Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 February 1

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 02:22, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Radoslav Vlašić

Radoslav Vlašić (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. Pelmeen10 (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Yugoslavia. Pelmeen10 (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Serbia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:30, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per GiantSnowman, and ping me as well. starship.paint (exalt) 07:38, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete,Is not notable. Alex-h (talk) 08:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 02:22, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Momir Desnica

Momir Desnica (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, hard to find even database entries. Pelmeen10 (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Serbia. Pelmeen10 (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:11, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per GiantSnowman, and ping me as well. starship.paint (exalt) 07:38, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Is not notable. Alex-h (talk) 08:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no evidence of notability Almeida Fernando (talk) 09:29, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lycée Français Josué Hoffet

Lycée Français Josué Hoffet (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:NSCHOOL. Could not find significant coverage, the only sources provided are its own website. LibStar (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Laos, and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:14, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The current references are non-independent; my WP:BEFORE found databases, e.g., 1, and routine announcements including 1 (announcement regarding a new building being built) and 2. Overall, none of the references are significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources, failing WP:GNG or WP:NORG IMO. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 07:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above and User:Bearian/Standards#Notability of High Schools at WP:AfD. Very small private school where sources are impractical to find. Bearian (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 02:22, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Redpath

Bill Redpath (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:NPOL and WP:GNG. The only available sources on him seem to be run-of-the-mill campaign coverage, trivial mentions, and WP:PRIMARY. My WP:BEFORE search across multiple search engines found no WP:RS-based significant coverage of him. Please note that having been a national chair of a minor party does not confer presumed notability. Sal2100 (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Politicians, Libertarianism, Virginia, and Illinois. Sal2100 (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Sal2100 (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. I do not believe his runs for office or his chairmanship of the Libertarian Party qualify him as notable. However, a review of Ballot Access News and some newspaper searches indicate that he might qualify under general advocacy for ballot access even if done as chairman of the LNC. Other LNC chairs have not gotten that kind of coverage for ballot access advocacy. I'm not so sure of that outcome that I can demonstrate we should keep the article, but anyone who is advocating a "keep" may want to explore that route.--Mpen320 (talk) 00:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - appears to fail NPOL and GNG. There's just not much RS coverage. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 04:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, and because consensus has changed to exclude minor party officers from automatic notability, and due to lack of coverage, this person is not notable. Bearian (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Squier. Viable AtD and no indication further input is forthcoming. Star Mississippi 02:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stagemaster

Stagemaster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable product. Essentially unreferenced here, lots of collector how-to information about identification as original research. All I'm finding are bite-size reviews that don't meet the "significant" part of WP:GNG. Mikeblas (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Products. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Squier the manufacturer, I really don't see much about this guitar. Oaktree b (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Fender (company). Star Mississippi 02:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fender Stringmaster

Fender Stringmaster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable commercial product. Not much change in the 13 years since the previous nomination -- just the addition of original research material. Essentially unreferenced. Pretty eays to find trivial review coverage, but that doesn't satisfy the "significant" part of WP:GNG. -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Products. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No significant coverage. BruceThomson (talk) 05:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: There are some decent sources at the last AfD discussing this model series' importance and use by lap steel players, and my own research corroborates this. Here's a couple other sources including one that says it "revolutionized the guitar world": [1] [2]. Why? I Ask (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Fender (company). Have added some information about the Fender Stringmaster to the Products section of the main Fender company page. The Stringmaster does get mentioned in a lot of places, but it's usually just a sentence or two. For example, in the Gruhn book referenced above, the passage is a photo caption that reads In 1953, the Stringmaster models debuted with a double-pickup system. The new pickup, in single or double configuration, would eventually be adopted on all steels and would also extend to some low-end guitar models. It was also mentioned a lot historically in guitar magazine profiles of famous guitarists, when asked to list their favorite models. Unfortunately I'm not seeing anything in-depth enough to add meaningful citations to the content currently on the Stringmaster page, though, so for that reason I would say – redirect, and then any further (sourced) info found on the product could be added there. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Some possible sources were mentioned during the debate but apparently failed to sway any of the "delete" !votes. Some new editors suddenly appearing have have been mostly ignored, especially when ther arguments just boiled down to WP:ILIKEIT. Randykitty (talk) 15:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Essential Mix episodes

List of Essential Mix episodes (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)

Entirely unsourced episode list. Violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome: [3]https://www.mixesdb.com/w/Category:Essential_Mix 88.230.52.78 (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[4]https://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/essentialmix/tracklistings2002.shtml

Official episode list archive from 2002 to 2009 88.230.52.78 (talk) 15:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These are not sufficient for the issues raised here. BBC is a primary source here and I doubt MixesDB is reliable. Jalen Folf (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With small errors, MixesDB can be considered a completely worthy source of information. Alas, BBC does not store such information anywhere from sources known to me. 88.230.52.78 (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Radio, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete list should have never been made to begin with. Catfurball (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as merging it into Essential Mix would result in excessive size. Yes it is unsourced, but it appears to be sourcable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  We need to keep this information! 88.230.52.78 (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Prove it (if "sourcable"): Fails all relevant notability guidelines. Cross-sea searches might be location biased but there are some mentions of Essential Mix, that already has an article, "The 15 Best", "Mix Of The Day", Essential Mix Podcast, "13 bass-heavy BBC Radio 1 Essential Mixes...", but not one reliable, independent source to validate such a large unsourced article. That Wikipedia is not a TV guide also goes for not being a program or radio guide. Even if there was a source It is an indiscriminate listing. I cannot find information to support keeping an otherwise non-notable article because it can't be merged. Also, Wikipedia is not a repository or fan site and such a compilation of material is synthesis. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:59, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The wiki, meanwhile, may be the only place to have the most accurate list of episodes. Delete 200 lines of text, obviously solve a lot of the world's problems, yeah 88.230.52.78 (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep (for now) Essential Mix has a cultural significance and reference to a variety of artists within the electronic music genre. BBC Radio 1 had never publicly kept an open database or archives of the specific show which lead to fan based sources that might not be reliable (MixesDB etc) Official BBC twitter account used a Wikipedia page as a source of information back in 2018 [5]Which is an issue of synthesis. 24.212.204.133 (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, WP:NOTDIRECTORY is the issue here. We are an encyclopedia, not an episode guide. Jalen Folf (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  To say Wikipedia isn't a TV guide, there are a vast number of shows that have 'List of [show] episodes' and provide similar information, though TV has ratings and further credits. I don't see how this is any different. Looking further there's "List of Radiolab episodes" that seems very much the same. Noletuary (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: NOTDIRECTORY is the issue here. Even if this is completely sourced, this is outside the scope of WP:NLIST. There is zero evidence presented or found in a reasonable BEFORE this material has been discussed in RS as a set of content. BusterD (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  According to WP:NLIST guidelines, if a reliable group of independent sources consider the list notable then it can be accepted as a stand alone list, right? For example the independent sources would be the musicians/(critics) themselves that had been featured on the show would voice their support and why the radio show is valuable which leads to the list being accepted. Would critic of the show be considered a reliable/journalistic source as well [6]https://www.dirtydiscoradio.com/the-15-best-radio-1-essential-mixes-list-ever-broadcasted/ 192.81.226.230 (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep there are plenty more sources available besides the BBC site, for example Resident Advisor, mixmag, DJMag, I am sure the sourcing on this could be improved. I disagree that this is indiscriminate, appearing on the essential mix is the kind of "featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment" meant by WP:MUSIC criterion 12, so the artists on this list should all be notable, even though many currently don't have articles. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 15:21, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep re-adding my comment below the relisting.

There are a vast number of shows that have 'List of [show] episodes' and provide similar information, I don't see how this is any different. There's TV episode lists that have more info like rating/prod code/summaries but looking further there's "List of Radiolab episodes" that seems very much the same.

If it's strictly the lack of source. Some examples have been provided above, and probably since the creation of this page each edit could put BBC Radio 1's page as the source as new ones are added, the issue is BBC just does not preserve it past a month. But that's a fair amount of time for others to review and confirm, and keep this encyclopedia of BBC Radio 1 Essential Mix Programming that I and many others use. Noletuary (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTTVGUIDE "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events". - If the fact that some people add the upcoming weeks shows that BBC posts is the issue, we can keep it to past shows only.

"Historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." - This show has been run in excess of 25 years and is one of BBC Radio One's longest running programs Noletuary (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This information is fully verifiable via the BBC Programme Index. Rillington (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  "As a result of the scanning process, much of the data extracted from Radio Times needed to be tidied up. We have run a crowd-sourcing exercise, asking members of the public to correct typos and errors in the text to make them accurately reflect the Radio Times magazine entries." I did find some discrepancies compared to the Wikipedia page as far as the first 9 mixes in 1993. I think we found our source though. 192.81.226.230 (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • • Comment The article can be tidied up without any need to discuss the notion of the article being deleted.Rillington (talk) 11:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per arguments presented by filelakeshoe. ResonantDis_tortion 18:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NOTDIRECTORY this is just a huge collection and not properly sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:51, 1 February 2023 (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, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Per nom. WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Alex-h (talk) 09:01, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I came across the Flume essential mix on YouTube and wanted to see what other mixes there were. This page definitely helped me find the mixes quickly and easily via the tables. I don't know why you would want to delete this page it certainly helped me. I'm sure there are dozens of other people who also did the same thing. I'd rather quickly go on Wikipedia than whatever monstrosity of a website the BBC has going on. Newresdesignisdumb420! (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC) — Newresdesignisdumb420! (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Comment: I'm forced to point out that this fourteen year old list has never seen a reliable source applied to it, even during this deletion process. Zero sources. 164,954 bytes but not a single citation. BusterD (talk) 11:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. It appears that so close to the event we are not able to come to a consensus about whether this is a routine or notable incident. I recommend considering renominating the article in a few months to be better able to determine whether it continues to be covered and whether it is of lasting importance or not. Sandstein 07:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting of Jason Harley Kloepfer

Shooting of Jason Harley Kloepfer (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 be (sadly) another shooting incident in the USA, I find no lasting coverage beyond descriptions of the event. Even what's described here is basically a transcript of the event as it took place, with no critical comment around the event or why it's notable beyond any other such event that happens all too often. Oaktree b (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Police, and North Carolina. Skynxnex (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep the article and expand it. I'd say the available video should be linked. Whatever cops were involved here are either incompetent or corrupt or both. They probably conspired and made false statements in their official capacity. 2605:A601:AC71:C100:E91B:3A2C:66C6:7F0E (talk) 04:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  We require reliable sources to support this, that's the issue. Oaktree b (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and expand. While I think your criticism is valid, looking this subject up online shows many sources talking about this sad event. I think this article should probably have those sources and what they say added. Also, I think the issue is mainly that, because it is an event from only a day ago, their aren't many very apparent huge reactions to this to talk about besides the big media coverage. So, we should probably just add a tag saying to expand it and not delete it. Sorry for disagreeing with you. Thank you and have a good day. Tvshowoflife (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Expand. I think the article needs more analysis but it would be like saying to delete the George Floyd shooting page when it first got started. This will likely be a major case as it is currently making national headlines, not necessarily for the shooting but for the false press release and how the media accepted it without challenging it. John Oliver did a piece on this exact issue. Just search John Oliver "Police Say" Mrsunstar2 (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  slightly hyperbolic, in`it? When we started the Wikipedia article of George Floyd, George Floyd was lynched in the middle of the street, in front of 50 eyewitnesses, and the video was seen in 140 countries within 24 hours. Professor Guru (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - seriously? That a supposedly common shooting in the U.S. without any fatalities garnered international coverage in the United Kingdom [7], Greece, [8], and Hungary [9] speaks to its notability. Plus, the shooting took place in December, but the increased international coverage is coming in January. starship.paint (exalt) 22:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Google "Jason Harley Kloepfer"[10] and you'll find many articles, some international, mostly dating from within the last 48 hours. This was likely 'not notable' originally due to the fact Mr. Kloepfer wasn't mortally wounded in the encounter. It seems it's getting traction now because he's published the video. I'd suggest this is noteable as the video pretty well refutes the official police version of events. Padrone56 (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Expand - Whether to keep the page shouldn't be a question at this point. There have been developments and further publications since the story first aired and the original story is completely contradicted by said developments. The only reason the story changed is because the man had evidence of his own and the media were reporting what they had no reason to refute for the time. This is not "just another" police shooting, as sad of a low bar that is to pass. Having an article will serve the usual purpose of Wikipedia in summarizing and updating the events as they occur. Daneonwayne (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Woah there, the victim is white, so why bother making an article about something that will vanish from the news and be conveniently forgotten about? Only evil right-wing media like the New York Post are mentioning the story, so any wikipedian with pronouns in his bio should realize the political implications of keeping this article, and vote for deletion like a good boy. You wouldn't want people asking why no reliable sources are talking about this incident, would you? 64.119.9.36 (talk) 01:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those aren't reliable sources quoting the shooting, and I don't really care what ethnicity the person is. Yes, please ask why there are no reliable sources, that's the whole point of this deletion exercise. Oaktree b (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The claim that there are no reliable sources is false. Just review the sources in the article. starship.paint (exalt) 23:21, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was commenting on the New York Post, which we don't accept as RS. The other sources seem ok. Oaktree b (talk) 05:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oaktree b and User:Starship.paint, please don't respond to such trolling--just roll it back. It's not worth our time. Drmies (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

          I'm hoping we can have a civil discussion here. I tend to value all points of view; when you take away the strong emotions, there is still an idea there the person could discuss. And maybe we make a better, contributory editor out of them, that's always appreciated on wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 04:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Expand The discussion above points out that there is broad coverage about the event in WP:RS. I counted 10 recognizable WP:RS in a Google search. This meets WP:WEIGHT, which is the criterion for keeping an article. ––Nbauman (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It should NOT be deleted. It should be amplified. Americans need to know what is happening. 184.23.23.16 (talk) 06:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• • Please see WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination

1. Article completely fails WP:NPOL and the level of coverage is not above the amount expected for a local shooting. There are about 3,500 police shootings in the US. I do not assume we are going to start creating Wikipedia pages for each shooting, are we?

2. This shooting in particular isn’t notable (except of course being captured on CCTV camera). Cops (allegedly) lied (and I`m even doubtfull of that), they will not go to prison, the victim is going to get a nice $500,000 settlement and that will be the end of the story.

3. There is a strong case that deletion under WP:NPOV also applies. (Citizen)-Journalists shouldnt be writing (highly) sensationalised Wikipedia articles. I have read the article 5 times, and (besides the copy editing problem which I am not even going to mention here), the article lacks any form of Encyclopaedic distance and objectivity. Wikipedia is an Encyclopaedia and not a news rag.

4. Even the alleged lie is a stretch. I just had a look at the video and compared it to the press release. And the questions I had were...

5. did he engage in a verbal altercation with the police? Yes, so where is the lie?

6. did he show empty hands when he emerge from the door? No, so where is the lie?

7. did he have an object/a gadget in his hands when he emerged at the door? Yes, so where is the lie?

8. I do not see any evidence that the SWAT officers who shot, and the officer who placed the camera in his trailer are the same person.

9. We need to be careful with writing Encyclopeadic articles before the police investigation or prosecutor probe has even formally started. Just on defamation alone this article needs to be deleted.

Professor Guru (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The claim that this is defamation is ludicrous, as well as the claim that the suspect engaged in a verbal altercation with police. The Independent is clearest on this: The press release initially shared by the office claimed that Mr Kloepfer “engaged in a verbal altercation with officers” and that he then came out of the home and “confronted” police which supposedly led to the 41-year-old being shot. But the surveillance shows a different version of events. Every other source either states that the suspect was complying, or that the police account is contradicted. WVTC: A new video of this incident provides a different account of what police say happened WLOS: The surveillance footage released by Kloepfer appears to show a conflicting account of the event. Furthermore, your assertion that there was indeed a verbal altercation shown in the video is unfortunately unsourced and can be taken as WP:OR. We’re not going to have articles on every shooting in the United States, but when a shooting gets international coverage in places like Greece, that should be clue enough that it is notable. starship.paint (exalt)

• Keep and expand This is a chronicle of one of many incidents of police execution (attempted) and then a cover-up. Why this would be deleted is beyond imagination 97.93.25.193 (talk) 19:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I transferred the above comment from the talk page. [11] Appears to be a mistaken placement by the IP. starship.paint (exalt) 14:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS seems to be applicable here. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:46, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments: According to the in-house video this apparently is a travesty. This article is sourced with breaking news sources and Wikipedia is not supposed to be a news paper or breaking news outlet. There is absolutely zero neutral point of view. A source with a video states "Firing squad at 5 A.M. -- Police shoot unarmed and disabled man...". True or not this taints the article. Read one of the "Keep" comments: "Whatever cops were involved here are either incompetent or corrupt or both." How can an article like this even come close to a a neutral point of view or the other fundamental principle that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I am not going to issue a !vote because there is enough actually for a speedy keep. The one lone "Delete" !vote is confusing. Shame on esteemed editors that support breaking news that is far too soon to be in an encyclopedia. We should change the title to "Crooked cops shoot unarmed disabled man". Wait! That is what I got from the article, sources, and editor's comments, so why not, if consensus against policy means we go with consensus? The good news is that this might be subjected to deletion at some later point. -- Otr500 (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added note: The article is likely subjected to EVENTCRIT. -- Otr500 (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Expand: This story is continuing to unfold with an active investigation. I expect more coverage in the future, and existing coverage is more than adequate, including from reliable sources such as The Independent. Easily meets WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. The article does have some issues as editors have pointed out above, but those should be fixed while the article remains. Kcmastrpc (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTNEWS - Outside of local outlets, it looks like most of this "international coverage" people are pointing to are tabloid media. The UK's Mirror and Daily Mail and the NY Post have picked this up, probably because its good clickbait. Anecdotally, I live in NC and have not seen this covered in any local or state media that I regularly read (WRAL-TV, The News & Observer, etc. which covered other state police shootings of more interest like the Killing of Andrew Brown Jr.). We cite Hungary's RTL here, and according to RTL's own Wikipedia article: "Its informational content has also received heavy criticism. Its newscasts have emphasized crime and human interest stories, sensationalistic reporting, a faster-paced format, heavy use of graphics and visuals, and on-the-scene coverage. Its newsmagazine Fokusz has also received criticism, due to its mix of stories rotated around controversial issues and entertainment news. However, after 2014, the station's informational content, including its main evening news, has been including more political and serious news, improving its reputation over media critics and gaining credibility with viewers." I'd like to see more long term coverage from respectable regional or national US media or international media before saying we should keep this. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Expand: Regarding "3,500 police shootings in the US", the follow-up comment shows understanding as to why this has become notable with the phrase "except of course being captured on CCTV camera". The true baseline number isn't "3,500 police shootings", but "Number of police shootings caught on camera showing the person shot cooperating and compliant and contradicting the police agency's initial narrative". That number is much less, and makes this much more notable. It's also why the incident is getting widespread national and international coverage. 2605:A601:A130:B900:BA63:A515:F05A:108C (talk) 13:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I find no international coverage in the last week, other than the Daily Mail and another UK tabloid; I've performed a .ca Google news search, no Canadian outlets have picked this up. Beyond the sensationalism, I'm not seeing international coverage in RS. It seems to have petered out in the news cycle. As the nominator, I've already ~voted, this is more of an fyi for the closing admin, however this discussion gets decided. Oaktree b (talk) 04:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and expand. Commonplace is not the same as 'not noteworthy.' Cross Reference (talk) 14:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not notable Its WP:NOTNEWS WP:TOOSOON WP:NPOL

I frankly don’t see anything controversial. A man was suspected of kidnapping, emerged from the door with something in his hands with a woman behind him, and the cops shot him (non-lethal) to eliminate any possible threat without killing him.

You know as story is mostly sensationalised when yellow press from 3 countries in Europe picks up the story, but hardly any local media itself. Why the article is in Wikipedia is beyond me.

• there is no police investigation announced.
• there is no autopsy report
• there is no District Attorney investigation
• there is no Federal civil rights motion filed.
• there are no reported protests
• there are no activist/organisation
• there are no statements from public officials
• there are no proposals on law changes
• there are no criminal charges
• there are no arrests
• there are no arraignments
• there are no indictments
• there are no lawsuits
• this case literally has nothing (except a video that has freaked people out).

This case is a story that lands on the news desk of the Washington Post or Charlotte Observer local news editor, and he frankly doesn’t know what to do with the story after making 5-6 phone calls to the police chief, the victims attorneys, the district attorney and the counties medical examiner. The story is dead!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.247.251.178 (talk • contribs)

• Comment - just a note that the article has been reviewed (template:Did_you_know_nominations/Shooting_of_Jason_Harley_Kloepfer) and marked ready for the Main Page as a WP:DYK hook if it survives this AfD. starship.paint (exalt) 15:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is very little discussion above that is based in policy, and what little there is is evenly divided. I'm tempted to protect the AfD, but for the moment I will stop at requesting that everyone base their opinions on relevant policies and guidelines (WP:N, WP:BLP, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:BLP1E come to mind) or accept that their opinions will be ignored otherwise. Certainly railing about users with "pronouns in their bio" isn't going to help reach a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 22:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I only put the pronouns there after another AfD where I misgendered someone. Can't please anyone anymore. Back to policy, I don't see any coverage about the incident outside of local media. No media Canada have picked up this story. ROUTINE? It's just an incident police responded to, with no lasting coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Back to policy, I don't see any coverage about the incident outside of local media. … so Britain, Greece, Hungary and Tennessee are all in North Carolina? Because that’s exactly where some of the media sources are from, e.g. The Independent. Why insist on Canada? In fact, the January 2023 (and now February 2023 also!) sources are lasting coverage because the incident was made public and reported on in December 2022, and there is further potential for lasting coverage in March 2023 with the hearing, as well as the state bureau investigating. starship.paint (exalt) 00:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we sit right on top on the US, so most stuff that gets coverage there at least gets some mention here. If it isn't, that's usually some sort of red flag that this isn't likely notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep And expand. Sources in article are sufficient for inclusion of this article. But it needs work.BabbaQ (talk) 10:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - when this article was nominated for AfD [12], it was a ~350 word stub with 4 references. Now, it has been expanded to a 900+ words article, 9 references over 3 months, all from different outlets, coverage in 4 countries in total, WP:GNG has got to be satisfied. Plus potential for even more coverage as further developments are still possible. starship.paint (exalt) 07:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a news event with no encyclopedic aspects. If every event that was covered in newspapers (and sensationalized online because there is video to show), WP would be no more than a news archive. Which it does not intend to be, as per policies WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIME. I have no idea why Hungarian and Greek web sites have picked this up, nor do I know if those are "serious" news sites. If you click on the name of the author of the Independent article you see a bunch of sensational articles, all of them video-based. Nothing about this appears in NY Times nor the Washington Post, and was not picked up by national TV networks, so I have to conclude that the crime itself was not of national importance, and the video was online click bait. It was uploaded to Youtube by the WTVC (Chattanoooga) tv station so I assume that's where foreign web sites found it, although one of the Greek sites references a Tweet. That said, I cannot understand why there is a strong movement here to keep this. Lamona (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The criticism of the Independent author having “video-based” articles is puzzling. Had you clicked on those articles themselves, they are revealed to be long written articles with an accompanying video, for example very recently US shoots down suspected Chinese spy balloon (which we even covered on ITN, so this journalist isn’t some small fry, he’s trusted with big stories) and Supreme Court email issues. Sometimes there isn’t even a video, example on Tyre Nichols. Also, if you’re wondering why Hungary or Greece (or Britain) picked this up, the answer is simple. This is not a run-of-the-mill shooting, that’s why. starship.paint (exalt) 03:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please Delete

  uhm... actually it is theeee definition a run of a mill shooting.

  the question is... should every run of the mill shooting have a Wikipedia article? the reason I`m asking is because

  a) over 20,000 police shootings in the US alone, in the past 15 years do not have a Wikipedia article.

  b) and over 5,000 police shootings where someone has ACTUALLY been killed do not get a Wikipedia article.

  So I simply dont get why this shooting should get one. Once again. Wikipedia is an Encyclopaedia for historical worldwide relevant events, and not an aggregator for news rags.

  c) We do not write Wikipedia articles based off on 3 newspaper articles of a mildly reported news event.

  d) I`m German... I cannot fail to notice that Wikipedia is heavily US centric (and I get the reason why, and I have no problem with that).

  But can you imagine what would happen, if Wikis started writing Wikipedia articles about SWAT shootings in

  - The Philippines, a country with 6,000 (official) police shootings a year (perhaps even more)? Philipines a cop can just kill anybody and then claim 3 months later: ("oh its ok, he was a drug dealer"). Absolutely no Wikipedia articles.

  - or Brazil, a country with 5,800 police shootings a year?

  - or Venezuela, a country with 5,200 police shootings a year?

  - or India, a country with 3,000 police shootings a year?

  - or El Salvador, a country with 1,200 police shootings a year?

  - or Nigeria, a country with 1,000 police shootings a year?

  - Pakistan, a country with 800 police shootings a year?

  - Can you imagine what would happen, if Wikipedia started writing articles about random trailer park police shootings in Kurgumiyew, in South Bashkortostan?

  e) the entire purpose of Wikipedia is to capture historical, painful, devastating, life-changing, extraordinary, worldstopping, international 50 country newscycle police shootings (which this shooting is clearly not), in an encyclopaedic format.

  Once again... I really dont see this shooting as a "world shaking" event like the Daniel Shaver shooting or the George Floyd lynching... that would need to be chronicled in an Encyclopaedia... It simply isnt. --- Once again Please Delete Professor Guru (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:MILL. I've been on both social media and advocating before government agencies that police training is broken in the United States and many other countries, so broken that police shooting are common place to the point of being mundane. Bearian (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The topic is notable and the article is developed well enough to stand on its own. No issues with POV or sourcing. The NOTNEWS arguments don’t hold much weight. Shawn Teller (talk) 04:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Disregarding the view of Abbasulu who is a blocked sock. Sandstein 07:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Andrew Kishore

List of songs recorded by Andrew Kishore (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:NLIST. Note that WP:NOTDATABASE applies. Few, if any, tracks pass WP:NMUSIC. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Lists, and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 11:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the listing is nowhere an "indiscriminate collection of information". Could only be relevant if WP decided that no list of recorded songs could have a place here. Similar articles do exist with even poorer sourcing. Otherwise it just needs expansion and proper sourcing, not deletion. Most of the films already have enough references and the songs may be traced upon searching on the web. Abbasulu (talk) 11:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If that's your stance on sourcing then you should at least make draft articles first. One of Wikipedia's main pillars is verifiability and if you're not willing to put in the effort to do it yourself (AND do it well) then you shouldn't be making articles in the first place. You can't just throw a huge list of unreferenced, non-notable songs up and have everyone else do the work for you. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 20:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NLIST, WP:SIGCOV and WP:V as well as WP:DEL14. Indiscriminate list with no effective sources. This is about 14 or 16th list I looked at, and not a single one of the confirms to policy. None of the articles are linked, none have references and none have articles. Its been copied and pasted from discog style sites. scope_creep^Talk 22:33, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems very well sourced. The subject is obviously notable, and there shouldn't be a SIGCOV for each song - this isn't how it works per WP:NLIST, which clearly says that "the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable". Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It is disingenuous to say its well sourced when it NOT well sourced. The consensus which has been established since about 2010 is that every line needs a reference. That is established consensus that is widely accepted. I would accept that consensus today and stop promulgating nonsense like this. scope_creep^Talk 12:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  On my second point, do you have any actual WP:RS sources that show any of these songs or a block of them are notable? scope_creep^Talk 12:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  "The consensus which has been established since about 2010 is that every line needs a reference" - cite it, provide evidence. There are plenty FLs which have one source for all. I've contributed to several FLs where I obviously cited every line, but I'm not sure this is required by policy. When you have such long lists, we should have other considerations. Maybe page splitting is better than not citing every line. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It is crass to create articles that are out of our scope, bordering upon WP:CIR. This is one such. The creating editor has attempted to drive a coach and horses through the rules of WP:N and WP:V. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:58, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Shshshsh: When editors in good standing/WP:AGF tell you the facts about consensus you accept it. Stating stuff like "cite it, provide evidence" when its established consensus is bollocks. You need to really careful here what your saying, because if you keep making these statements, it means you making these statements elsewhere on Wikipedia, which means your damaging Wikipedia and spreading false information to other editors. Eventually they will all be gathered together by somebody, and taken up to WP:ANI and presented as a WP:CIR case. So you need to careful what your saying, because it directly effects other editors. Regarding the article, all those supposed single references in FL article are checked, to prove they cover the information presented per WP:V. This has not been checked. It is just an arbitary list of songs that happen to be included in one film per block. That is the very definition of being non-notable. Nobody looking at list can't tell if any of these songs are notable. That break WP:NPOV and WP:V. It is completely arbitary and break the idea of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. These are not encyclopedia articles. They are trash junk. The references here are schoolboy stuff and indicate WP:CIR issue on its own. scope_creep^Talk 12:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Scope creep: False information is when no evidence is provided. If there is consensus, it must have been achieved somewhere. The burden of evidence is on you and so you are the one who needs to be very careful about what you're saying and about the policies you're citing here, which I find irrelevant. I don't know about you, but I did work on lists which achieved FL status, so I should know what I'm talking about. By asking you to cite evidence, I'm doing exactly what should be done, and I'm not spreading anything, but on the contrary, demanding that correct information be provided. And you saying that my request that you provide evidence is "damaging wikipedia" is exactly the bad faith you're accusing others of acting in. I should remind you that just a few days ago you were warned by me for your violation of WP:NPA on one of the other AfDs, which you rightly apologised for, so your claim about WP:AGF is uncalled for. This WP:ANI threat is amusing to me, but please note it is not acceptable in any way, and I think ANI could be well used against those who try to intimidate editors into not expressing their opinions. Please adopt a more friendly rhetoric when arguing with editors even if they disagree with you. In case you didn't realise this, I disagree with you. Thank you, Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable singer, just needs sourcing and more information. Consider emboldening the songs and putting them in the first column, rather than the films.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  They don't do bolding, much now and it would likely be reverted. scope_creep^Talk 12:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we please discuss the specific notability of this list, rather than having a generic discussion about lists of songs by artists? Obviously some are notable, others are not. The question is whether the discography of this artist is notable; and if so, whether a sourced list can be written. Everything else is out of scope.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 22:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As most of the list is un-sourced, this is another wall of text. No critical discussion about any songs, reviews or charted info, explaining why any of this is important. Delete, even with what's sourced, we don't have enough for an article. Oaktree b (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Poorly sourced, but can be improved. Valiaveetil (talk) 02:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)sockstrike Girth Summit _(blether) 17:07, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• comment The list contains 1,057 songs. There are citations for 47. Only 2 citations support everything on the song row where cited: year, film, song title, that Kishore sang it, composer, songwriter, and co-artist. So 99.8% incompletely supported, and 95.6% entirely unsourced.
• Wikipedia:Verifiability requires that all mainspace content, including lists, be verifiable. The burden lies with the editor who adds material to show that it is verifiable. Abbasulu has had since 17 April 2022 to do so. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as it stands it is simply an indiscriminate list, plus fails WP:VERIFY.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:44, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There's no question that the singer is notable, but that doesn't mean the verifiability policy should be thrown out the window with regard to any list of their works. How can our readers know that this list isn't just made up? The author's other poorly sourced stuff exists argument is unpersuassive, and one to be avoided in these discussions. Shahid's statement that it "seems very well sourced" is divorced from reality. Dr. Blofeld is arguably correct that all the list needs is sources for the 99.8% of it that isn't properly sourced, but we keep content because we know sources exist, not because we hope sources are out there somewhere. Unless and until sources are found, the small amount of sourced material is better dealt with in article Andrew Kishore than in a stand alone list. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Salvio ^giuliano 21:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fagnoni family

Fagnoni family (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 third-party notability despite such claims, no sources to speak of. As a Greek this family 'highly known in Italy and in Greece' (per talk page) is completely unknown to me. Google gives a handful of hit for the name in Greek, of individuals with little notability, and no evidence that they belong to the same family. Constantine ✍ 21:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seems fairly likely that this is the family of the article author; the sole link is to a generic last name, but article previously included a copyvio from what appears to be a buy-a-heraldry site (ai generated at that!), the coat of arms image uploaded by article author seems to come from the aforementioned heraldry site and exists nowhere else; and part of the author's name "Walter.fgn" seems to be an abbreviation of Fagnoni. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 09:24, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Could perhaps have saved myself some time had I bothered to read the talk page where they say "the information is mostly from family books and documents which have been given to me from a family member." ... Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 09:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  im actually not a family mebmber but i have relations with them. They are mostly known in milan, kefalonia and in Athens at the 70s. Because the information is not on the internet if i cant do anything else to prove it you can delete the page. Theodoros.kolokotrones (talk) 07:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  sorry i thought you replied to me. Theodoros.kolokotrones (talk) 07:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Iazyges. starship.paint (exalt) 07:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looking through Google Books I can see that there is a trattoria run by a Fagnoni, and another here. I also find mentions of people with the last name of Fagnoni in a number of books, but nothing substantial and nothing about the family. I tried "famiglia fagnoni", "fagnoni nobile", and "casa fagnoni". If there are better searches please let me know. Lamona (talk) 04:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and specifically WP:NOTWEBHOST. A family that uses our valuable space for its own personal use is stealing our property. How is this any different from a bunch of teenaged boys trespassing and vandalizing a girl scout camp? Bearian (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per improvements made Star Mississippi 02:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Royden Yerkes

Royden Yerkes (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)

Was deprodded without improvement, simply saying that they pass NACADEMIC. However, I'm not seeing how that is. Has been unsourced for years without improvement. While they do get some mentions, can't find the type of in-depth coverage needed to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Christianity. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

.Delete I don't see how they pass WP:NACADEMIC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read his obituary, it states he was one of the most notable authors and scholars in the Episcopal Church, I don't believe that confers that his work was notable in the field of theology. I don't believe it's enough to show a pass of NACADEMIC criteria 1. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Doesn't ACADEMIC part 5 as the head of the theology department make them notable?Oaktree b (talk) 00:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. #C5 is about named chairs given as a sign of distinction for scholarly work. It is not about chairs of departments, an administrative (managerial) role. The only academic criterion that covers administrative work is #C6, and that requires heading an entire university. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. There are enough reviews (eight currently listed) of his book Sacrifice in Greek and Roman Religions and Early Judaism to convince me that the book is notable. But with only one book, there's not enough for WP:AUTHOR. If someone makes an article on the book we could consider redirecting to it. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• weak delete per David Eppstein. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As a theologian, meets NACADEMIC #1 The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources as evidenced by the reviews of Sacrifice and:

• His obituary, which states "Father Yerkes had been one of the most notable authors and scholars is the Episcopal Church, having taught in three seminaries, contributed frequently to various theological journals, and served in many official capacities in the Diocese of Chicago, and the Diocese of Pennsylvania."
• Coverage of a foundation appointment, which states "He is the author of numerous articles and books in theology, and his latest work has just been accepted for publication by Charles Scribners and Sons and will be released this year."

• WP:GNG is met as well. His death was noted in Illinois, Philadelphia and as far away as Texas and California. During his life, his sermons frequently received newspaper coverage across the country: D.C., Alabama, Pennsylvania, Washington (that's a selection but not all of the available newspaper sources).

Jfire (talk) 03:32, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above including newspaper coverage of himself and book reviews so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- That is a significant body of academic work. The book on sacrifice had 8 reviews, including both sides of the Catholic/Protestant divide. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jfire's sources. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Weak keep, agree with the sources found above and the explanations. It's not a slam dunk, but Episcopal theology is a rather narrow field of study to start with. Oaktree b (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of golf courses in Canada#British Columbia. selectively, as noted. Star Mississippi 18:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of golf courses in British Columbia

List of golf courses in British Columbia (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:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG and WP:NLIST. Uses website refs. Only 3 entries have articles. List of brochure advertising articles. scope_creep^Talk 18:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Golf, Lists, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete And List of golf courses in Canada as well. We're not a WP:DIRECTORY of such non-notable businesses and venues. Reywas92^Talk 18:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Only 9 on this list have their own article. Category:Golf clubs and courses in British Columbia They could easily be merged over to List_of_golf_courses_in_Canada#British_Columbia. Any without their own article should be eliminated. Dream Focus 20:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reference on that merge target are WP:PRIMARY as well. There is no merge target. scope_creep^Talk 20:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is a valid navigational list because of all the links to related Wikipedia articles. Dream Focus 21:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of the list entries are articled, except those small few. It is a advertising/promo list with WP:PRIMARY, WP:SPS references. scope_creep^Talk

I mean to say it will be a valid navigational list article because all the links will be to related Wikipedia articles. I said 9 of them have their own articles, so merge these over to the other list, and eliminate non-notable entries from it. Category:Golf clubs and courses in Canada shows just how many articles there are total that can be listed there. Dream Focus 04:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per WP:NOTDIR, most of the entries are non notable. LibStar (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Then remove the non-notable ones. Dream Focus 04:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of golf courses in Canada, merging ONLY blue link articles. Same deal applies to List of golf courses in Ontario and List of golf courses in Saskatchewan. Ajf773 (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 18:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Angus Macdonald (diplomat)

Angus Macdonald (diplomat) (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 created this article, however Wikipedia:Notability (politics) proposes that diplomatic notability should be a person who has "received significant coverage in crafting an international agreement or related to a notable diplomatic event." I consequently no longer believe that there is anything noteworthy about the subject's diplomatic career to necessitate its own article. Uhooep (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the reasoning of the primary author. Cullen328 (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ambassadors are not inherently notable. And this one fails WP:BIO for lack of coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fails WP:NBIO. Cabrils (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to lack of reliable sources. Partofthemachine (talk) 00:04, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 04:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NYC Guru (talk) 02:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD was closed early by a NAC somewhat out of process, but I am "reclosing" this as a WP:SNOW delete. The sole opposer to deletion failed to use any amount of policy to support their argument. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrés Camilo Mosquera Hoyos

Andrés Camilo Mosquera Hoyos (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)

Can't find anything to satisfy WP:SPORTBASIC, noting that the guideline explicitly states that such articles must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. My searches yielded no such coverage. I tried multiple variations of his name but only got significant coverage about other players with a similar name, such as Andrés Mosquera Marmolejo. Best sources I could find were FCF and El Universal, both trivial mentions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Colombia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Angelo (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless someone can provide a reference to a reliable source devoting significant coverage to this person. Cullen328 (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.transfermarkt.nl/andres-mosquera/profil/spieler/665930 Hans Footballscout2023 (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE See Transfermarkt! Hans Footballscout2023 (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

.Delete no GNG, no SIGCOV. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. None can be found in the article and none is presented here. Transfermarkt.nl is an unreliable database source. Alvaldi (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 21:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lacks SIGCOV and fails GNG. Tails Wx 13:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 14:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Totally random player. Was created as an afterthought by a buddy on his team after creating an article about himself. Fails the WP:GNG as there is no WP:SIGCOV. gidonb (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no evidence that the subject is notable Almeida Fernando (talk) 09:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW consensus is clearly against deletion. In a few months maybe we can re-assess the possibility of merging, but it’s impossible to judge for WP:SUSTAINED coverage right now. (non-admin closure) Dronebogus (talk) 11:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TikTok Dabloons

TikTok Dabloons (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 'meme' trended for one month. It has no notably whatsoever. Wikipedia is not KnowYourMeme. Vamanospests (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It does have an article in the TikTok fandom. Deleting this article would be fine. If everything TikTok was on here, there would be thousands of articles. ObeseParrot (talk) 23:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant lasting coverage, just typical nonsense from TikTok where literally anything can become a bizarrely popular trend for 3 seconds. Maybe, maybe merge into TikTok or something, but definitely not article-worthy. Dronebogus (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Internet memes? Seems to be at GNG, but I doubt it needs an article, could be a brief mention in another article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has WP:Three independent sources on it. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 03:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Three sources in exactly one month, with one of them being the “here’s some random Internet crap” site Mashable? Dronebogus (talk) 07:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mashable is not a great source - but it's reference #4. The other three seem totally reliable (NYT, Guardian, Verge). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article cites dedicated coverage in NYT, The Guardian and The Verge. That's enough to meet WP:GNG. I'll also add Fortune, Insider, Polygon, CBC, Standard, The Gamer, The Sun... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  What a world we are living in that “Tiktok Dabloons” [sic] are covered in the got-danged New York Times. Dronebogus (talk) 14:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's common for noteworthy sources to throw together articles about flash-in-the-pan memes these days. Does that mean Wikipedia should become a database of jokes that trend on one social media platform for exactly a month and then die out? Are we really saying that coverage makes this meme that nobody will ever talk about again notable? If this is all it takes for a meme to get a dedicated page then guidelines for notability need to be updated. Online publications chasing clicks with SEO should not be an indicator of notability. Vamanospests (talk) 14:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that we should make the notability guideline for memes much, MUCH stricter. Unless it’s talked about (or in extremely rare cases even used) years later, or breaks some kind of record, it doesn’t need an article. Memes are inherently ephemeral. Tiktok memes even more so because tiktok is meant for people with the attention span of a gnat. Dronebogus (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Some other thoughts: “techie” news sources, even ones deemed reliable like Polygon or the Verge, are not relevant for determining notability on memes because it’s WP:ROUTINE coverage for them. And (this less objective criticism) NYT and Guardian are among the most respected news sources out there but they still run frivolous crap pieces to fill the metaphorical “slow news day”. Case in point. Dronebogus (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Finally, aren’t we (okay, the keep voters) forgetting basic policies like WP:MILL and WP:SUSTAINED in the rush to turn this into a sourcing popularity contest (“it’s got 500 variably reliable sources from one week in November!”) Dronebogus (talk) 23:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of Internet phenomena#Other phenomena. Leaving aside the elitist nonsense about “kids these days” and “memes can’t be notable” above, it is clear that this topic does not pass WP:SUSTAINED, as the coverage is only from a period of a single month. However, the level of sourcing present, including Newspapers of record like the New York Times, clearly showcases that this information is worthy of being preserved. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Keep - Subject meets WP:GNG, but per WP:NOTNEWS we should expect sustained coverage for an otherwise routine subject like a meme. However, because there's not much opportunity to demonstrate that sustained coverage (I wouldn't expect "retrospective" cultural coverage until at least a year later), I'd hate to delete this now. That said, I'm a little leery of the merge target; List of Internet phenomena has very few entries that don't have standalone pages. But I think that's what I would recommend anyway, unless a better merge target presents itself. Suriname0 (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving this discussion another round in light of a merger suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2023)} 14:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of Internet phenomena#Other phenomena. A clear failure of WP:SUSTAINED despite its widespread coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:41, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  1+ support for that, since it’s obvious there’s no consensus to delete and I wasn’t particularly sure where to merge in my original comment Dronebogus (talk) 09:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes GNG, it's covered by an array of reliable sources as shown by Piotrus.★Trekker (talk) 11:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes GNG, SUSTAINED complaints aren't relevant when sources are substantially in the last few months--really, that's a reverse-CRYSTAL complaint to presume it won't be notable in the future. Memes, I'm afraid, do have a ridiculous shelf life among all the un-cool people. The Most Interesting Man in the World is from 2006, and I still see it occasionally. Jclemens (talk) 04:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG😎🙃 14:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I still think SUSTAINED applies, it's going on three months now since this happened, if nothing has shown up in the last month, I think it's been forgotten about. Quick Google search shows the last hit of any kind was in December 2022. It's had three months to be talked about, and hasn't been in the last two months. This isn't the Dancing Baby or All Your Base memes that are still talked about 20 yrs later. Could be merged to the memes of the 2020s or something. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The New York Times assigned two reporters who wrote a 14 paragraph article. Other reliable sources gave the fad significant coverage. Cullen328 (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: With no prejudice towards a future AFD. My reading of WP:SUSTAINED is that while sustained coverage can be evidence of notability, a lack of sustained coverage is not necessarily evidence against notability. So close to the trend itself I don't know that I'm comfortable applying it, but I'm seeing articles from as recently as January 2023 in my search so I think it's a moot point anyway. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 23:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per ThadeusOfNazereth. The WP:SUSTAINED question is up for debate. But for now it's better to assume that this can be improved as the coverage continues. If a year passes and this turns out to be a footnote, then an AFD or merge discussion can address the right way to cover this. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:41, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Available sourcing, including the NYT!, means that this clears WP:GNG. As usual, topics like this can always be reassessed for merging within a a couple of years with the benefit of hindsight. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 08:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Rlendog (talk)

Hoverlay

Hoverlay (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)

Semi-advertorialized article about a company, not properly sourced as passing our notability criteria for companies. As always, companies are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH on their sourceability -- but this is referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, with the exception of a single brief glancing namecheck of its existence in a very short CBS news story that isn't about it. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to be the subject of a lot more media coverage than just one news blurb. Bearcat (talk) 12:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 12:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with nom, sources in the article are mostly from the company itself and talking about some "art exhibits" they've set up with VR. This is what I find in most sources, the company has an app that's used to make xyz virtual reality thing on the waterfront or wherever. No coverage in depth about the company. Delete unless we can find articles talking about the company. Oaktree b (talk) 14:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I can't edit at the moment, but I intend on adding more sources from external news article mentioning Hoverlay, some include CBS, NBC, IT World Canada, and boston.com. Sola1ree (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  https://www.boston.com/culture/lifestyle/2019/05/16/augmented-reality-art-exhibit-greenway/

  https://www.12news.com/video/news/local/valley/art-and-augmented-reality-make-the-perfect-combination-in-scottsdale/75-8a120cf0-e84b-4f0f-9e4c-692fca4144ab

  https://www.itworldcanada.com/blog/disruption-nonprofits-should-embrace-it/443508

  https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/augmented-reality-rose-kennedy-greenway-art-project-conservancy-sheila-novak/ Sola1ree (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I have many more, and you can find some at https://www.hoverlay.com/newsroom/ Sola1ree (talk) 20:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe I've fixed the "advertising" speech, feel free to make changes if some of the language seems inappropriate. Sola1ree (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I find mentions of the product by this company but nothing that would support the un-referenced statements in this article. Also note that user Sola1ree has been blocked as an assumed COI. They are an evidenced SPA. Lamona (talk) 05:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP guidelines apply which requires references that discuss the topic (ie the *company*) in detail. WP:SIRS tells us that *each* reference must meet all the criteria for establishing notability - at least two deep or significant sources containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. References cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. If it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND. Also, quantity of "coverage" isn't relevant - a million "mentions" or single-sentence descriptions does not meet the criteria, nor can multiple sources be combined. We just need two good quality independent sources that discusses the topic company in detail.

In this case, we don't have that. Most of the references are either primary sources from the company website, or mentions-in-passing when talking about one of the company's projects. Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:54, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of important publications in concurrent, parallel, and distributed computing

List of important publications in concurrent, parallel, and distributed computing (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 4-item short and abandoned list has been tagged since 2015 with a warning that "the list presents item after item without objective published support, including selection of articles from the primary literature unsupported by source establishing their importance (thus constituting WP:OR)". I concur with that assessment, what we have here is an unnecessary ORishly named split from List of important publications in computer science. Concepts of "concurrent, parallel, and distributed computing" are related but there is no reason to group them together for purposes of such a list, which fails WP:LISTN in its narrow and ORish scope (we also don't even have an article on concurrent, parallel, and distributed computing). I'll also note that the article's structure suggests it's related to Dijkstra Prize - well, we have an article about that prize, and it can certainly list works that won it - we don't need a, hmmm, list of some works that won Dijkstra Prize and some works that some editors think should have won it (the current list is composed of four entries, two of which won that prize). Why didn't the creator include other winners, for example? This is pure, and unfinished, OR. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Whoever created this monstrosity didn't bother to define "important". All the article states is "Some reasons why a particular publication might be regarded as important:". Also delete the other "List of important publications in xxx" linked in the "Important publications in science" template; from a random sampling, they all appear to be equally unsupported by sources. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Clarityfiend, all of whose comments I'd endorse. This really isn't how to construct an encyclopedia. Not a notable collection. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete per nom and everyone else. Having important in a list article's title clearly represents a point of view. Hard to believe this has been an article for over a decade. Ajf773 (talk) 10:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ajf773 And we have ~10 similar lists to deal with, just seartch for "list of important publications"...geology is discussed a bit below already. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 18:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keyssa

Keyssa (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)

Semi-advertorialized article about a company, not properly referenced as passing our inclusion criteria for companies. As always, companies are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH on their sourceability -- but this is referenced almost entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, with very little evidence of any GNG-building coverage about it in reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 12:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 12:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete all I see are PR links, there's one Reuters story about an Apple exec joining the company. Nothing beyond that for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your feedback. I have removed the PR sources. Kmr719 (talk) 01:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It is odd that this has become an article more than a year after the company's assets were transferred to Molex, to which Keyssa's former website also transfers, but that could perhaps be a WP:ATD target? There is also some information about a legal case at Essential Phone but that does not seem notable in itself. AllyD (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The nature of the semiconductor industry is consolidation of important technologies into larger companies - there are very few small companies left, but the importance of the acquired companies lives on as these companies have built the technology base of the large semiconductor companies that remain todayhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiconductor_consolidation Kmr719 (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for comment, more notable sources will be proposed shortly Kmr719 (talk) 01:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Salvio ^giuliano 17:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alfa Kappa Pi

Alfa Kappa Pi (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 indication of notability or existence, very, very little in search results. Prior Angelfire (oof) link to "official" website is dead, no results when combined with Universidad Central del Este. Best I could find was a mention in some LinkedIn. Does not meet WP:GNG. Kazamzam (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. Kazamzam (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dominican Republic-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The article is unreferenced and my WP:BEFORE could not find sufficient sources demonstrating WP:NORG being met. VickKiang (talk) 07:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Torres (American Politician)

Daniel Torres (American Politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a smalltown municipal councillor, not properly referenced as passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, city or town councillors are not all "inherently" notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- the key to making a person at this level of political office notable enough for inclusion is to write a substantial article about his political significance (specific things he did, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects he had on the development of the community, etc.), referenced to a depth and range of coverage that suggests a credible reason to treat him as a special case of significantly greater notability than the norm for town councillors.
But that's not what's here: this is essentially "he exists, so here's a bit of biographical trivia that has no bearing on notability at all", and it's referenced to just two pieces of run of the mill local coverage in the local media where local coverage of local town councillors is merely expected and his paid-inclusion wedding notice in the nearby big-city paper, which is nowhere near enough coverage. Bearcat (talk) 11:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and New York. Bearcat (talk) 11:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I agree with the nom. I was planning to AfD this myself on the same basis. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Local politician fails WP:NPOL. Novemberjazz 03:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I have not found anything that allows Torres to pass WP:NPOL. I think the author has had enough chances in this articles various incarnations to demonstrate notability and has not done so.--Mpen320 (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Never heard of him. NYC Guru (talk) 07:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Completely fails WP:NPOL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:37, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mateos Cake

Mateos Cake (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)

Despite the article being lengthy and containing 10 references, none of them contain any significant coverage and so there is no evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. My searches found nothing and I tried "Mateo Cake" as an alternative too. Source analysis to follow. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Source analysis - fails WP:GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://int.soccerway.com/players/mateos-cake/292980/			Soccerway is a database site so does not add to WP:SPORTBASIC	✘ No
http://www.panorama.com.al/sport/baby-tirana-afrohen-6-te-rinj-tek-ekipi-i-gallos-nentori-nje-malore-per-bardheblute/			Mentioned once	✘ No
http://www.panorama.com.al/sport/kategoria-superiore-nisen-ndeshjet-e-javes-se-11-te/			Match report. Mentioned as making his debut and scoring a goal. Also mentioned in a quote but nothing else.	✘ No
https://int.soccerway.com/matches/2014/09/27/albania/league-1/ks-sopoti-librazhd/ks-butrinti-sarande/1701967/			See #1	✘ No
https://int.soccerway.com/matches/2014/11/08/albania/league-1/ks-sopoti-librazhd/ks-pogradeci/1702021/			See #1	✘ No
https://int.soccerway.com/national/albania/league-1/20142015/regular-season/group-b/g7135/			See #1	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20180318120258/http://sportal.al/nga-sopoti-ne-superiore/			Mentioned twice	✘ No
https://int.soccerway.com/matches/2016/02/20/albania/league-1/ks-shkumbini-peqin/ks-turbina-cerrik/2138938/			See #1	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20170129030033/http://sportal.al/lamellari-prapaktheu-vjen-edhe-cake/			Mentioned twice	✘ No
https://sportekspres.com/turbina-mbyll-merkaton-me-8-fishekzjarre-ne-cerrik-ndihen-super/			Mentioned once	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete, Agree with the source assessment table; all I find are articles about cake the food. Oaktree b (talk) 14:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Angelo (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 21:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 02:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Salvio ^giuliano 17:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sikh Attack on Nader Shah

Sikh Attack on Nader Shah (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)

Looks like a WP:POVFORK. Minor event which fails WP:NOTABLE being portrayed as some sort of battle. The creator of this article used a variety of non-WP:RS ("sikhwiki") and WP:RS which didn't even support the info in this article. Hari Ram Gupta, for example, calls this event "Sikhs rob Nadir's rear," page 54

As seen in Gupta's book and other sources, a lot of stuff happened during Nader Shah's invasion of India, that doesn't mean we should have an article of all it. HistoryofIran (talk) 11:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Sikhism, Iran, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I had information from sikhiwiki added before but the person who reviewed it removed that information but forgot to remove the citation. Ronnie Macroni (talk) 12:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry what? --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  nevermind that but well for the strengths and casualties it is written in the panth prakash and twarikh guru khalsa book about that but I do think 250k troops is exageratted and is most likely around 50-100k. These books are really reliable and are one of the most astonishing books about sikhism. There is a youtuber also who has the name of twarikh guru khalsa. He stated the strengths and some more information and I got some of my information from there. Ronnie Macroni (talk) 20:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you suggest me how to make it better as this was my 2nd proper article made. Ronnie Macroni (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, but I really doubt these random books are reliable when you have been using non-reliable stuff such as "sikhwiki", sources that dont even mention the event, sources that mention the event but say something else (Hari Ram Gupta) and even start mentioning Youtubers. If you want to improve it, please see WP:RS and WP:SPS for starters. But as I said, this seems like a minor event, not even being a battle and thus not warranting an article. Though you can always prove me wrong. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  ok ill look at it thanks for understanding Ronnie Macroni (talk) 01:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (or redirect) as an unnecessary fork. We have an article on Nader Shah's invasion of India. An account of this battle based on reliable sources should be added there. Srnec (talk) 15:27, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:POVFORK. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:01, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - Only one reference. This article fails to prove this attack ever happened. Valiaveetil (talk) 06:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC) (Sock strike — DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete'. Another fake like Outnumbered Sikh battles. Only Jatt Sikh writers like cooking up macho claims like 10,000 Sikhs defeating 250,000 Afghans and Iranians. No real historian gives credence to this. 27.111.75.167 (talk) 08:02, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand this article isnt good but why are you talking about my other article? I didn't add this battle their and I understand that this article was poorly edited nut Outnumbered Sikh battles is 100% real and why are you referencing it here? Ronnie Macroni (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Partly per the IP above (I was just at Outnumbered Sikh battles and had to rewrite the lead, it is bad) and per nom, and also searching for "Sikh Attack on Nader Shah" only pulls up stuff peripherally related to Sikhs or Nader Shah and forks and mirrors and bizarre Sikh propaganda outlets talking about this "battle". Also, an admitted "skirmish" is a war? Heavy Water (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  thank you Ronnie Macroni (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  also i found the strengths by a sikh youtuber who takes information from the book panth prakash and twarikh guru khalsa. I asked him but he never replied :( Ronnie Macroni (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karuchola Vijay Kumar

Karuchola Vijay Kumar (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)

Completing as per request of IP editor Fails WP:NPOL, bouncing back and forth to draft. Needs an AFD. I note that the sources used seem to be about someone called 'Maddula Radha Krishna' so we might be looking at a hoax here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, India, and Andhra Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: A poorly-sourced article moved to mainspace after 2 AfC rejections of Draft:Karuchola Vijay Kumar. The article text describes a political party functionary with no clear claim to notability: even if verifiable from sources that were actually about this person, I don't see that the subject's party role(s) would be adequate for WP:NPOL. AllyD (talk) 13:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nothing in English indicates notability. There may be sources in Telugu that would prompt me to reconsider. Mccapra (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:NPOL. Twinkle1990 (talk) 08:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per all editors said above. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 17:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paulo Bessa

Paulo Bessa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The Portuguese footballer of this name played 4 times in the second tier of Portugal then disappeared. A Portuguese search as well as other searches yielded nothing of note. I did find a few articles about the Brazilian footballer of this name - see Soccerway, Portal Cambé and Globo but he seems barely notable either. Certainly for the Portuguese footballer, I could find nothing towards WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG despite the brief pro career. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:44, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Angelo (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 21:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 14:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

João Beirão

João Beirão (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)

Given a reasonably lengthy semi-pro career on Soccerway, I thought that there would be some chance of finding something on him but, alas, I failed to find anything decent. Searches, including a Portuguese search, yielded plenty about Luaty Beirão, an Angolan rapper, but next to nothing about this footballer. The only source that wasn't a database site that I could find was Record, which is a transfer rumour. On its own, not enough for WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG, which require multiple sources. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Angelo (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 21:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 14:37, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Virginia Tech. Salvio ^giuliano 17:02, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fralin Futures

Fralin Futures (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)

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. Cannot find any in-depth coverage for these scholarships. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Virginia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Redirect to Virginia Tech. I don't see any coverage about this otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 15:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a scholarship initiated in 2019 at Virginia Western Community College. There are sources in local newspapers (this and this), but I do not believe that this rises to any level of notability. Something could be added to the VWCC page, but that would be only a sentence or two. What I do find interesting is that the benefactor here, Horace G. Fralin, has made significant donations to hospitals and museums, but has no WP article. If there is notability, I would think it would for Fralin. Lamona (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Salvio ^giuliano 16:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Windust

Cameron Windust (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)

Neither of the two references demonstrate significant coverage per WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. Would have passed WP:NFOOTBALL prior to 2022 but that and WP:FPL are no longer relevant so articles must contain significant coverage. Best sources found in WP:BEFORE were The Inner Sanctum, I'm not sure if this is WP:RS or not and he is only mentioned twice in passing, Football NSW, which mentions him in passing as a goalscorer, and The Football Sack, which mentions him once, saying that he made his debut. None of the above sources contain any detailed coverage of Windust. An Australian search only yielded the usual database sites which are not acceptable for SPORTBASIC. Perhaps draft space can be considered if there is a super high chance of future notability? I would have moved this over myself but the article is over a year old so cannot be moved over except as a result of an AfD. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete this. This spiderone bloke is an absolute twat who for whatever reason has something against the A-League or the Central Coast Mariners.

The Central Coast Mariners compete in a professional football league, the top tier in Australia. They are notable. Anyone who plays for them are notable.

He made some reference to moving it to draft space depending on the “likelihood” of him becoming “notable” in the future. I’d say he’s notable now since he’s a regular player in the top tier of Australian football, but even if that isn’t “notable” enough, he’s an academy graduate from the Mariners who is continuing to build his professional career, so I’d say that’s pretty likely.

But in general, this is a joke and spiderone’s targeting of A-League players is a joke and completely against what Wikipedia is supposed to be, an encyclopaedia of knowledge on everything, including football.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt jobe watson (talk • contribs) 11:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a joke. We're questioning the notability of the article. Please sign your comments. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Being an academy graduate and playing in the A-League has no relevance whatsoever for GNG or SPORTBASIC. Also, contrary to your comment, Wikipedia does not exist to have an article on absolutely everything. See WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:50, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Notability for inclusion of athletes articles on Wikipedia is coverage based, not participation based, so there is no inherit notability from playing in the A-League, or any other league for that matter. Alvaldi (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

.Delete per Alvadi. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me - surprised there's nothing out there given he has multiple apps in Australia's top league. GiantSnowman 21:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Can I at least have the formatting for this page for when he inevitably pops up in some news article somewhere, or did you just go ahead and delete my work on him without saving that so I have to do it all over again? Cheers...

  At the very least should've moved it to draftspace given it's ineligible he will be "notable" in time. Matt jobe watson (talk) 13:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanical Plastics Corp.

Mechanical Plastics Corp. (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)

Seems to fail GNG - The only actual coverage cited in article (and referenced in the previous AfD from 2014) are two NYT articles, one of which just has a quote from the company's chairman and the other is about a product developed by the company, not the company itself. All other sources are about products, catalog listings, or very brief passing references. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 02:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 02:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - References fail WP:ORGCRIT. I found some book references for likely trademark claims and a few mentions in Newspapers.com, but nothing that adds up to significant coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm unable to locate sufficient sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G11) by Jimfbleak. Non-admin closure. --MuZemike 12:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Butlermations

Butlermations (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)

Neither Butlermations nor Liam Butler come close to meeting Wikipedia’s notability criteria. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 08:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Not notable. Contains no reliable sources ("Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." - WP:N) and the author also seems to have an undisclosed relationship with the subject of the article in question. EnIRtpf09b^{chat with me} 08:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Companies, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Numbered highways in Lake County, Ohio

Numbered highways in Lake County, Ohio (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)

Also: List of numbered highways in Meigs County, Ohio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Per past discussions Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highways in Atascosa County, Texas and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of routes in Jefferson County, West Virginia - better handled in categories. There are former designations also noted here but they can be mentioned in pages like List of former state routes in Ohio (1–49). Also no text setting up what this is. Rschen7754 07:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Ohio. Rschen7754 07:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per thee aforementioned precedents. Imzadi 1979 → 08:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both precedent for these types of list has clearly been met, in favour of deletion. Ajf773 (talk) 09:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both - Categories and lists in the county article along with the former route lists better handle the need. Dough4872 11:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Roads may be listed in transportation by county articles but counties and municipalities are not important enough units for stand-alone articles on the roads that run through them. gidonb (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Relevant information about transportation in the county is better discussed in prose with appropriate context at Lake County, Ohio#Transportation, and the individual routes are better categorized via Category:Transportation in Lake County, Ohio. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to De Waard. However, if editors feel that Ward#See also would be better, that is fine. Star Mississippi 18:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Waard

Waard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a disambig page Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The footballer Raymond de Waard was misplaced: I've changed it to include a "See also" link to "De Waard", the surname held by a lot more people than him. Looking at nl.wiki's page nl:Waard suggests that the two geographic names are worth including in a dab page, not just partial title matches, so it is a valid disambiguation page. PamD 09:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grote Hollandse Waard is not called simply Ward, same is the second one. Hence it is not a disambg page at all. We do not disambiguate phrases or long names that contain the word. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See my contribution at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Netherlands#Waard dab page is at AfD. Erik Wannee (talk) 08:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Ward#See also, since this seems like an easy opportunity for a homophonic error. BD2412 T 17:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, if any, must be to De Waard surname. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 23:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are two different redirect targets proposed (along with a Keep and Delete).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to De Waard. per above.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 16:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Midnights. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎🙃 06:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Reader (song)

Dear Reader (song) (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)

Note: This is not for literal "deletion" but also for other viable options such as "merge", "redirect", etc. Whereas the other Midnights tracks by Taylor Swift satisfy notability requirements (i.e. covered in third-party sources, appearing on charts--a lot of them, and getting certifications), this track does not stand out in terms of notability. The existing material is not enough to guarantee a standalone article. Ippantekina (talk) 06:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ippantekina (talk) 06:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Midnights: What reliable coverage is on the page is all about the album generally, and the only material specifically about this song is from unreliable sources such as Genius and Tunebat. Unless more reliable coverage specific to this song is found, I don't see a notability pass. The charting alone shouldn't be worth much given other songs from the album had even broader, more impressive chart runs, meaning it doesn't really stand out for that reason. QuietHere (talk) 12:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Midnights per WP:NSONGS when the only trustworthy publications that give this song more than a brief mention are album reviews or pieces that focus on a whole set of its bonus tracks. Chart peaks are irrelevant here. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Midnights as per arguments above. ℛonherry☘ 16:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Midnights. Fails WP:NSONG per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Midnights per all previous points. Has only gotten brief mentions and basically no coverage on its own. Ss112 10:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Firstly, WP:NSONG states that being "ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. (Note again that this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable.)" The topic has indeed met this criterion (see here). Secondly, the topic has received significant coverage. Although news articles aren't solely about the song, they still provide more than just a passing mention meaning that WP:GNG is met (see insider & indiependent.co.uk). - GA Melbourne (talk) 23:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If all of a song's coverage is in the context of being part of the album, then generally that's the best way to portray it on Wikipedia too. It seems like virtually all sourcing present is just cherry-picked mentions from album coverage. Can you point to coverage that shows independent coverage/notability? Sergecross73 msg me 18:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Too meet GNG, "independent coverage/notability" is not required, rather "significant coverage" is required which "is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." - GA Melbourne (talk) 23:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Right, what I'm talking about is more related to WP:MERGEREASON. Things can meet the GNG and still be merged. (Though the Insider and the Independent is an exceedingly weak case for meeting the GNG too. Hopefully you have more than just that...) Sergecross73 msg me 00:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The current coverage in the Independent and Insider are weak and rather cherry-picked. Also per NSONGS it seems GA Melbourne forgot this bit: "Note again that this (chart positions) indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable." Ippantekina (talk) 03:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  By that logic, you could argue that all songs on Midnights shouldn't have articles (all songs in the standard version do). Every song there is referenced in articles that are about the album, not the song in particular. If that were the case, then basically only singles would have their own articles, which is not how it works. Dontuseurrealname (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Another thing that I forgot to mention is that I actually had a draft that was declined for this same reason. It was a draft for the song "Daddy Issues" by The Neighbourhood, but the only mentions were passively (e. g. referring to the song in conjunction with other songs, or mentioning it without going into depth). Dontuseurrealname (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No, songs like "You're On Your Own, Kid", "Snow on the Beach", "Labyrinth", "Mastermind" have sufficient third-party coverage (i.e. sources that discuss these tracks on their own and not part of album reviews--you can verify this in the articles). Others like "Midnight Rain" or "Vigilante Shit" appear on 10-15 charts, received certifications, and breaking into the top 10 of the Hot 100 is a notable feat. This track "Dear Reader" is a bonus and its chart performance is negligent compared to the rest of the album. What's more, the third-party coverage is not helping in this case. Ippantekina (talk) 04:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per my own comments above. Sergecross73 msg me 12:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:14, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barbados–Spain relations

Barbados–Spain relations (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 could not find significant third party coverage. The article is currently largely based on the Spanish Ministry of Foreign affairs website and the historical relationships section is uncited. LibStar (talk) 03:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Spain, and Barbados. Shellwood (talk) 13:21, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The article is based on the website of the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, when searching for new sources, not much information is found. Franco98silva (talk) 05:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete most of the article is about historical observations of Barbados by Spanish explorers, which isn't really in scope as it doesn't relate to diplomatic relations between the countries. The rest doesn't have much content except to note that the two countries don't even have embassies and it's entirely sourced to publications of the Spanish government, which aren't independent of the subject. This isn't surprising given that Barbados is a small country which isn't anywhere near Spain, the two countries don't have any particular historical/cultural links, and Spain isn't exactly a superpower these days. Hut 8.5 19:11, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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!} 03:52, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Penzance, Arizona

Penzance, Arizona (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)

As the article implies, this is a rail location; an 1898 report states that the railroad operated a quarry here. No sign of a town, though. Mangoe (talk) 03:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually quite a lot of there there, but I can't think of any reason why we should have an article about any of it, let alone this name at those exact coordinates. I assume we already have articles about St Josephs City, the Hopi reservation and the Navaho reservation. The power plant? Geronimo's? Those are all five to ten minutes from there. See previous remarks; based on memory and all the roads and buildings, I actually think it's arguably a settlement. But unless I have a lightbulb moment, I can't think of any reason to argue the point. If I don't come back to this, call my input a very weak delete on the rationale that just because we *could* host an infobox about it doesn't mean that we should.Elinruby (talk)`

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I wasn't able to locate any sources supporting this was ever a populated place. This source calls it a "no-population town". Magnolia677 (talk) 11:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 18:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi Krutzen