Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 September 28

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jacey Normand

Jacey Normand (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 minor BBC presenter doesn't appear to meet GNG. None of the sources provided here are independent of the subject. I can find no significant coverage of this person, just references to her presenting different shows and some routine coverage. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 23:36, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, News media, United Kingdom, and England. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 23:36, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I expected to find some coverage, but there's almost nothing. Jahaza (talk) 00:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete She joined BBC in 2003 but there is no significant coverage available about her. Fifthapril (talk) 04:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Television. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. I too could find no independent coverage.4meter4 (talk) 15:35, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Carlton Football Club players#1920s. This decision is about the fate of this one article. If you believe that this page should be moved to a different title, that might be a discussion to have at WP:RM. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Kemp

Graham Kemp (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. Previously deemed notable under the WP:NAFL for having played one Australian Football League game in 1922, but this SNG no longer exists. All references in the article are database. Google search for Graham Kemp Carlton shows up database and wikis only [1]. 1922 newspaper search for Kemp Carlton Football shows nothing beyond WP:ROUTINE. And his Blueseum entry [2] (a fan wiki) is as bare as his Wikipedia page. All this to conclude that multiple secondary independent sources do not exist and shall never exist. Aspirex (talk) 23:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Carlton Football Club players as alternative to deletion. Deus et lex (talk) 06:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Carlton Football Club players#1920s, a search of the Trove archives brought up nothing, though searching is complicated by a newspaper columnist with the same name operating at the same time. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Is there actually a policy or precedent on the matter of articles which fail GNG being list redirects. It would be very useful to have a consistent approach for dealing with post-NSPORTS2022 AfDs. By my read of WP:RPURPOSE, this isn't really one of the intended purposes of redirecting, and I don't think it's necessarily appropriate that a list article should be a redirect target for hundreds or thousands of its entries that aren't independently notable. On the other hand, it would also be nice to be able to clean up non-controversial, non-notable players unilaterally with this sort of redirect rather than going through a full AfD for every one of the them. Aspirex (talk) 00:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - this is something that it would be useful to have clarified in the forthcoming RfC on mass creations and deletions, once it finally gets going. Ingratis (talk) 01:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not sure a redirect would work here, considering there is an article on a cricket player with the same name. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Said Cricket player is probably also not notable, however. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting given questions about the utility of a closure to Redirect by Aspirex. I'm not against a redirect but I'd like to see more support for one as the outcome of this AFD discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. An article "Graham Kemp" should possibly be about the virologist, see pg. 200 here[3] also e.g.[4][5].Jahaza (talk) 01:10, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Per above. If someone actually creates an article about the virologist we can always delete the redirect at that time, but until then, it's not an issue. Smartyllama (talk) 13:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Carlton Football Club players#1920s.4meter4 (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think it makes sense to have "Graham Kemp" redirect to the Carlton list and then "Graham Kemp (cricketer)" redirect to the Otago player list. What makes someone who played one top-level game of Australian football more notable than someone who played one top-level game of cricket (when both fail GNG)? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and do not redirect. There is a probably notable virologist named "Graham Kemp" (see Jahaza's !vote), which should be the article at "Graham Kemp," and then there are two non-notable sportspeople who each played one game at the top-level in their respective sports. It doesn't make sense to have the main "Graham Kemp" page redirect to the Australian rules football list, the page "Graham Kemp (cricketer)" redirect to a cricket list, and then have "Graham Kemp (virologist)" an article. So I oppose redirect. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be fine if "Graham Kemp (Australian footballer)" redirected to the Carlton list, but not the main "Graham Kemp" title. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is usually a reason why discussions sit unclosed for a long time. Often its because the discussion is very bad tempered or toxic. Other times its because the discussion isn’t brilliant, which is a bit true here. Most often its because the strength of arguments seems to sit with one side but the trend of the discussion goes against it. That seems to be the case here and is why I find no consensus at this time. It seems possible that the case here is that there is an article to be written but possibly not quite this one. I hope that discussions continue and the focus is clearly established on impeccable sources so this doesn’t come back to AFD. If it does, it is entirely possible then outcome might be clearer if the discussion is founded on a really thorough source analysis. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VisualBoyAdvance

VisualBoyAdvance (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. The majority of refs I get from a google search via the Custom Search engine appear to just be listing it or downloads for it. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Technology, and Software. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I could not find an example of WP:SIGCOV, only trivial mentions in various articles. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] Andre🚐 18:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Source 1 seems to be talking about EMulators in general (and is just comparing the easy to use program of VBA as I"m just gonna shorten it to), Source 2 is just a "Best X" article and literally only mentions it as an alternative to Dolphin, Source 3 is just a how-to, Source 4 I can't access at the moment, Source 5 is another how-to, Source 6 just mentions it as one you can use. None of these appear to contribute to notability. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Andrevan: (pinging) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I pretty much went through all of those in my source search. They are all clearly trivial coverage that mention VBA in a single sentence or two, and not the decisive evidence that Andrevan apparently believes them to be. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you're being a bit too dismissive when you say it's "just" a how-to. It's a how-to that RS sites like PC World deigned to cover. That's not trivial. Source 4 is working for me. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes I know that source 4 isn't broken for everyone. Would much rather not go into detail as to why I can't access it here though. As to the PC World, I don't see how detailing how to install the program contributes to its notability. Yes it's from an RS but just being an RS doesn't automatically mean the source contributes to it's notability. Part of WP:N states that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The PC World source i Would say is trivial as it doesn't really describe the software itself but just how to install it. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Just FYI, source 4 is not about the topic - it is about the phenomenon of "Twitch Plays Pokemon", and the only "coverage" of VBA is a one-sentence mention stating that it was the emulator being used to play it on. Rorshacma (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  So Blaze Wolf et al, I looked through the sources that I had somewhat hastily assembled this morning, again. I will concede that several are trivial mentions and that some of the how-tos may not go to notability, though the fact that it was used to power Twitch Plays Pokemon, while a passing mention, is an area that might confer notability if there's an article somewhere that goes more into it. However, regardless, even throwing out most of my sources, I think the PC World source is sufficient, and that along with the Engadget source, VentureBeat, Destructoid, offered by Axem Titanium below, I will stay at keep. I just think this is a notable emulator anyway, it's one of the better-known emulators and one of the earliest with a bunch of forks, and the sources found by Axem do hold up. Andre🚐 21:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Keep I've searched for significant coverage but I've found only a few brief passing mentions, like this one and this one which, on their own, don't make the subject notable. It's not notable in general and it doesn't meet WP:NSOFT as well.

Motivated by "hints" read in a few sources, I've decided to go deeper in my search for mentions in books. Here is what I have found:

In Developer's Dilemma - The Secret World of Videogame Creators, VBA is discussed.

In Retro Gaming Hacks - Tips & Tools for Playing the Classics, VBA is described as "the most popular emulator for the Unix platform" and a guide to its installation is provided.

Considering that, among the articles, there is something that goes beyond the usual installation guide or top-ten, like:

The article "Nostalgic gaming: how playing the video games of your youth reconnects you to yourself", by The Guardian;

Engadget acknowledging that VBA code "enabled handheld emulation since 2004";

... and that the several passing mentions that exist online are published in reliable sources, I think now that the app is/was popular enough in its niche to be noticed by reliable sources and discussed in articles and some books, transforming that popularity into non-trivial notability. For this reason I've changed my suggestion to "keep". ► LowLevel73 ^(talk) 18:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A bunch of one or two sentence name checks, even in the mentioned books. Still not significant, I'm afraid. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree about the significance of the mention in the first book. While a short paragraph, the author is acknowledging how the emulator's tools surpassed those provided by Nintendo for the GBA. See this extract. And this is not the only source that provides a meaningful mention; I can't evaluate this kind of acknowledgement just by counting the words. ► LowLevel73 ^(talk) 16:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for digging up these sources. My gut feeling was always that VBA had a large impact on a generation of emulation developers but I didn't have the time to uncover all the harder to find sources. It was the gold standard for Nintendo handheld emulation for a long time (maybe it still is? Haven't looked into it recently). Axem Titanium (talk) 17:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"how the emulator's tools surpassed those provided by Nintendo for the GBA" I don't recall Nintendo ever supplying tools for the GBA outside of stuff for development. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Development tools are exactly those that the author of the book is referring to. He explains that "GBA development in the later years benefited greatly for the development of an open source and homebrew project called VisualBoyAdvance".

The author adds that the development tools conveniently integrated in VBA (map-viewers, sprite viewers, visual debugging tool, etc.) made game development easy for hackers, adding that "Not even Nintendo had provided such a host of tools for developing games for GBA". ► LowLevel73 ^(talk) 19:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) That's exactly what that excerpt means---VBA's dev environment became superior to Nintendo's own development tools and mainstream developers started their work on VBA before moving to the official tools. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Non-trivial coverage at sites like Engadget Engadget 2, VentureBeat, and Destructoid. I also think many of the sources listed above also count as significant coverage. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Did you read your own sources? The Destructoid source does not mention, and is not about, VBA. VentureBeat is churn of the Engadget article, which itself is so brief that it is hard to consider it significant coverage of... anything. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 19:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This is what passes for an article on a blog site like Engadget which I would consider reliable for news about gaming emulator software. Andre🚐 21:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that:

1. the Engadget article is a single-paragraph article about VBA.

2. The VentureBeat article tells readers that Engadget has published that article about VBA.

3. The Destructoid article is not even about VBA.

WP:NSOFT provides examples of sources that are questionable and a general idea of the kind and substance of sources that can support notability for apps. ► LowLevel73 ^(talk) 19:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Misread the Destructoid source. It is indeed not about VBA. The other two are good though. A "via" doesn't invalidate the 2nd source running the story sourced to the first place. It's the same as if the NYT reports that the Washington Post scooped a story. Andre🚐 21:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, in itself a "via" is neither good nor bad; it depends on what the article actually states. In this particular case, VentureBeat and Engadget inform their readers that they can use VBA on a Palm Pre. They are still two articles and they do contribute a little to notability but, all considered, I still think we are a long way from what would be needed to justify a Wikipedia article. ► LowLevel73 ^(talk) 22:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I listed two Engadget sources above and I think they're both significant coverage. The shortness of the article does not invalidate that it is still significant mainstream coverage. Apologies about the Destructoid one; I misread it and have struck it. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:32, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out a second Engadget article, that I didn't read. By itself it wasn't much, but a statement motivated me to search a bit deeper in books. After what I've found, and considering the already known articles, I've changed my suggestion to "keep". ► LowLevel73 ^(talk) 11:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Very few of the sources are even about the emulator, let alone provide significant coverage. Most are on the topic of emulation in general or on completely different topics, and may mention the name, and that's it. Some, like the Destructoid article, do not even mention it. Could possibly be a redirect to List of video game console emulators, but I'm not sure how useful that would be. Rorshacma (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm surprised it even has an article to begin with. Doesn't seem notable enough for Wikipedia. Liliana ^{(UwU / nya)} 20:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails the WP:GNG. So far, most if not all sources are either not reliable, or not significant coverage. Sergecross73 msg me 12:53, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not enough to meet GNG unfortunately.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete GNG not met, and the sources presented here wholly fail to persuade. Trivial short mentions and name drops only. -- ferret (talk) 23:31, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sections of this article read like an advertisement, not notable. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 20:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how a non-commercial product can have an article that reads like an advertisement. It seems like just the facts to me. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:27, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I !voted for deletion but agree. The advertisement rationale falls flat. -- ferret (talk) 13:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Fails WP:GNG , looks promotional. Alex-h (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my comment directly above. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:27, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is a review of the MorphOS version on the Obligement website [12]. However, I'm not sure of RS status of that one. Pavlor (talk) 05:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not. Essentially a group blog. -- ferret (talk) 13:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Video game console emulator. The sources brought up in the discussion thus far would justify at least a brief mention in that article. ostensibly singular userpage (inquire within) 02:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC) Redirect to Video game console emulator or List of video game console emulators, as I've now gone and added seemingly the only thing of note about the emulator to the former page, and nothing else here looks all that worthy of a merge to me. ostensibly singular userpage (inquire within) 17:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources found by Skynxnex. But, if it is not kept, I maintain that a redirect/merge is the next best outcome. ostensibly singular userpage (inquire within) 20:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you mean that you want to merge it to List of video game console emulators? That article is just talking about emulators in general and doesn't focus on any specific one. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:35, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I meant most chiefly the detail given in the Developer's Dilemma book, which I've now gone and added to the page. Looking over the sources (the non-primary ones) I suppose there's not really that much more to add, so it might actually be best to not bother merging and just redirect this page to either there or List of video game console emulators. ostensibly singular userpage (inquire within) 17:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as failing WP:GNG, and the ref bomb looks to verging on promotional. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are we looking at the same article? Where is there any ref bombing and what about the prose looks promotional to you? Axem Titanium (talk) 16:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree. Article doesn't look promotional (or at least not anymore, it did seem vaguely promotional before I AFD'd it) and i Don't see any refbombing. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I also agree that the article does not look promotional. I disagree that it fails the GNG, it's been mentioned often enough that it's at least borderline notable, but the biggest flaw of the article is that it ultimately just doesn't say that much about the software, since there's just not that much of interest to say from the sources that can be cited. Which is the main reason I think it should be merged, what little there is to say (from the Retro gaming hacks and Developer's Dilemma books as well as the online sources such as Digital Trends) can be handily covered in the article on console emulation in general. ostensibly singular userpage (inquire within) 17:28, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep between the tons of minor references (I think I've found a few additional ones to the ones above in the article but are the very minimal mentions) and then the smaller number of more significant mentions (the text from The Developer's Dilemma is pretty significant).

Apologies if this has been found before, but Who Are You?: Nintendo's Game Boy Advance Platform - Page 164 has an entire section titled "Visual Boy Advance GX", which is 2+ pages about the Wii port and talks about how people used it: The VisualBoyAdvance GX (VBA-GX) emulator—a Wii-exclusive and optimized port of the open-source Visual BoyAdvance-M—piggybacks on the Wiimote's technical affordances to approximate hardware add-ons included in select GBA cartridges ... and The VBA-GX’s Match Wii Controls feature is exemplary of how fans themselves remix Nintendo's hardware and software in exciting ways. ... By using the Wiimote and Nunchuk, players expand the GBA assemblage in Nintendo's own image—lateral thinking in action yet again.

There's a passing mention but it's a fairly significant part of Twitch_Plays_Pokémon, here mentioned in TWITCH PLAYS POKEMON/MARI/O/DREEPS St Clair, Michael. Theatre Journal; Baltimore Vol. 67, Iss. 4, (Dec 2015): 702-706.: dek: TWITCH PLAYS POKEMON. By Anonymous. Based on the Videogame Pokemon Red by Satoshi Tajiri. Python scripts bridging web input to VisualBoyAdvance, emulating Game Boy. February 2014. and body: The TPP implementation of Pokemon Red left the game systems relatively untouched by using an emulator called "VisualBoyAdvance." Emulator software creates an artificial hardware environment, allowing software to run on computers for which it was not designed. Skynxnex (talk) 20:20, 21 September 2022‎ (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Another source: Chris Kohler. Retro Gaming Hacks: Tips & Tools for Playing the Classics. "O'Reilly Media, Inc.", 2005. ISBN 1449303900, 9781449303907 (Google Books show mention on 5 pages, but no previews, so can't say, if the covarege is broad enough; publisher looks OK). Pavlor (talk) 05:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That one's already been found by LowLevel73 and cited in the article, but thanks for looking, regardless. ostensibly singular userpage (inquire within) 05:28, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Eh, I see (did search with author name, but only name of the book was cited here). Must be more careful next time... Pavlor (talk) 06:06, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Somewhat weak keep. Sources presented during this AfD show at least borderline notability of the article subject. Pavlor (talk) 06:06, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Here's something to consider when trying to evaluate sources for significant coverage. We're talking about an emulator, which is a piece of software that is used as the vehicle to engage with the media you're actually interested in. The closest comparison I can think of is a DVD player. Naturally there will be far more sources discussing the DVD format (and also movies which are printed onto DVDs) rather than the DVD player itself. For a particular model of DVD player, the only sources that are solely about the DVD player itself, and not couched in the context of the media it plays, would be product reviews for that DVD player. And since VBA isn't a commercial product and it's in a legal grey area, we're unlikely to find those either. I contend that the above mentions of VBA are not trivial, even if the mentions are short, because (by analogy) it's rare to even consider the DVD player when reviewing a DVD movie. VBA was crucial to the existence of Twitch Plays Pokemon.[13][14] It helped turn hobbyist game hackers into full-fledged developers.[15] It's on the shortlist of emulators of note for outlets like BusinessInsider and PC World.[16][17] These would be considered trivial mentions in other contexts but I think we need to expand our conception of what is significant coverage when it comes to certain topics that (I feel) are notable but don't attract traditional coverage for various reasons. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Very good points raised here that I believe should be strongly considered by other editors in this discussion. With these WP:SYSTEMIC reasons for VBA's limited coverage in mind, as well as the most persuasive note that these sources are significant coverage compared to what other emulators usually receive, I am leaning even further in the direction of supporting keep. ostensibly singular userpage (inquire within) 20:34, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongest keep possible per Skynxnex et all. It is relevant in the 'game emulating community'. Even though it isn't well known elsewhere like NYT or USA today. Per WP:5P5. –Daveout(talk) 06:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: VBA is one of the most well-known and most used GBA emulators and has been for many years. I don't know how to sign my name properly. -User:Rosedaler 06:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You can sign your posts with four tildes, like this: ~~~~; the key to do so is generally to the upper left on a standard keyboard. Press Shift and then the "` ~" key to type the tilde. You can see WP:SIG for further guidance if any is needed. Hope this helps! ostensibly singular userpage (inquire within) 07:23, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, thanks for the tip! Rosedaler (talk) 08:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  And it works! Rosedaler (talk) 08:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. VBA is certainly a notable emulator - it was very widely used for homebrew GBA development (I used to teach a university course using it!) and for reverse-engineering GBA games. If we're going to have articles about individual emulators then it would be odd not to have one on VBA. Adam Sampson (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  A little off topic but I didn't know that there were universtiy courses involving emulators. I find that very interesting. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 22:05, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify: I'm really torn here, because I think that we should have an article on this, but I don't think the sources are there (yet). This is a community that works in the shadows for numerous reasons and short of 'exposé' style pieces from mainstream outlets is likely to start that way. But the software is also very widely used. Draftifing gives us more time to find / generate the sources needed. Not your siblings' deletionist (talk) 21:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, if not rename: I incorporated a few of the sources in the article, and found another one that hadn't been mentioned before in this discussion, though I don't know if that will be enough to meet WP:SIGCOV. I don't really like the articles that it's been suggested to be merged with due to the target articles' broadness in scope, however, if we rename the article to "Game Boy Emulation" (or something to that effect) we can incorporate emulators such as the mGBA in the article as well, which has received some reliable coverage of its own (such as here, here and here). ReneeWrites (talk) 13:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @ReneeWrites: That's not a bad idea. I like the idea of renaming it to "Game Boy Emulation" and talking about specifically GameBoy emulators in the article. Question is, are there enough GameBoy emulators with significant coverage to be able to be mentioned in the article. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think so, yes. The VBA/VBA-M is in a bit of a contentious area (as demonstrated by this discussion), the mGBA would be in a similar grey area if it had an article of its own. But the combined coverage of both of these emulators would already be enough for an article. No$GBA is another well-known emulator, and while I haven't begun to look for coverage/sources on that one I'm sure it has a few, as well. ReneeWrites (talk) 14:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This seems like a reasonable compromise, or something like "List of Game Boy emulators." No$GMB is one of the oldest emulators that I know of. It dates to the Nesticle era. Andre🚐 15:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist. This looks like an AFD discussion where early voters advocated "Delete" while editors joining the discussion later are stating a "Keep" opinion. I also note some article improvement has occurred which might be a factor.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'd give it a pass; as the one comment above says, the New York Times won't be covering it. Blogs or websites are about the best you'll get for this semi-legal software. The article is at least well documented and uses proper reference tags. This is better than some of the articles we see at AfD; it probably doesn't meet GNG, but it's well-written with decent sourcing. It's a rather substantial article as well; if it was only a few lines, I'd not hesitate to delete it. This is a rather lengthy article. Oaktree b (talk) 00:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSOFT. In reading the comments above, many of the keep voters admit that there is not enough here to meet GNG and are essentially WP:ILIKEIT arguments. So what policy based rationale are we using for keep? I can't see one. While NSOFT is not an official guideline, it's the only measure we have specifically for software, and no criteria given there matches what is in the article. Otherwise we are left with Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Products and services which doesn't seem to apply either, or with WP:GNG. Other than the The Developer's Dilemma source, I am not seeing anything that rises to the level of independent significant coverage. With only one significant reference of quality, I am not seeing a good policy based rationale for keeping this article. I would support draftifying the article to Game Boy emulation for those who want to work on re-tooling the article to the broader topic; but without sources proving notability of the larger topic I would not support a simple page move in main space at this time. That article should go through the review process at WP:AFC.4meter4 (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you are strawmanning the Keep side. Only the last two make any concessions about the sources possibly not supporting SIGCOV/GNG, a far cry from "many of the keep voters". I have always contended that the coverage as it exists is significant and explained why I think so. Even you admit that The Developer's Dilemma source is significant. I don't see how you can simply discount it and then turn around and still make the argument that there's no SIGCOV. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Axem Titanium Now look who strawmanning (if that is word...). Look in the mirror. I certainly did not discount the source. The rule of 3 is common consensus at AFD for the number of sources needed to prove WP:SIGCOV which requires "multiple sources with independent significant coverage". We have 1 source of quality; not 3 sources of quality. Hence why this fails our notability policy. I wouldn't consider any of the other sources listed above or in the article as in-depth reliable independent sources that can establish notability. We need two more source of the same or better quality as The Developer's Dilemma source to establish the topic passes WP:SIGCOV. Best.4meter4 (talk) 05:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then we have a difference of opinion. I think multiple of the other sources listed here qualify as significant and you do not. In terms of numbers though, only two out of ten people arguing keep here equivocate about whether the sources qualify as SIGCOV, so I don't think it's accurate to say "many". I don't think I've mischaracterized your position. You simply think the sources people here have provided don't count, which is your prerogative. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As of now, the consesus is evenly split between a keep and a delete vote, and judging by this, Is there any other reason this article should be deleted? if not, we should close this as NC. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 19:53, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Jabbar Al Rifai

Abdul Jabbar Al Rifai (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)

Is that person notable? I tried to determine that, but I rely on automated tools to read Arabic, so, you know, tough one.

Well, ref #1 is a passing mention. Ref #2 and #3 are both newspapers articles about the subject receiving an award with some background information, but the two articles are close paraphrase of one another, which dooms them (probably copy-pasted from the same press release -> not independent). #4 is an introduction / description, I assume of a lecture video (not saved by the archive), which talks about what the lecture says (so, not independent).

A Google Scholar search for "Abdul Jabbar Al Rifai" turned a few citations referencing his work in English papers, but not one of his papers. The search for "عبد الجبار الرفاعي" seems to yield some papers where he’s the author, but it’s hard to tell with all the mojibake. In either case, there is nothing with more than two cites, so that’s not a pass for WP:NPROF #2. [EDIT: though it could also be that Google Scholar is unable to determine who cites who in Arabic text. Obviously, large parts of Islamic theology literature is going to be in Arabic, so missing those works could severely affect citation counts.]

Sorry for the brevity: I had typed something much longer but the PageTriage tool f**ed it up. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 16:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Iraq. Shellwood (talk) 17:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: His VIAF and WorldCat are decent, but not great enough on their own. Curbon7 (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:06, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Jahaza (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Added a neutrally worded notice to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam. Jahaza (talk) 01:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I’m not sure he’s an NPROF pass but based on what I can easily find by way of press coverage of him as a public intellectual I’d say he was a GNG pass - for example 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Mccapra (talk) 02:10, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per resources produced here by Mccapra. ─ The Aafī (talk) 03:55, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Philosophy. TJMSmith (talk) 01:36, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Enough sources and info provided to prove notability.--SouthernNights (talk) 12:41, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There are a couple of merge votes at the end of the debate, but the only mention of "Halls Corners" in the Springfield Township, Allen County, Indiana is on an "unincorporated towns" list. The main issue in this debate is that there is no reliable source that Halls Corners is, or ever has been, a town. The name is apparently mentioned in some old newspaper articles, but without any indication as to if this is was an actual neighborhood, a crossroads, or just an estate or farm, there is an unresolved verifiability issue that mandates deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Halls Corners, Indiana

Halls Corners, Indiana (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 find no evidence that this was ever anything but a 4th class post office. Mangoe (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Appears to be a census-designated populated place at one point, ergo WP:NGEO. BrigadierG (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's true. CDPs are a relatively recent thing, and if there ever was one here, it should not be a matter of "appears to be". Listing in GNIS has been deprecated for some time, see WP:GNIS. Mangoe (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The only source that provides any level of detail describes a post office established in the home of, and named after, Isaac Hall; there's no mention of anything else much less a community. I'm not seeing evidence of a CDP (do we have a source for that?) and GNIS isn't a reliable source for the "populated place" feature class. –dlthewave ☎ 02:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Newspapers.com returns 964 matches for "Halls Corners" in the state of Indiana. I haven't gone through all of them yet. — Jacona (talk) 19:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KSAWikipedian (talk) 19:05, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Halls Corners is notable at a local level, but nothing more than that. TH1980 (talk) 23:39, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Springfield Township, Allen County, Indiana, since it's mentioned there. Does not appear to be independently notable, but there are enough references to the location as a place of residence in late 19th century and early 20th century Indiana newspaper articles that it's a plausible search term. (apologies for the lack of links, but Newspaperarchive.com is not being entirely cooperative with me.) Jahaza (talk) 01:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Springfield Township, Allen County, Indiana per WP:ATD. This seems to be the best option at present. If and when better sources are found that establish notability, the article can always be easily re-created.4meter4 (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hasim Rahman Jr. vs Vitor Belfort

Hasim Rahman Jr. vs Vitor Belfort (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. I understand it was recently announced, but that begs the question of why this page was even created in the first place, there is no evidence that this is is a high profile or even notable matchup. Digressing, I didn't find much significant coverage on Google, just some articles from sites like MMAJunkie, BJPenn.com, MMAFighting. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 03:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 03:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's Misfits Boxing's second event. Rahman Jr. is the son of Rahman who is a well known person. Belfort is an ionic name in the combat sports industry. Having this page is important for Misfits Boxing as well as all the other YouTubers that will be featured on this event once they get announced. The only reason why there isn't much significant coverage on Google just yet is because the fight has only been discussed once and that was when it got announced during the KSI v Swarmz & Pineda bout. Once the full undercard gets revealed and tickets go on sale, everyone will be talking about this event since Rahman Jr. made a name for himself when his bout with Jake Paul was annouced. Keep this page up as it will get coverage and is apart of YouTube boxing history being the first event to have a real fighter on there. GhaziTwaissi (talk) 10:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly doubt it, unless some other notable boxers appear on the card. The last event's article doesnt show much significant coverage to satisfy GNG either, which begs the question if these events are notable at all. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 18:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I say wait till the full undercard gets revealed. If it does not have significant coverage (which I doubt since it involves KSI) then it should be removed. GhaziTwaissi (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

yea now that it's just Swinger and Cherldys its safe to say this article is not needed. GhaziTwaissi (talk) 18:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Belfort is a former UFC champion coming off a win of one of the greatest boxing heavyweights of all time in Holyfield. Rahman is the son of Hasim Rahman and made a big name for himself in the Jake Paul fight announcement. To say it isn't significant for a page is pretty stupid to me. The only reason there hasn't been a lot of news is because no other fights were announced on the card. So I say keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D MCCG (talk • contribs) 20:27, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This article has been moved and basically rewritten to be about another subject. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KSAWikipedian (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The fight has been announced and moved, but that doesn't meet any WP notability criteria. None of the fighters meet the notability criteria for boxers. Being the son of a world champion means nothing since notability is not inherited. As for being a notable event, I looked at the criteria listed at WP:NEVENT and don't see this event showing notability. Currently it doesn't have "enduring historical significance", "a significant lasting effect" (WP:LASTING), nor does it have "widespread impact" that is "widely covered in diverse sources". It can be mentioned in articles of WP notable people, but nothing shows it merits a standalone article. Papaursa (talk) 19:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He isn't just the son of a world champ, he made a big name and publicitly for his fight with Jake Paul. On the other hand you have Vitor Belfort, former UFC light-heavyweight champ, competed for UFC titles multiple times, beat champs, and just came off a win over one of the greatest heavyweights of all time in Evander Holyfield. So it definitely is notable for an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D MCCG (talk • contribs) 23:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Holyfield was a great fighter, but Belfort won an exhibition fight against a man who was one month short of being 59 and who hadn't fought in over a decade or won a major (according to WP:NBOX) world title since 2000. That doesn't make Belfort a notable boxer (not disputing his MMA notability) and still there's no evidence of this meeting WP:NEVENT. Papaursa (talk) 00:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously a juiced up Belfort beating an old man isn't impressive, but it's the name who he beat which gives him notability, and you also got Rahman Jr. who a lot of people know for his supposed fight with Jake Paul. So I say keep, and what's the harm in keeping it? So people who want to know who's on the card don't know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by D MCCG (talk • contribs) 01:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is your first AfD discussion, so you might want to look at things like WP:NOTINHERITED. For example, a boxer doesn't become notable just because he fought a notable fighter well past his prime. Also, this discussion isn't about the individual fighters' notability, but rather the event's notability--as defined by WP. So far I'm not seeing evidence of an event with "historical significance".

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Draftify. As a minor future event fails criteria 1 of WP:CRYSTAL (which as a higher policy article is even more authoritative than GNG). Events get cancelled all the time due to real world events (think of 2020 and Covid-19 with massive event cancelations globally for example) We don't generally cover future events unless they are something major like the 2024 Olympics where a significant amount of indepth coverage happens before the event takes place. The coverage here is pretty sparse, and the event has already been postponed once. WP:TOOSOON applies here, and the article should either be deleted or draftified with a hold on moving to mainspace until after the event actually occurs. That said, there is no guarantee that event will pass WP:NEVENT/WP:GNG even after the event happens. The drafted article should be required to pass a WP:AFC review in order to go back into main space as a condition of being draftified. 4meter4 (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NIOCOM

NIOCOM (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 about a non-notable radio company with several violations of WP:NPOV. Unable to find meaningful independent media coverage of this company. Flip Format (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, and United Kingdom. Flip Format (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The information is outdated and no significant coverage was found to meet the notability criteria. Fifthapril (talk) 04:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crow Nest Junction

Crow Nest Junction (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 fails WP:GNG - signalling section unsourced, and electrification likely covered in much greater detail elsewhere. Rly junctions generally do not need their own articles. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t really have a strong opinion on the article deletion. It could certainly be merged rather than fully deleted. I agree that it is highly likely to be covered elsewhere such as North West England electrification schemes for example.GRALISTAIR (talk) 01:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I am struggling to see why it is now being considered for deletion after 13 years? GRALISTAIR (talk) 19:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I cannot find any evidence of independent notability. The only referenced material is about electrification of lines that happen to meet at the junction, not about the junction itself. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. What would be a possible Merge target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete So compare this to the discussion for Weaver Junction article; it has few sources and much more prose written without sources to back it up. It has more photos than the Weaver article does, but less to prove where the info was gotten. Most of it appears as original research; there is likely an article that can be cobbled together from multiple sources as the Weaver article has been. This is not there yet. Oaktree b (talk) 00:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:GNG with no indications of notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hest Bank South Junction

Hest Bank South Junction (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)

Relies entirely on 1 source, 128 years old. Clearly fails WP:GNG, along with its sister page at the north junction. Rly junctions generally do not merit their own articles. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:GNG. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as this gets more hits under its current name, but either way there are very few, mostly completist listings and name drops for photos of taken at this fairly accessible site. As a junction, it's unremarkable, and there's no claim to significance made in the article or anywhere else I could find. Mangoe (talk) 14:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I don't see Merge as a good alternative as Mithun's Dream Factory is mostly a list of films without any additional content about each film. A redirect from this title to this article might be an option. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meri Partigya

Meri Partigya (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)

Appears to fail WP:NFILM, no reviews found in a BEFORE. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge with Mithun's Dream Factory. DareshMohan (talk) 06:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NFILM.4meter4 (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hest Bank North Junction

Hest Bank North Junction (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 fails WP:GNG, suggest referenced content be merged into Hest Bank railway station. All 3 references are quite old. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge, no indication of independent notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• delete I am seeing no notability at all for this. Mangoe (talk) 14:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pouparts Junction

Pouparts Junction (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 fails WP:GNG, relying on one source from 1985. Rly junctions do not generally merit their own articles. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 17:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 17:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree. While I think there is a lot more relevant stuff that could be written about the subject (when it was created, what lines it linked), that should be in the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway article, or even a new article about the whole Battersea Tangle. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 11:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are you suggesting a Merge to the Railway article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, current sources don't get it over the WP:GNG bar and it doesn't look like there are ones which would. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neasden Junction

Neasden Junction (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 fails WP:GNG, relying on two sources (one 11 years old, the other 17). Railway junctions generally do not merit their own articles, so I suggest sourced content be merged into a nearby railway station article, e.g. Neasden tube station. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, publication date of cites is irrelevant, it is whether they are reliable and back up what is stated. Rossonwy (talk) 06:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rossonwy that what matters is reliability and not date, but from that perspective we have no option other than Delete because there simply isn't substantial coverage in secondary reliable sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• delete No claim of notability for what on paper looks like a pretty routine junction. Even in the backwards US there are hundreds of similar two-line splits like this one, and most of them don't even have names that anyone knows about. This appears little different. Mangoe (talk) 14:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weaver Junction

Weaver Junction (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 fails WP:GNG - railway junctions generally do not merit their own article and article relies almost entirely on a single book. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 17:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 17:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree on this one. Weaver Junction is absolutely key and notable on West Coast Route Modernisation, West Coast Main Line and all electrification schemes on that route. Could the references be added to and improved? Of course. But delete? Strong NO from me. And btw using the phrase “clearly” in fails WP:GNG is in my opinion a clear violation of neutral point of view. But hey, I will go with the majority. GRALISTAIR (talk) 01:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with GRALISTAIR. The article may be short on words and citations, but it should remain (and be improved) because the junction is one of the most important on the West Coast Main Line, in that it connects Liverpool, Merseyside, north Cheshire and south Lancashire with the rest of the country to the south. Its notability supports the opinion that the article should remain. And the article is linked to 81 other articles.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 07:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

QUOTE --- and the article is linked to 81 other articles - END QUOTE. EXACTLY - way too important. Lets improve the article. I volunteer to help GRALISTAIR (talk) 13:06, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A cursory examination of the "what links here" page shows that almost all of those links come from articles that contain Template:St Helens and Runcorn Gap Railway. That doesn't make this article "important" and regardless that's not a valid rationale for keeping. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:46, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Redirect to West Coast Main Line. The most I could find on this junction is [18] which isn't nearly enough to meet GNG. Existing references only mention the junction in passing or as a waypoint (construction of improvements between Weaver Junction and other locations). I've tried several different searches and can't come up with much of anything. Unless someone can find significant coverage I couldn't (which is theoretically possible as I live in the U.S. and not the U.K.) this doesn't demonstrate notability. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:54, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I see no merit in deleting this at all. The article appears well sourced and informative. I'm no longer in Cheshire to check but the small Nantwich public library had a whole bookcase stuffed with books on Cheshire railways and the much bigger ones in Crewe/Chester would have more. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the edit history, it appears that GRALISTAIR has greatly improved this since nomination, apparently refuting the notion that it fails to meet GNG. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:26, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only a few of the refs have anything really to do with the junction (those being references 1, 14 and 19). Others are simply about line upgrades that happened to include the line at Weaver Junction; they are not about the junction itself. The content is largely about the West Coast Main Line with only incidental mention of the junction itself. The fact that electrification for a time ended at Weaver Junction doesn't make the junction notable. To the untrained eye it looks like the article meets GNG, but if you dig deeper you can see most of the article has little to do with its supposed subject. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:07, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Only a few of the refs have anything really to do with the junction (those being references 1, 14 and 19)" -- seems to me you are writing that it does, in fact, meet GNG, with multiple independent sources? Espresso Addict (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't access reference 1, but it's citing only one page, so I am not optimistic it's significant coverage. Reference 14, now that I've actually read it, is only a single paragraph, and is both primary and only incidentally about the junction itself - it's mostly just talking about a survey of sites of historical interest around the location of an electrical cable extension. Not significant coverage. Reference 19 is primary and only incidentally talks about the junction. So no, it does not meet GNG. We need multiple reliable, independent, secondary sources which provide significant coverage of the subject. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I have notified Wikiproject Cheshire. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak merge or redirect to West Coast Main Line per reasons provided by Trainsandotherthings. I think the junction could be noteworthy but not enough for a standalone article. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 20:50, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the arguments given by Espresso Addict, especially following the expansion made by GRALISTAIR. As the oldest flying junction in Britain, it would appear to me that this makes the junction sufficiently notable to in its own right to merit an article. Looking elsewhere, it appears that Trainsandotherthings is having some sort of campaign to delete articles relating to rail junctions in Northwest England, and I cannot understand the motive.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:28, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't nominate any of these articles for deletion, I am simply participating in deletion discussions related to the area of transportation. You should be ashamed of yourself for assuming bad faith. And this still fails GNG. The expansion has nothing to do with the junction, but is about the lines that happen to meet at the junction. My analysis of the sources has not been refuted. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 11:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • To Trainsandotherthings. Apologies, it wasn't you. I misread the evidence. Sorry.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:45, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, I realize I've been present in several of these AfDs so I can see why you'd come to that conclusion. I don't think it was good practice to nominate 19 of these at the same time, but at least for this one I am not seeing the coverage required to meet WP:GNG. I can see why an old flying junction would have a claim to notability, but we need enough sources providing significant coverage of the junction to maintain a dedicated article. Something like this, which goes into significant detail about the junction itself, not just the lines that meet at it. I haven't been able to find anything for this junction. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I notice Redrose64 has contributed to this article in the past. He has almost 250,000 edits to his credit and also an administrator. Does that carry any weight? GRALISTAIR (talk) 13:24, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• If Weaver Junction is the oldest flying junction in Great Britain, could it be the oldest in the world? Is there evidence of an older one anywhere? I have looked for evidence and found none. There must be a railway buff somewhere who knows this. If it is the oldest, not just "old", this surely merits the retention of the article. Even as it stands at present, I see no good reason for its deletion.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship and number of edits carry no weight here. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 03:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gives credibility, not sure it affects the AfD vote. I'd much rather it be done by a seasoned editor than a sock is my point. Oaktree b (talk) 03:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest flying junction - merits retention and is noteworthy. It was created over 16 years ago so why delete now? As above an editor who has 250,000 edits to his credit and is an administrator has made edits in the past. The article is being improved. There is just no reason to delete it. Makes no sense to me. GRALISTAIR (talk) 14:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the age of the article, nor the fact that an admin has previously edited the article, mean anything as far as keeping or not keeping the article. What matters is WP:GNG, which this article does not meet. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep According to the nom, this Clearly fails WP:GNG - not in its current state it doesn't, it may have done when it was nominated. railway junctions generally do not merit their own article - that completely depends on what sources are available. article relies almost entirely on a single book - again, no longer. Black Kite (talk) 10:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you identify even two examples of significant coverage within this article? Because I cannot find a single one. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article isn't what it was when nominated for deletion, and I fail to see how deleting this now would benefit Wikipedia. Evidently there is enough to write about here to warrant an article. Garuda3 (talk) 13:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Y'all are really going to make me go through the entire article to show this doesn't meet GNG, aren't you? Here we go.
• Trains bound for Liverpool from London diverge from the WCML at this junction. True, but that doesn't necessarily mean the junction is inherently significant. The source cited is no better than a database. No credit towards meeting GNG.
• Weaver Junction is the oldest flying junction in Britain. Again, true, but "The Guinness Book of Rail Facts and Feats (2nd ed.)" doesn't exactly suggest significant coverage of the junction. I can't assess "A Regional History of the Railways of Great Britain" but seeing as it's not cited anywhere else, I don't think it's at all fair to suggest this is significant coverage.
• The junction between the main line to Warrington and the north, and the direct line to Runcorn and Liverpool was originally from the date of opening in 1869, a flat junction at Birdswood. The flyover carrying the Liverpool line over the main line at Birdswood was not opened until 13 November 1881. The junction is now located some 0.75 miles (1.21 km) south of its former location and known as Weaver Junction. Its location is strategic and is considered a high importance freight corridor. I take particular issue with the last sentence. I've read every mention of the junction, and nothing in the source supports this statement. This is SYNTH at best, if not outright original research. The lines at the junction may be of importance, but notability is not inherited.
• The 1955 Modernisation Plan called for removal of steam, large scale introduction of diesels and substantial electrification of the UK railway network.[7] The north west of England was amongst the first areas to be electrified, but electrification initially only went to Liverpool and not Preston and Glasgow, and so stopped at Weaver Junction on the West Coast Main Line in the initial phase.[8] Continuing the electrification north from the junction was discussed in 1968[9] and further discussed in Parliament in February 1969.[10] When finally announced by transport minister Richard Marsh and approved by parliament in February 1970, it was costed at 30.4 million pounds.[11] The entire line was eventually electrified from Weaver Junction to Glasgow in the 1970-1974 timeframe.[12][13][14] The final completed cost was 74 million pounds.[15] There were later operational problems resulting from the scheme and higher rail usage.[16][17][18] When you read through this and look at the sources, you can clearly see Weaver Junction is only incidental to what's written here. The only mentions of the junction are that it is where electrification stopped. The first sentence has nothing to do with the junction, the second mentions the junction merely as where electrification ended, and the remainder just talks more about plans for furthering the electrification on the West Coast Main Line. There is no significant coverage of the junction itself.
• In 2009, concerns were raised and an archeological report issued in connection with a Network Rail application to the National Grid for a boost to the power supply for the WCML at Weaver Junction. It involved running an underground cable from the grid feeder at Frodsham to Weaver Junction. There's no significant coverage to be found here. This is an attempt to find as much to say about the junction within the article as possible in hopes of stopping deletion. Reading the source itself, the only mentions of Weaver Junction are brief mentions that the route of the underground cable happened to be near the junction. Nothing more. No significant coverage.
• In 2018 to 2019 the line between Weaver Junction and Wavertree was further modernised by new signaling. This is about the line, not the junction.
• An accident happened at the junction on August 6 1975 involving a collision between two freight trains. The cause was identified as insufficient braking power. Some vehicles were derailed but not the locomotives and there were no injuries. Not a significant accident, and the accident happening at the junction was wholly unrelated to anything about the junction itself. One of the trains did not have enough braking power. There is, once again, no significant coverage of the junction here.
• On 2 March 2020 a landslip occurred at Weaver Junction partially closing the WCML and required the use of rail replacement buses.[25] Disruption was seen over a few days, as the ground needed to be stabilised. This is a one-sentence mention in the source. Yet again, no significant coverage.
• In summary, the keep votes are based not on an analysis of the sources and identifying significant coverage to meet GNG, but vague assertions of "the article isn't what it was when it was nominated" and statements of general inclusionist beliefs without regard to what policy says. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not even a rough consensus seen here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment railfan here. It seems well-sourced, sources 4 and 5 talk directly about it (five is probably better than four). It's not another small, unsourced article. It has several sources from multiple books, put together to make a rather lengthy article. We've had previous articles at AfD where they've used several, small sources to put together a long article. This one is well-written (no spelling mistakes, has good citations) and is rather easy to read. Wiki isn't a specialist railfan website, but I'd say this one passes notability. Several small RS, each with a bit of information, that have been assembled into this rather lengthy article about what's essentially a point on a railway. Ok, Wiki editor here now: this is the kind of article creation we should be encouraging; thought out, well researched and very easy to read. We see too many articles here where it's essentially trying to sell us something or someone; crypto this or expert that. This is a purely historical "item" and we've basically built an article out of nothing. I'd go so far as to thank the editors that maintain it and have managed to build something. This is the power of wiki. We take small nuggets of information and create something that is rather impressive. Oaktree b (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep is my !vote after the soapbox above. Oaktree b (talk) 00:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  we've basically built an article out of nothing That's as good of an argument for deletion as my analysis above. We don't build articles from "nothing", we build them from significant coverage in reliable sources. No amount of soapboxing (as you call it) is going to change the fact that this article lacks that. Again, since people don't seem to understand what significant coverage means, I will repeat my example from above: this is what significant coverage of a junction looks like. Not one-sentence mentions and throwing together a bunch of tangentially-related things to get an article that uses lots of words to tell us almost nothing about the subject. Where is the significant coverage of the junction itself in reliable sources? Nobody can identify any. I tried to find some myself and came up empty. And no, a one-page mention (most likely just one or two sentences, really) in "The Guinness Book of Rail Facts and Feats" does not count as significant coverage. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You won't find any, no one writes 200 page treatments on a single railway junction. We've kept other articles in AfD where the person did research and cobbled together an article that was voted to be kept. We had a country music person come up lately and another was the history of a record label, both pieced together, that we've kept. I'd have to dig in my contribution history to find the exact ones, but we've done it before. Oaktree b (talk) 03:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  and the example you gave is a google site, which is even worse than the quality of the sources used here. The Weaver Junction one is of a better quality than that example is. It's basically postcards and other old photos cobbled together with some text and no sourcing. This one at least has verifiable sources in reliable publications. There have been several "junction" articles come up in AfD lately, this is the best of them, I voted to delete on a few others. This one has a decent amount of sourcing and seems to at least have sources to back up the statements made. Oaktree b (talk) 03:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Did I claim it was reliable? All I said is it contains significant coverage, which it does. I was using it as an example of something that actually is more than a passing mention (which is what all the sources here are). No sources have been identified that cover Weaver Junction in detail. The keep votes here fly in the face of policy. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment if it is to be deleted, it could be merged to the Hixon rail crash article, or the West Coast Main line article, it's been mentioned more than enough times in media to be connected with the electrification of the line and the goings-on there. Oaktree b (talk) 03:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keeep, for reason already given. Rossonwy (talk) 03:23, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There are now three references showing that this was the first flying junction in Great Britain. This is no ordinary junction just with points, etc, but with arches and flyovers. As such, it was pioneering, if not revolutionary, in the history of railway engineering. If this sort of this were to happen today, there would be articles in journals and newspapers, and it is more than likely that there were at the time. I have not found them, but I am sure they exist. IMO the later information, interesting as it is, is secondary to the historical importance of the junction. The article should be retained for this fact alone, which can no doubt be further developed as more evidence comes to light. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the passing mentions and primary documents supplied so far do not satisfy WP:GNG. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep For reasons given above. G-13114 (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are these articles going to be deleted too?

United Kingdom

• Pelaw Junction where both the Tyne and Wear Metro green line to South Hylton joins the Durham Coast Line and yellow line continues to South Shields – both diverging on the bridge itself
• Springhead Junction on the North Kent Line
• Southfleet Junction on the HS1
• Norton Bridge Junction near Stone, Staffordshire
• Hamilton Square underground station, Birkenhead, on Merseyrail
• Aynho Junction in Aynho, Northamptonshire
• Worting Junction near Basingstoke, Hampshire (the flyover is called Battledown Flyover)
• Cogload Junction near Taunton
• Weaver Junction near Dutton, Cheshire
• Shortlands Junction in south London
• Northwest of Harrow-on-the-Hill, in the north London suburbs
• Hitchin flyover, Hertfordshire.
• Werrington Junction dive-under, under construction north of Peterborough (north of Hitchin)
• Reading West Junction
• Bleach Green Viaducts & Junction, Whiteabbey, Northern Ireland

Just asking - consistency and all that good stuff? GRALISTAIR (talk) 13:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand from the discussion above that 19 articles on junctions have been nominated for deletion. Whatever are the merits of the other articles, IMO Weaver Junction should remain for the argument in my last comment. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, there are a wack of them in AfD now. I can't get to all of them. So is the wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 14:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, most likely they will be. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, it is a good article now. Nempnet (talk) 13:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• keep The "first flying junction" claim is decent claim to notability, though I would also note that, as the junction exists now, it's not really a flying junction, if it ever was: when you get down to the actual junction, at present it's a quite conventional maze-of-crossovers split, with the flyover only serving to have the branch line approach from the opposite side from what one might expect. Mangoe (talk) 14:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At the very minimum, can we please please keep it for a bit longer and not rush to delete. It is clearly being improved all the time? GRALISTAIR (talk) 15:52, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Further research and reading please. In further reading section there is:

• Nock, O.S. (1965). Britain's new railway: Electrification of the London-Midland main lines from Euston to Birmingham, Stoke-on-Trent, Crewe, Liverpool and Manchester. London: Ian Allan. OCLC 59003738.
• Nock, O.S. (1974). Electric Euston to Glasgow. Ian Allen. ISBN 978-0711005303.
• Wolmar, Christian (2005). On the Wrong Line: How Ideology and Incompetence Wrecked Britain's Railways (rev. ed.). London: Aurum Press. ISBN 1-85410-998-7.
• WOLMAR, CHRISTIAN (2022). BRITISH RAIL-A new History. [S.l.]: MICHAEL JOSEPH. ISBN 0-241-45620-7. OCLC 1246353492.
• Reene, Jules (2012). Weaver Junction. String Publishing. ISBN 9786138996095.

I have the two Wolmar Books and Weaver Junction is mentioned but admittedly only in passing. I have ordered the two OSNock books and when they arrive, I will read both and see what I can come up with. I am also going to order the Jules Reene book. The problem with this book is it admits it relies quite a bit on open source (but I do love FREE knowledge it is why I became an editor on Wikipedia in the first place) material etc, but the book is 136 pages long. I will be shocked if this does not have some secondary and tertiary sources, I can use to further improve the article. It also has the benefit of having the title "Weaver Junction". If someone goes to the trouble of publishing a 136 page book on the place, that surely must even a little teensy weensy bit improve notability (note I did not say prove notability - I am trying to maintain a neutral point of view !!!!)

Long story short if this article is to be deleted at least give me some more time to get further reference material to improve. GRALISTAIR (talk) 17:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the closing admin: If the outcome is not to keep in mainspace, then moving to draft or GRALISTAIR's user space would seem warranted to allow them time to improve it further. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, I found your book you claim is about the junction. The very first sentence in the description: "Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online." [19] No amount of wanting the topic to be notable will make it notable unless you can demonstrate significant coverage in reliable sources, and a book that's written based on Wikipedia is inherently not a reliable source and is worthless for proving notability. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please please please read again. I admit that but followed with a 136 page book surely has some secondary and tertiary sources. I don’t see why after 16 years we need to rush to delete. It sounds like you have an agenda but you are accusing me of having one. All I have asked for is time for my copy of the book to arrive and see if there are secondary and tertiary sources. The other two books I have also ordered. Surely it won’t hurt anything if an article has been on WP for 16 years to keep it a bit longer? GRALISTAIR (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I do have an agenda. It's called Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the decision is to delete, is there appeals process I can go through? I will definitely do so if that is the case. GRALISTAIR (talk) 20:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:HEY. The article easily passes WP:SIGCOV now due to the large number of references with significant coverage added to the article.4meter4 (talk) 17:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 05:29, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Westerleigh Junction

Westerleigh Junction (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)

Railway junctions generally do not warrant their own articles. Clearly fails WP:GNG as a relatively unknown location, with only 3 references, including one from 1992. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. A quick search on British Newspaper Archive found articles before the 1900s, such as this one from 1866, so there may be more to this than is included at the moment. Garuda3 (talk) 13:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, notable junction, could do with more cites, not reason enough for deletion though. Rossonwy (talk) 03:25, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The subject is not sourced like Golden Gates, however the general notability is met in general. --Loewstisch (talk) 09:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:27, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Samrat Yaduvanshi

Samrat Yaduvanshi (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:NACTOR, fails WP:NFILMMAKER, fails WP:NMUSICIAN, fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. Do I really need to say that he fails WP:GNG? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Politicians, and India. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Was on the point of nominating this myself when removing AfC tag in mainspace. Delete per nom. Eagleash (talk) 17:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• This article need to be published. Most of the cite are named as anil samrat. As anil samrat and samrat yaduvanshi is the same person. Anil samrat has now changed his name to samrat Yaduvanshi as per numerology. Avanish kumar8271 (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC) copied friom the creating editor's talk page. I believe this must be interpreted as a request to Keep the article. I present this without commentary. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:01, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can only see Facebook page and TikTok page from Google but nothing worthy from it. Ashavawani (talk) 12:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

O'Rahilly's historical model

O'Rahilly's historical model (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)

O'Rahilly's theories may be notable, but this is not the article for it. It simply repeats his theories seemingly like an essay, with little to no encyclopedic content. I think it's time to blow it up and start over, at the very least. I would weakly oppose redirecting to T. F. O'Rahilly as it doesn't seem the title ("O'Rahilly's historical model") has entered scholarly usage outside of Wikipedia, unlikely search term. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I lean toward delete. This page has been problematic for a very long time, with no signs of improving. It is not encyclopedic, but repeats a fringe hypothesis as if it's legitimate. I would suggest that the subject be briefly summarized in a section at T. F. O'Rahilly, with sufficient modern-source information to indicate why his model, while once influential, is no longer taken seriously. The hypothesis in and of itself doesn't seem to be separately notable, though if the section grew very large over time (grew in a better way than the article under consideration has grown) then it could WP:SPINOUT again.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 06:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fire and Blast Information Group

Fire and Blast Information Group (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 any coverage which would indicate WP:ORG is met. SmartSE (talk) 13:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, search returns a lot of mentions but nothing indicative of sigcov to establish GNG, much less NORG. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:24, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• (cut the following from TP to this page) Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:30, 21 September 2022 (UTC):[reply]

I was looking for technical information on fire & explosion engineering and noticed that the wiki page providing details on the FABIG group is potentially going to be deleted. I believe that keeping this page live is important as there are no other (not-for-profit) industry group specialised in the development and dissemination of technical knowledge on design against fire & explosion hazards, and therefore this page contributes to making people aware of the group and how to access information for the prevention of fire & explosion accidents. F&GExpert (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would however add that the information provided on the page seems a little out of date. I would be happy to update it the best I can if it does not get deleted. Thanks. F&GExpert (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@F&GExpert: Please post your comments on the main discussion page. Most people won't see it here. ✗plicit 14:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NORG. While an organization with a worthy mission, the organization has no significant coverage to speak of. Certainly nothing that could pass WP:ORGCRIT.4meter4 (talk) 05:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Otago representative cricketers#K. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Kemp (cricketer)

Graham Kemp (cricketer) (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 cricketer does not meet the revised version of WP:NCRIC, as he never played in an international test. He played only one match at the first-class domestic level in New Zealand, and no coverage of him outside of database listings could be found. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and New Zealand. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as this appears to fail A7. I couldn't find any claims of significance. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless someone adds some actual encyclopedic prose referenced to reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to this person. We do not need database entries masquerading as encyclopedia articles. Cullen328 (talk) 04:23, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with the nomination. He hasn't played any international match. He has just played only One List-A game. Fifthapril (talk) 05:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:OFFCRIC. Kpddg ^(talk) 11:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Otago representative cricketers I mean there's a clear redirect per WP:ATD here which the delete votes have ignored. He would have past the previous guidelines. It looks like he fails GNG in a search although some of our NZ editors might be able to dig some information out on him. But as I said, the minimum here is that the article should be redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:10, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unless someone does the research and adds encyclopedic content. Technically zero "first class" game, but does have one List A game (the one-day format equivalent of first-class status, which also counts as the "highest domestic level" as far as WP:NCRIC is concerned)... so a technicality that makes no difference either way. Bs1jac (talk) 16:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Very strong redirect to List of Otago representative cricketers per WP:ATD (note to closer: policy, not a guideline - and I don't see any other policy-based arguments advanced here). This follows the long established consensus that cricketer articles such as this should be redirected to suitable lists when they exist. This was established by 2018 at the latest as a viable ATD. The argument that there is no claim of notability is patently false - played top-level domestic cricket - and there will undoubtedly be some at least passing mentions in Dunedin based press from the early 80s, although none of these are likely to be available online. I would never argue for keep here, but this is so clearly not a deletion situation. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Otago representative cricketers per WP:ATD, which is part of the deletion policy. BoJó | talk UTC 20:19, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Barde

Muhammad Barde (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 fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL as he is only notable for participating in party primaries. Might meet notable guidelines when he wins the election, but not now. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 21:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 21:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete : it looks like a Too soon due to the reference date.--Gabriel (talk to me ) 04:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that this was a recognised populated place, and thus passes WP:GEOLAND. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barce, Indiana

Barce, Indiana (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)

Another searching problem due to the local prominence of the name and due to Google trying to be smarter than I am, but sources indicate that this was a rail shipping point and nothing more. The line was abandoned early, but the tiny station building is still there, sitting between two farms. Mangoe (talk) 20:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect >> Center Township, Benton County, Indiana per Wikipedia:Geoland, which clearly states: If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it.Djflem (talk) 04:10, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And what information is that? The township article claims that it is an "unincorporated town", which is, as best we can tell, not true: that, after all, is why I made this nomination in the first place. As to the statement in the guideline, I do not agree that it retains consensus if indeed it ever had it. But we shall be discussing that soon. Mangoe (talk) 04:41, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide links where 'retaining' consensus has been discussed/changed to buttress what otherwise is simply a personal opinion. Absent that, we follow what guidelines say.Djflem (talk) 06:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at the insertion of that sentence, I can find no evidence that it was ever anything but the opinion of the person who stuck it in there. Beyond that, we can discuss this over whether the guideline should be updated. Mangoe (talk) 12:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I added a source from 1908 that claims the population was 100 then. Could be local government puffery. It appears on local maps, admittedly not as much of anything. I can understand the nominator's rationale.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per Wikipedia:HEY update since nomination. Djflem (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Checking NewspaperArchive, I was able to find dozens of articles discussing Barce, including the rail station, the store, the change in the name of the town, info on the grain elevators, bus service, prominent residents, etc. There seemed to be no shortage of articles between the 1880s and about 1930, when Barce's fortunes faded. The last news articles talk about the closures of the store, the post office, etc. This was a noted and notable place once, with likely more than a hundred articles discussing events in Barce/East Fowler. I've expanded the article, but there's a lot more work to be done. I was also able to find population figures from the 1900 and 1920 US Census. The fact that this is now just a rail station and two farms is sad, but there is much history, here. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:45, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Firsfron, HEY. ╠╣uw [talk] 09:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Fiedler

Tiffany Fiedler (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)

Lacks any form of significant coverage from reliable and independent sources. Fails the GNG; non-notable. ~Styyx^Talk? 20:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and United States of America. ~Styyx^Talk? 20:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This in Cheddar is about the best non-PR piece I can find [20] and that's not enough. Oaktree b (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG. I can't find any way to de orphan this page. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

North Sea Gas (band)

North Sea Gas (band) (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 finding evidence of a pass of WP:GNG or WP:NBAND after checking for sources. ASUKITE 20:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Scotland. ASUKITE 20:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ASUKITE 20:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NMUSIC and I couldn't find anything to support keeping the article. But if someone finds something ping me and I'll change my vote. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 04:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - They have some notice at information sites made for people interested in Celtic folk music, but I can find no reliable reviews or feature articles in which their career was covered by reputable music journalists. Otherwise they have some gig announcements here and there, but nothing significant that I can find. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:05, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remi Dujardin

Remi Dujardin (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)

No evidence of this being a notable football player. Has been through several clubs and made barely any impact and in most cases, apparently not even featured. Has no senior international caps and any mentions in sources are limited to database entries rather than anything significant. The AfD nearly 3 years ago concluded he may be notable in future but no evidence that has happened. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Hong Kong. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I updated the infobox, he has played 2 games for his current fully pro team in Hong Kong top flight, Sham Sui Po which he joined this year and has played for a few different teams since his last AfD . Cleary significant figure in Hong Kong football with ongoing career, and one of few to every play abroad, in Europe and USA. I found [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], and [31] among many many more Mandarin and English sources. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bungle makes a good point in noting that we gave him 3 years to become notable. InvadingInvader (talk) 22:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found 11+ sources (I havent listed nearly all of the sources I found about him here), and he has played league games for a fully pro Hong Kong top flight team as well as played for a few Albanian top flight teams which he had never done 3 years ago. Cleary significant figure in Hong Kong football with ongoing career, and one of few to every play abroad, in Europe and USA. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 01:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:41, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:GNG rather comfortably with the significant coverage provided by Das osmnezz. Alvaldi (talk) 08:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - significant coverage in multiple sources Sports Road, Ming Pao and SCMP Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:35, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources above which show notability. GiantSnowman 15:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep clearly passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blair Daly

Blair Daly (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)

Potentially non-notable songwriter. None of the sources on page are any good (the only reliable publication is just covering a song he has a writing credit on, it's not an article about him). I did find this interview, this one about a group he's a part of, and these two about him signing with Concord Music Group, but I'm not confident in any of 'em. QuietHere (talk) 17:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Louisiana. QuietHere (talk) 17:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete I'd give the Billboard one a pass, not sure about the rest of the sources. I don't see any. Oaktree b (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:26, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mac Clark

Mac Clark (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 was deleted as the result of an AfD, but treated as an expired prod. Less than 2 weeks later it was recreated. Nothing has changed since the AfD. Pinging users who were involved in the first discussion: Agtx, Jovanmilic97, and GhostOfDanGurney. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why the link to the first discussion didn't transclude. Here it is: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mac Clark Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Mentions on a few different websites, nothing for RS. Toronto Star article is about the only RS I can see, something on sportsnet but it comes up as a 404 site. Still delete. Oaktree b (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - Is the subject of a new fluff piece published on Inside Track News [32]. Despite going above and beyond mere WP:ROUTINE reporting, I have concerns about its independence as the piece appears to have been written by an agency called "Speed Group". This "Speed Group" lists James Hinchcliffe as a "partner" and the article does mention the subject as being a "protégé" of Hinchcliffe. If other editors feel this is independent enough, then we have 2 sources meeting GNG and we can keep this. Otherwise, delete. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 06:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I also invite Formula Downforce to this discussion, as the edit history shows that they challenged the soft deletion. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 06:58, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify - I do think that winning a rung of the Road to Indy ladder does make him notable but even if there's not enough coverage about him yet his article should be kept as a draft because he's likely to become more notable in the near future. Formula Downforce (talk) 16:49, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:NSPORT and WP:SIGCOV. WP:SALT to prevent recreation.4meter4 (talk) 05:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7 deleted by Bbb23. (non-admin closure) Jumpytoo Talk 02:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Build and Crush (game)

Build and Crush (game) (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 based on a WP:BEFORE and search of WP:VG/LRS. I would have tagged it with WP:A7, but I could not find any policy or guideline indicating that web games count as "web content". eviolite (talk) 15:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. eviolite (talk) 15:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 September 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I tagged this as A7 just before you opened this AfD. As a browser based game, it qualifies as web content under A7 (see also the text of the CSD tag, which says "browser game"). WJ94 (talk) 15:36, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I noticed this soon after and attempted to delete this AfD nomination as a result, but was reverted by zxcvbnm. I feel like if it's mentioned in the template, it should also be mentioned somewhere in policy, so I am still slightly confused. eviolite (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus against keeping, not so clear consensus for deletion. But because there's no one alternative to deletion (merge, redirect...) that has gained traction, straight-up deletion is the most consensual outcome. People remain free to seek consensus to incorporate the material of this erstwhile dab page into other pages, or to recreate a redirect, which can be contested. The content of this dab page was: Barack Obama, The first Black president (Toni Morrison), African heritage of presidents of the United States, List of heads of state of Haiti, African-American candidates for President of the United States, African-American presidents of the United States in popular culture. Sandstein 11:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

America's first black president

America's first black president (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)

Should be removed under WP:NOPAGE. The page creation appears to have been a joke [33] about Bill Clinton and the topic is better covered in the article African-American candidates for President of the United States. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 15:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DrIdiot (talk) 15:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is simply not needed. Amply covered in the Obama article. I'd almost hazard a guess that literally anyone on the planet knows who Obama is and what he did. Had there been 12 black presidents, I could see the need for the article. That's just not the case. Oaktree b (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• As nominator: Noting that the article topic is probably referring to a specific Toni Morrison quote which I've added to the article: A quote by Nobel laureate Toni Morrison, who called Bill Clinton "the first Black president", saying, "Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald's-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas". I still think delete but maybe this sways opinions, plausibly the quote is a more compelling WP:PRIMARYTOPIC than the literal interpretation. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 15:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that would have been an interesting tidbit in the before Obama era. No one is likely to remember that these days and search as a result. Oaktree b (talk) 20:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 16:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Borderline ass-headed creation, especially the entry about Haiti which is a different country. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United States of America. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to African heritage of presidents of the United States. Plausible search term. While the heritage article doesn't use the phrase specifically, I think it would be obvious from reading the article that Obama was America's first black president and redirecting here is better than outright deletion. MB 18:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. and Oaktree b. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 18:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with similar disambiguation page Black president. --Woko Sapien (talk) 20:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Black president. I guess like many people, I got here via this Tweet from @depthsofwiki, an account which highlights amusing/surprising Wikipedia pages. The fact that the average person stumbling upon the page will not understand the need for it does not mean that there is no need for it. If not for depthsofwiki, few people would arrive at the page, and most who did so would need it, as follows. Contra Siliconred's nomination above, the Bill Clinton description was not a "joke"; it was a statement made sincerely by a famous African American public intellectual during the Clinton presidency, which was widely reported at the time and commented on subsequently. Contra Oaktree b, it is certainly plausible that someone could vaguely remember that fact and seek clarification of the details from Wikipedia, and we should not make it hard for them to find those details. (The Bill Clinton line was deleted from the DAB by Mountaincirque after the depthsofwiki Tweet and before Siliconred's nomination. Siliconred, after making this nomination, restored the Clinton line, and I have further edited it to conform to MOS:DAB.) By the same token, a reader may have heard one of the claims listed in African heritage of presidents of the United States. Contra LaundryPizza03, for many people "America" does not mean the US. Possibly "America's first black president" should redirect to Obama with a hatnote to "Black president" for other uses. jnestorius^(talk) 20:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this reasoning & support the specific proposal to hat/redirect/merge. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 21:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on the proposal to redirect "America's first black president" to Obama with a hatnote to the "Black president" page. The term in question is a plausible search term and the "Black president" disambiguation is superior version to this one. The Meta Boi (talk) 23:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anything other than keep as an independent disambiguation page. All of the above work. InvadingInvader (talk) 22:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for all the reasons given above. I'm not at all convinced that the Morrison quote is notable enough to deserve a standalone article. I don't even think this is a plausible search term. The fact that "America" is itself an ambiguous term means that there's not an obvious redirect target; the principle of least astonishment makes me think that a disambiguation page with quite an odd collection of pages is not useful either. WJ94 (talk) 12:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Looks like the page was already Redirected to Barack Obama, so I guess the discussion can simply be closed? (Or was the Redirect out of order?) Cielquiparle (talk) 10:24, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I added the redirect [34], but did not close as I was involved in the discussion (though perhaps I should have waited for someone else to put in the redirect). SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 13:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I have reverted the redirect - I think it would be best to let this AfD be closed properly before taking action. I for one would prefer the page to be deleted and not redirected, since the ambiguity of "America" (note the points about Haiti) means that just directing to Barack Obama is not appropriate. The consensus may be that a redirect is appropriate but I'd rather someone uninvolved make that call. WJ94 (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete: It is a joke about about a person. Contributor008 (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. Oppose redirect.4meter4 (talk) 05:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and oppose redirect/merge. Useless page whether as a disambiguation or redirect as hardly anyone is going to search for this since the answer is obvious. Someone tweeting about the page isn't justification to keep it nor is the Morrison quote really noteworthy enough to deserve more than the sentence it already has in Public image of Bill Clinton. Uhai (talk) 08:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Society Day

Digital Society Day (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)

Absolutely non-notable event, from what I can find, mentioned only on the website https://www.naavi.org, a self-published website.^[1] Apparently without coincidence, this article was created by WP:SPA Naavi (talk · contribs). Toddst1 (talk) 15:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesn't appear notable, I find no sources that aren't connected with the event. Oaktree b (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems like the article is propaganda in a way. InvadingInvader (talk) 22:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The day doesn't exist or celebrated in any country and I found only one source which says it celebrated in Cyber Law College but there is no college with the name Cyber Law College. It is no more than a propaganda. Contributor008 (talk) 08:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ghanshyam Talaviya

Ghanshyam Talaviya (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:FILMMAKER and WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE didn't yield anything. --Gazal world (talk) 14:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not Notable, Doesn't work in any Notable Films. Contributor008 (talk) 08:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Felsenthal CPU-73 A/P Air Navigation Attack Computer

Felsenthal CPU-73 A/P Air Navigation Attack Computer (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. Sources are either primary, or unreliable, or straight-up not talking about the article's subject. BilletsMauves^€500 14:15, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I find no sources and the article does a poor job of explaining what this thing does. No sources, vague article. delete. Oaktree b (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete in the absence of sources establishing notability. -Ljleppan (talk) 07:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Atkinson, Indiana

Atkinson, Indiana (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 one is a borderline case, and as usual a last name as a place name presents searching difficulties. It's quite clear that the Atkinson family was prominent in the county; what I cannot find is good evidence that there was a town at this location and not just a rail point. The only clear reference I could find referred to it as "Atkinson Station". I can't get into the county history book but I'm wary when I can't get at the context in these works; I've been burned too often. The school complexes at the site show no awareness of the place name. Mangoe (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 15:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I was able to find quite a few newspaper articles about Atkinson, Indiana in NewspaperArchive by searching for "village of Atkinson". I also found population figures for Atkinson from the 1890, 1900, and 1920 census. I also found information about Atkinson area schools in documents available at the Library of Congress. I've expanded the article a little. More work will need to be done, but there are many sources, and it's clear this was/is a notable community, albeit a small one. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per Wikipedia:HEY update since nomination. Satisfactory ref'd. Djflem (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per Djflem. --Doncram (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:50, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Felipe Villela

Felipe Villela (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)

Pure refbombing here. Most sources aren't independent and repeat the same short blurb. Lacks significant coverage in reliable and independent sources, fails the GNG ~Styyx^Talk? 14:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Brazil. ~Styyx^Talk? 14:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: WP:PIG trying to use the WP as a soapbox. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 19:58, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Meliá Hotels International. Sandstein 18:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ME by Meliá

ME by Meliá (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)

Does not pass WP:ORG, not notable, no RS Dark Juliorik (talk) 11:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]