each country or city. I don't understand the problem (if there is one). A455bcd9 (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- I mean that "the numbers don't match" in that the different sources list different numbers for given cities, and different orders. Let me approach this from a different angle. At what point does the list cease to be comprehensive, and begin to exclude cities/municipalities because they are over the arbitrary limit for a particular country or region? My sense is that it is somewhere in the top 200, and I think that if this list were to cut off at that point, and multiply sourced for the cities in that range, it would at least be a more accurate and maintainable representation of the title. BD2412 T 21:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Different numbers and different orders doesn't seem to be a problem to me. We have the same situation in List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita and List of largest cities.
- Brookings only consider the 300 largest urban areas in the world. We could only display the top 200 (or even top 100) as you suggested. Would it be fine for you?
- In the case of the OECD (the current version of the article), the list is fully comprehensive: every single OECD metropolitan area is included (but OECD countries only of course). So I think your concern doesn't apply in this case. Am I wrong? A455bcd9 (talk) 11:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- It is not possible or plausible that the U.S. has only 163 metropolitan areas, with none being below $20,000 GDP per capita. There has to be a cut-off point beyond which they are just not being included. BD2412 T 23:29, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- The US has 384 Metropolitan statistical area. In 2017 (and in 2009 dollars) only 4 of them had a GDP per capital below 20,000$ according to List of U.S. metropolitan areas by GDP per capita (source: bea.gov). This article uses OECD "metropolitan areas" (or "functional urban areas") and has 163 such areas in the US (you can see the map there: https://regions-cities-atlas.oecd.org/subarea/FUA/USA/x/T_T/2018 ). This is explained there: https://www.oecd.org/regional/regional-policy/redefining-urban-9789264174108-en.htm
- "The OECD, in cooperation with the EU, has developed a harmonised definition of functional urban areas (FUAs). Being composed of a city and its commuting zone, FUAs encompass the economic and functional extent of cities based on daily people’s movements (OECD, 2012). The definition of FUA aims at providing a functional/economic definition of cities and their area of influence, by maximising international comparability and overcoming the limitation of using purely administrative approaches. At the same time, the concept of FUA, unlike other approaches, ensure a mimimum link to the government level of the city or metropolitan area. The Metropolitan database provides socio-economic and environmental indicators of 691 OECD functional urban areas over 250,000 inhabitants in 36 OECD countries. [...] In the case of European countries they are Local Administrative Units (LAU) according to the terminology adopted by Eurostat. In most cases local units are municipalities. In the case of the United States, census tracts are used for the method, and the final boundaries of the city and the commuting zones are adapted to the county boundaries."
- So the OECD definition of a city/metropolitan area/urban area is closer to what the United States Office of Management and Budget calls a combined statistical area (CSA). And there are 172 CSAs in the US.
- Coming back to our example, according to the BEA, the MSAs with GDP per capita below 20,000 (2009) USD in 2017 were:
- (note that the link point to counties instead of MSAs)
- Homosassa Springs, Florida has a population of 14k and The Villages, Florida of 79k people. Given their location and size, the OECD probably included them in what they called the Marion metropolitan area (and what the BEA calls the Ocala, FL MSA). According to the OECD, the Marion metropolitan area had a 2015 GDP per capita of $21k in 2010 dollars, PPP. Given the differences in unit (2009 USD vs 2010 PPP USD) and period (2017 vs 2015) this seems consistent. In any case, the OECD explains that they use data from the BEA to build the ranking so I assume their calculation is correct.
- Similarly, the Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area is included by the BEA in the Las Vegas–Henderson, NV–AZ CSA. So the OECD probably followed this definition. And as Lake Havasu City has a population of 54,495, its impact on the GDP of Las Vegas is negligible.
- Sebring, Florida has a population of 10k people and is so small that it is not included in any US combined statistical area (cf. https://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/metroarea/us_wall/Mar2020/CSA_WallMap_Mar2020.pdf ). Similarly, the OECD didn't include it in its list.
- So the results are consistent and it is both possible and plausible that the U.S. has only about 163 cities, with none being below $20,000 GDP per capita, as this is the conclusion of both the OECD and the United States Office of Management and Budget (the latter calling them "combined statistical area").
- Could you please explain what the problem is? A455bcd9 (talk) 08:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- For me, delving deeper into this makes it more problematic, not less so. The list, for example, excludes Honolulu, a well-known U.S. state capitol. Why? Because the OECD arbitrarily excludes it from its own list. The same with the less well-known capitol of Boise. More broadly, the OECD only includes 38 countries, so the list arbitrarily excludes the entire continent of Africa, and all of Russia, Argentina, Brazil, China, India, actually all but four countries in Asia and all but three countries in South America. BD2412 T 18:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- According to the Office of Management and Budget, Honolulu is not a combined statistical area. So the OECD doesn't consider it in its list of urban areas either. Whether the OMB and the OECD made a good or bad decision shouldn't be our concern as there are reliable external sources.
- Boise is included by the OMB in the Boise City-Mountain Home-Ontario, ID-OR Combined Statistical Area, which the OECD calls "Ada" (cf. the map) as the Ada County, Idaho is the largest county in this urban area.
- Therefore, I don't see any issue for these two cities. The OECD is a reliable source—especially for for OECD countries—so I don't think it's our role to fact-check them.
- "More broadly, the OECD only includes 38 countries, so the list arbitrarily excludes the entire continent of Africa, and all of Russia, Argentina, Brazil, China, India": that's why we could rename this page "List of OECD metropolitan areas by GDP per capita", to make it clear that this list is limited to cities of the OECD. As far as I know, no one has ever complained that the List of U.S. metropolitan areas by GDP per capita doesn't include Russian, Brazilian, or Indian cities.
- So I see two acceptable options here:
- Renaming the page "List of OECD metropolitan areas by GDP per capita". Such a list would be similar to List of countries by wealth per adult, or List of U.S. metropolitan areas by GDP per capita, or List of European Union regions by GDP
- Keep the current name (or rename as "List of metropolitan areas by GDP per capita") but add other sources such as Brookings' "Global Metro Monitor". OECD numbers would be given for OECD countries only of course. Similarly, the various sources in List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita and List of countries by life expectancy don't have data for all countries (e.g. Liechtenstein not included in the IMF list, Syria not in the World Bank list, Somalia not in the CIA list, Taiwan not in the WHO list)
- What do you think? A455bcd9 (talk) 08:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- The first option is not useful. I don't think it's tenable to have an OECD-only list, because then we're just copying OECD numbers (unless someone wants to do the work of adding and maintaining cities in just the OECD countries that are omitted even from OECD's own lists). The second option is better, but what you would want to do is start from scratch in draft, limit it to a short enough list that it can be easily reviewed and kept up-to-date, and aim to have multiple sources for each claim. BD2412 T 16:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- List of OECD regions by GDP (PPP) per capita is an OECD only list that has been around for almost 10y now. So it seems tenable? (the two could be merged btw)
- Also, what do you mean by "adding and maintaining cities in just the OECD countries that are omitted even from OECD's own lists"? If you refer to Turkey: I sent an email about that to the OECD a long time ago and never got an answer...
- And yes, I can do that. What about the top 100 as defined by Brookings ( https://www.brookings.edu/research/global-metro-monitor/ )?
- Alternative: limit the list to cities with more than 5 million inhabitants according to the UN? This is the same criterion used in List of largest cities. A455bcd9 (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- List of largest cities has 81 cities of 5 million or more. I think we could have a list of 150 or 200, if the list was comprehensive in listing all cities with sufficient GDP's worldwide. BD2412 T 06:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- "all cities with sufficient GDP" or "all cities with sufficient GDP per capita"? A455bcd9 (talk) 07:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- List of largest cities has 81 cities of 5 million or more. I think we could have a list of 150 or 200, if the list was comprehensive in listing all cities with sufficient GDP's worldwide. BD2412 T 06:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- The first option is not useful. I don't think it's tenable to have an OECD-only list, because then we're just copying OECD numbers (unless someone wants to do the work of adding and maintaining cities in just the OECD countries that are omitted even from OECD's own lists). The second option is better, but what you would want to do is start from scratch in draft, limit it to a short enough list that it can be easily reviewed and kept up-to-date, and aim to have multiple sources for each claim. BD2412 T 16:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- For me, delving deeper into this makes it more problematic, not less so. The list, for example, excludes Honolulu, a well-known U.S. state capitol. Why? Because the OECD arbitrarily excludes it from its own list. The same with the less well-known capitol of Boise. More broadly, the OECD only includes 38 countries, so the list arbitrarily excludes the entire continent of Africa, and all of Russia, Argentina, Brazil, China, India, actually all but four countries in Asia and all but three countries in South America. BD2412 T 18:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- It is not possible or plausible that the U.S. has only 163 metropolitan areas, with none being below $20,000 GDP per capita. There has to be a cut-off point beyond which they are just not being included. BD2412 T 23:29, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- I mean that "the numbers don't match" in that the different sources list different numbers for given cities, and different orders. Let me approach this from a different angle. At what point does the list cease to be comprehensive, and begin to exclude cities/municipalities because they are over the arbitrary limit for a particular country or region? My sense is that it is somewhere in the top 200, and I think that if this list were to cut off at that point, and multiply sourced for the cities in that range, it would at least be a more accurate and maintainable representation of the title. BD2412 T 21:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "the numbers don't match"? We don't have to choose the "correct" one, just display data in each column. Similarly in List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita and List of largest cities there are different figures for each country or city. I don't understand the problem (if there is one). A455bcd9 (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- I think the numbers proposed in these different sources don't match, so how are we to determine and present the correct GDP per capita? BD2412 T 18:31, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. As amply demonstrated above, this list isn't much more than an out-of-date, partial mirror of another site. Renaming it so that it's obviously a mirror of that site makes it even more pointless, and undermines WP's role as a tertiary source summarising secondary sources, by limiting the list such that it can never be supported by anything but the one source that it mirrors (albeit badly). Elemimele (talk) 10:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- The source offers data up to 2021, so if the issue is that it is out-of-date, I can update it.
- Here are other sources:
- https://pwc.blogs.com/files/global-city-gdp-rankings-2008-2025.pdf (p. 21)
- https://www.brookings.edu/research/global-metro-monitor/ ("TABLE 1. Highest and Lowest GDP Per Capita, 300 Largest Metropolitan Economies, 2013" p. 4)
- https://www.brookings.edu/research/global-metro-monitor-2018/ (looks like Brookings publish their Global Metro Monitor every 4 years)
- https://www.oxfordeconomics.com/microsites/cities
- (Even though we only had the OECD as a source I don't see why it would be a problem, it's like List of European Union regions by GDP or List of U.S. metropolitan areas by GDP per capita)
- A455bcd9 (talk) 11:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per BD2412 and Elemimele. I found this page earlier and could not make sense of it, as it is a WP:SYNTHESIS of the information from the 1 source. Natg 19 (talk) 04:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- I know that the existence of other similar articles cannot be used as a justification to keep a page. However, lists like List of countries by total wealth, List of countries by wealth per adult, EF English Proficiency Index, or List of U.S. metropolitan areas by GDP per capita have been around for a long time (sometimes more than 10 years) and are only a WP:SYNTHESIS of the information from 1 source. So is this a reason good enough to delete a page?
- Also, as I explained above, there are other sources that could be added to this page.
- So could you please explain why this list should be deleted? A455bcd9 (talk) 08:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 04:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 04:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 04:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 04:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR. WWGB (talk) 04:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- Delete, non notable playwright and actor. fails WP:NACTOR. NatalieRci (talk) 00:26, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Ecosystem whatever? Non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Zero significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Brayan ocaner (talk) 11:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Delete lacks third party reliable sources fails WP:GNGPharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)
- 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)
Withdrawn by nominator. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. He was a People’s Deputy of Ukraine, so automatically notable. Mccapra (talk) 07:15, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. He was a People’s Deputy of Ukraine. Pig1995z (talk) 11:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Currently, the references don't support the article. Of the four reference, 1 is an election candidate list, 1 is an experiement results page , 1 is in English and lists the committee he is on, and 1 is a election style page. Not one them satisfies the requirements for BLP, nor SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 09:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:NPOL. From the comments above/the article, I did a bit of research and it seems that Ihor Serhiyovych Vasylyev, Ihor Vasyliev, and Vasyliev Ihor Serhiiovych are the same person and the name is just anglicized differently. It seems that Ihor was elected in 2019 to the 9th Ukrainian Verkhovna Rada, which qualifies him under WP:NPOL.[2] snood1205 18:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ "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.
- ^ "Електоральна пам'ять". ukr.vote (in Ukrainian). Retrieved 30 December 2021.
- Thank you for doing this research, it is very helpful. I agree that this reference shows that WP:NPOL is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:19, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:35, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Where is the secondary sources to support this BLP. With the state of the references it will need to be draftified as there is no valid sources, at the moment. scope_creepTalk 20:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Article does need improvement, but members of national legislatures are inherently notable per WP:NPOL, which means that an article must exist regardless of content problems with it. The only grounds for deleting this would be if it were possible to prove that he was a hoax who never actually held the claimed political office at all. Bearcat (talk) 20:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Keep References do verify that the subject served in the Verkhovna Rada, passing WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 04:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep passes WP:NPOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep meets notability and also withdrawn by nominator. MartinWilder (talk) 03:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Justiyaya 03:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Justiyaya 03:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect: to Freddie and the Dreamers as per nom. Insufficient for standalone article. --Whiteguru (talk) 07:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect There is no effective sources here. scope_creepTalk 09:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect: to Freddie and the Dreamers, per WP:NOTINHERITED. He did nothing notable outside the band except for some minor film appearances, so there is no worthy material for a standalone article. The article states that he switched to a quiet corporate career after the band ended and was not interviewed for 50 years, so that indicates the lack of eligible material. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect to Freddie and the Dreamers, as per nomination and above voters. Brayan ocaner (talk) 21:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect - as suggested above. Not enough independent notability for a separate article. Dunarc (talk) 23:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Justiyaya 03:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Justiyaya 03:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Merge to Gerry and the Pacemakers - insufficient for standalone article. --Whiteguru (talk) 07:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Merge and Redirect Merge what is there, if possible and redirect. scope_creepTalk 09:11, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment, Freddie would definitely have been well known about at the time and the British Newspaper Archive have many references to him, though largely seem to be trivial (I can't check though as it's behind a paywall). I did find a significant posthumous article on him here although as yet cannot find sigcov from multiple sources. The band is very notable and he was a founding member, but I don't know how inherited his notability is from his brother/the band. Bungle (talk • contribs) 10:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Merge : He isn't known for anything notable outside the band, And all his articles are trivia. There's not even one article of why his important as an individual. this topic don't even qualify for a Sub article, firstly because of poor resources and mainly because he is deceased and chances are there won't be any notable articles or press about him in future. StephenWilliams021 (talk) 13:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)(striking comment from block evading sockpuppet --Hammersoft (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC))- Merge and Redirect to Gerry and the Pacemakers. I am hoping to solidify a consensus with this vote, but there is actually very little to merge to the band's article except the statement about his death. He does not qualify for a standalone article because he did nothing notable outside the band; see WP:NOTINHERITED. His brother qualifies for a separate article though. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Absolutely, and Gerry Marsden does have one, which is well-sourced, attests to the significant coverage he's received, and is under zero threat of deletion or redirecting. Ravenswing 22:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: WP:STATION (for railway stations) requires received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Doesn't satisfy. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:45, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - clearly does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 09:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - As per WP:OUTCOMES, there's a long standing consensus there's an inherent notability with rail stations. It's literally impossible for there not to be extensive government reports on such a project. There's even a government summary already in the article.[24] If it's notable enough for the Ministry of Infrastructure Vladyslav Krykliy to officially open the station, it's notable for WP. Oakshade (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Keep This station seems to be part of a major transport hub, and there is coverage of the new developments on the station itself (I added a few into article). And there is also the WP:ATD of combining the metro and railway station articles into one, as I saw coverage of the metro station as well (merging the metro station to here to be clear) Jumpytoo Talk 04:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Delete Outcomes is not policy and does not excuse articles that fail to meet GNG. As it stands, there are not enough reliable secondary sources independent of the subject to meet GNG.Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2021 (UTC)- Keep I stand by my comments about outcomes, but the article has now been improved sufficiently to meet GNG. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - With corresponding text from the article in Ukrainian [25], this article meets the requirements for WP:GNG. Doc Dimaus 14:05, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Appears to have sufficient referencing to meet WP:GNG. Also, deleting this article would make navigation using the adjacent stations templates less user friendly and I don't think that would benefit the encyclopedia. NemesisAT (talk) 21:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per Oakshade and Jumpytoo. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 03:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - Per previous voters. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 05:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. We have generally held all railway stations to be notable. Very strong consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per Oakshade and Jumpytoo.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CentreLeftRight ✉ 23:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CentreLeftRight ✉ 23:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 10:48, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - Per Nom - insubstantial RS.
- Keep - I don't feel WP:BEFORE was respected here. PST had parliamentary representation, a fact easy to verify by a quick google search. The claim that you would get "only primary source results or mentions in leftist blogs/magazines' is not factual;
- "Senador Ricardo Napuri ( PST )" (https://books.google.at/books?id=FIRoAAAAMAAJ , p. 74)
- "Trabajadores ( PST ) cuya plancha presidencial integran el senador Ricardo César Napuri Schapiro , Magda Benavides Morales y Carlos Enrique Fernández Chacón . El PST apoyó en los últimos procesos a Izquierda Unida , pero ahora ha" (https://books.google.at/books?id=eVcPAAAAYAAJ p. 308-310)
- "PST o Partido Socialista de los Trabajadores , cuyo líder es el diputado Enrique Fernández Chacón ." (https://books.google.at/books?id=BUEPAAAAYAAJ p. 75)
- "el compañero Ricardo Napuri , senador por el Partido Socialista de los Trabajadores del Perú , y el compañero Alberto Franceschi , diputado por el Partido Socialista de los Trabajadores de Venezuela ." (https://books.google.at/books?id=vpQTAQAAIAAJ p. 10)
- "Más allá del movimiento obrero, el PST peruano buscó inserción tanto en el movimiento estudiantil como en el campesinado aunque, en ambos casos, con menor éxito. Como parte de esta radicalización, se produjo en Perú la huelga general de 1977..." (https://books.google.at/books?id=rbKODAAAQBAJ&pg=PT254) - further down outlines that in the wake of the 1977, PST formed FOCEP which emerged as the third force in Peruvian politics in 1978 elections.
- "Por esto , diciembre de 1979 , Bandera Socialista , periódico del PST , ponía la legalidad PST al “ servicio ” de Hugo Blanco , o me dicho ique Blanco fuera el candidato PST ! " (https://books.google.at/books?id=CbcwAAAAYAAJ p. 18) --Soman (talk) 13:17, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
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)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Justiyaya 02:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Justiyaya 02:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - WP:NPOL covers politicians who have held legislative office on a state level in countries with a federal system, as here. Urve (talk) 04:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per Urve. Mccapra (talk) 07:17, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, member of the state parliament in a country-sized state. Geschichte (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Keep passes WP:NPOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. DragonofBatley (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. DragonofBatley (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. DragonofBatley (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
- comment seems to be somehow covered [26], [27], though I have no opinion on deletion. Artem.G (talk) 06:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
- Weak Keep I did a google search... the term is in use, but seems to be used *also* as a mythological term (like the lost lands of atlantis, but for Wales). Considering the confusion, I actually think a wikipedia entry would be useful. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:21, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
- Leaning keep per Deathlibrarian. BD2412 T 19:40, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. 17:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
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)
- Keep but consider moving it to something like Welsh irredentism and expand if possible. --Killuminator (talk) 01:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- Merge to England–Wales border; overlaps with that topic. Sandstein 09:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Delete I’m not finding anything to support this. Mccapra (talk) 07:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable businessman and doesn't meet any notability guideline. Brayan ocaner (talk) 11:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Delete non notable --Devokewater (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Delete He's 99 years old? still not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 00:09, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, does not have significant coverage from its single citation. NatalieRci (talk) 00:42, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, Not enough coverage to be notable. Alex-h (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.