Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 27 - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Runbox (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)

Promotional article created and edited almost exclusively by GeirThomasAndersen, an account obviously owned and operated by the company's co-founder and managing director. Poorly sourced – I have not succeeded in finding in-depth coverage in online sources other than run-of-the-mill tech news. With no indication of notability or even significance, the article was speedied a couple of times and it's a bit surprising it's still there. — kashmīrī  21:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Liz 06:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

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

NN ephemeral student newspaper, whose only claim to notability was in activism against the then-BU president in the 1970s. Significant coverage per WP:SIGCOV to the subject does not exist. A redirect has been reverted twice by User:Tinkerready, for whom a WP:COI issue is probable: the editor is a SPA with no edits to Knowledge (XXG) other than this article (into which she put her own name as an alumnus, and is keeping on attempting to do so ]), suddenly putting all this info into the BU article, creating an article on Frank A. Ready -- whose claim to fame is that he was a hotel manager in NYC -- and whose userpage solely contains a link to her personal website. Until these reverts earlier today, the editor had no other edits in nearly six years. Seeking to reaffirm the redirect to Boston University#History of student and faculty activism on campus. Ravenswing 20:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Tinker Ready here. I would like to defend the BU exposure page. Is this where I do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinkerready (talk • contribs) 20:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC) 

OK I currently teach at BU and classes started today. Will work on Knowledge (XXG) guidelines, policies and notability criteria. Give me a few weeks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinkerready (talk • contribs) 20:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Adam Glenn here. I would also like to defend the page. I am a graduate of the school, a former editor of the newspaper in the years following Tinker Ready's tenure, was involved in the Mass. Civil Liberties Union suit and our deposition of then-BU President John Silber. I have made several minor edits to the page in the last year, but have several files of documentation that I could add, and am willing to do additional research to butress the page. My additional bona fides are that I am currently a writer/editor for the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, a veteran news reporter (including with a seven-year-stint as a senior producer at ABC News) and a long-time journalism educator at City University of New York, Columbia University and New York University. Thanks for allowing additional edits to support verification and continuation of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.116.31 (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

For the article to be kept, you would need to show that it has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Your files might be useful to add more information to the article, but the article doesn't need more information, what it needs is proof of notability. Was the BU exposure ever covered by a mainstream newspaper, for example? The article cites to a newspaper article about a court case, which is a start, but we would need to see coverage of the BU exposure itself. Do you have anything like that? Mlb96 (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
And that being said, excuse me, Mr. Glenn: has Tinker Ready contacted you to try to get people to block deletion? Ravenswing 21:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Ravenswing (and please forgive any lack of fluency in using this discussion page) - I don't actually know Tinker (possibly met her once decades ago) and was not contacted by her, no, but just stumbled across this deletion discussion last week when visiting the bu exposure page. I've long been trying to find the time to suggest updates to it (beginning in Feb '21), mostly as a way to learn how to better contribute to the Knowledge (XXG) community. I'm a novice on that front, for sure, so will look for guidance from you, Tinker and others to how I may be of help. But I do feel that this hidden chapter of student press history has real value for other student (and professional) journalists and others interested in academic freedoms. Thanks much, be well, Adam

Hi Adam, thanks for jumping in here. There was a lot of national coverage of the sale of admissions story in '79. I've posted a few scans, but I now have better access to better quality via BU archives. TR — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinkerready (talk • contribs) 15:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 21:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete: It's a significant bit of history to the world of First Amendment rights, freedom of speech, student journalism, student activism and to B.U., and if that were the basis for the decision, I'd vote to keep. But it does not meet Knowledge (XXG)'s standards for notability. Somebody needs to write a book or there needs to be significant coverage elsewhere about it. If someone can find significant coverage about the newspaper back in the 1970s, that might save it. Reluctantly, SchreiberBike | ⌨  22:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Some sourcing of the era, though it's less about the paper itself and more about the stories it broke: Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

What is a newspaper but the stories it breaks? Tinker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:19D:380:7180:3445:81C4:9B3F:E706 (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

As I said a week back, the purpose of these discussions is whether the subject of an article meets the various criteria governing notability, not generic philosophy; that the purpose of a newspaper may be to write stories is undoubted, but that has nothing to do with whether an ephemeral newspaper with next to no reliable, independent, third parties giving it significant coverage qualifies for a Knowledge (XXG) article. I once again invite you to review those criteria. Ravenswing 21:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was WP:G5 per Knowledge (XXG):Sockpuppet investigations/Asaidmanar. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Salah Eddine Saadouni (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)

A lot of cross-wiki spam and sockpuppetry around this person since April 2021. Recreated again today by a supposedly new account. Clearly fails WP:CREATIVE having never been involved in a notable piece of work. No significant coverage of Saadouni himself either so fails WP:GNG. Source analysis to follow. Spiderone 19:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://peopleai.com/fame/identities/salah-eddine-saadouni No No No evidence of fact checking No Lacks coverage and the claim that he is worth $304,000,000,000 is absurd to the extreme ✘ No
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=HrTYCRYAAAAJ&hl=fr No No No Profile page ✘ No
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14457020/ No No See WP:IMDB No Passing mention ✘ No
https://mediafrontbox.blogspot.com/2021/10/the-best-12-salah-eddine-saadouni.html No No Blogspot likely created by subject himself No ✘ No
https://music.amazon.com/artists/B09JS8GJFD/salah-eddine-saadouni No No No Amazon listing is not significant ✘ No
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm12468107/ No No WP:IMDB No User generated profile page ✘ 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}}.
Spiderone 19:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with no significant mention in reliable sources. The refs used appear to be WP:PRIMARY sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  • If the article is deleted, it can become a disambiguation page, one of the potential targets can be Timely Comics which seems it may possibly be notable (though it is shaky right now). There does not seem to be anything to merge however, that is not minutia. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I can't find anything RS on a cursory search, but given the profile of Marvel and the age of the oldest setting, I'm reasonably sure there exists RS coverage somewhere. So, while I suspect it should be kept, I can't fault the nominator for an inadequate BEFORE; this appears to be a topic name with a lot of false positives. Jclemens (talk) 02:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Comment "I'm reasonably sure there exists RS coverage somewhere " Not necessarily. Vol 1 lasted 8 years, but it seems to have published one-shot stories and had little lasting impact. Even dedicated Marvel websites feature little information about it. Vol II lasted 30 years, but it was a reprint title and there is little to say about it beyond that. Volume 3 lasted 2 years, and was also a reprint title. Dimadick (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak delete unless good sources are found (in which case please ping me so I can reconsider my vote). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I've changed my votes to weak delete. The article has been improved, but I still don't see any assertion of significance. Sources appear to confirm that this publication (or three) existed, but do we have a single sentence saying why we should care? Did anyone call even a single one of them important or such to the history of comics? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
@Piotrus: An issue from the first series was displayed (with others) in the US Senate as an example of a horror comic cover. The second series contained one of Steve Ditko's earliest published works with Marvel (may be the first, but it was published with the same cover date as other Ditko work). Both claims have been added to the article with citations. I'm not sure either of these claims rise to your standard of being "important" in the history of comics. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Merge the first section, on the title from Atlas Comics, to ‘’Marvel Mystery Comics’’ — that comic was titled ‘’Marvel Tales’’ for part of its run and there’s no need to treat it separately, though a dab page entry should point there. No opinion yet for the other two sections; like others above I suspect there are sources for them, but I think they should be separate articles if they survive. Just because the title is the same is no reason they should be in the same article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
    Keep. Mtminchi08 has added enough sourcing to make it clear that there can be an article about one or more of these comics. I think there's no reason to keep all three comics on a single page, but that's not an issue for AfD. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
    Marvel Mystery Comics is also of the same dubious standalone notability, and is probably also headed for AfD. And Timely Comics already contains and explains the information, which suggests having this page isn't necessary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
    Well, if you’re going to AfD it then we can figure that out then, but if the Atlas Comics part of this article is found to be notable it should go in that article which would automatically mean that article is notable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep I have added four print citations to the article - three books and one journal. Mtminchi08 (talk) 04:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
    Is there evidence that the print sources are WP:SIGCOV and not trivial mentions? I was unable to see a real preview of the first book on Google Books, but it doesn't seem like there is a massive amount devoted to it. One sentence mentions are not significant whether they be in a book or a piece of news. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
    The Back Issue! articles have the greater amount of detail. The books cited are to verify the article's content, something which had needed improvement per your statement above that "The refs used appear to be WP:PRIMARY sources."
    Even more citations have now been added. The stories reprinted in the early 1980s issues were "revised" which resulted in a bit of controversy at the time. I have found additional sources for this and expanded the paragraph accordingly.
    As for the addition of the Nick Caputo quotes, I generally avoid reading, let alone citing to blogs. However, per WP:SELFPUBLISH "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Nick Caputo has had his comics history published in magazines and books related to the comics field. If the Caputo quotes are a problem, I will remove them.
    And ... now I think I'm done. This article had only five citations as of January 27, 2022 and four of those were to the Grand Comics Database. There are now an additional 13 citations to support the article including ones which show Marvel's willingness to retroactively alter the contents of one of its foundational works (the Stan Lee/ Steve Ditko-era Spider-Man).Mtminchi08 (talk) 03:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep per reliable sources added by Mtminchi08. BOZ (talk) 04:47, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep With publication history and some societal discussions about that series of magazines being based on secondary sources now, I think it is ok with regard to notability now. Daranios (talk) 11:30, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Orchestra Software (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. Lacks WP:RS/WP:RSP, WP:SIGCOV. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Jennifer Krum (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 subject won a beauty contest for amputees sponsored by Howard Stern and subsequently appeared on the Playboy website. I found one article about her in the gossip section of the New York Daily News and no other indication of WP:NMODEL or WP:GNG notability. Cheers, gnu57 17:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Albert Robin (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)

Mr. Robin was a local businessman who donated money to philanthropic causes. The only source we have is an obituary from the Chicago Tribune. One obituary does not seem to be enough. I search for additional sources and was only able to find another death notice from the family and that was about it. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Liz 06:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Tom Thorp Award (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 like a minor and not important award. Bbarmadillo (talk) 17:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I would also be satisfied with this outcome. Etzedek24 17:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't think an award given to a high school athlete in a single county even warrants a redirect. IMO we really ought to be discouraging articles about local high school football awards. As the article is now, it has only one sentence about the award (saying next to nothing), and the balance of the article is a brief synopsis of Thorp's life. We get enough grief as it is from anti-sports editors, and we need to police these articles diligently. Cbl62 (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Gurvinder Singh Chhabra (Vicky) (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)

Notability for politician is in question. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Recently deleted for the same reason as PROD tagged by Curbon7. DMySon (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Liz 06:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

MSI Computer Camps (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 PRODded on the grounds that "Schools aren't A7 so assuming school-sponsored camp isn't. Nothing to indicate notability and a BEFORE indentifies only listings for the camp. Not mentioned in University article, so a redirect isn't helpful". Per Ddragonsdd it's not sponsored by the university. However there's still no evidence that they're notable regardless of who sponsors them so we're here. Star Mississippi 16:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  • I believe this is notable because the MSI Computer Camps are the main topic of two of the articles linked (https://web.archive.org/web/20120229223932/http://www.uregina.ca/news/newsreleases.php?release=330 and https://www.uregina.ca/science/cs/) as well as a news station interview. These are reliable and independent sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddragonsdd (talk • contribs) 16:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
    Press releases from the University where the camp is held do not meet independent requirements for notability, unfortunately. Star Mississippi 17:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete- It appears that covid cancelled or delayed the program out as the last registration occurred in 2019. The SPA who wrote the article declined the PROD, so no big deal there but I cannot find much mention of the program and any lasting notability. The decline on the PROD was basically: this exists and is not part of the University of Regina. The references are very poor, with the second and archived reference saying: A summer camp alternative exists..., which sticks out like a sore thumb to me. Notability is not established as we don't keep WP:ENN content for everything that exists. Some minor mentions that the program exists but nothing about them. Doesn't meet the notability standards: WP:GNG, and I guess WP:NONPROFIT and WP:BRANCH as it is not directly funded by U of R, but is mentioned by them. Jip Orlando (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • It seems like a strange precedent to set to cite COVID cancelled 2 years of operation in an over 20 year operating history. The camp has been physically located at multiple locations over it's history including ISM Canada, a local high school, and multiple faculties at the University of Regina. The University does not hold the MSI Computer Camps and has no influence upon the organization that does run them. You will also notice that there is a local news organization's interview of a camp organizer now linked to the article. Do what you must, I would just like to state that notability should not need to meet a specific scale which seems to be the primary complaint about this page. Ddragonsdd (talk) 18:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
    Hi! You should definitely read WP:ORG and reliable sources as I do not believe you understand what is required for WIkipedia notability, unfortunately. Local news interviews are generally not considered secondary sources. Star Mississippi 18:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
    That comment just feels petty, but you are right, I probably don't. As I said above, do what you must. Ddragonsdd (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
    I apologize, it's not meant to be petty. It's a simple fact that there are requirements to be included and it does not appear the camp meets them. That's OK, many things don't meet the criteria. Labeling it as stub does not change the requirements. We'll agree to disagree and see how what other folks think. Star Mississippi 20:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
    I have marked this as a stub. Using some of Star Mississippi's articles as a reference, it has become apparent that stubs are not held to the same rigorous standards, so stub may be more appropriate for this page. Ddragonsdd (talk) 19:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
    @Ddragonsdd: I have undone that stubbing: that is not the way to protect a 12-year-old article from deletion, just a way to waste the time of stub-sorters. As has been said above "Labeling it as stub does not change the requirements." You appear to be an editor with very little experience (this article being the only one you have edited), so please read and note advice you are given. PamD 07:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's not notable, as far as I can see. Come up with a convincing argument otherwise and I'll happily change my stance. Chumpih 19:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. But the article is in a dire state. Geschichte (talk) 15:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Minami Hinata (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)

Japanese voice actor at the start of her career who doesn't meet the requirements of WP:ENTERTAINER. A case of WP:TOOSOON. John B123 (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

That leaves the five print sources. Right off the bat we can eliminate the fifth source, as it contains the word 対談 ("dialogue, conversation, interview") in the title. So in addition to that one online source, there are four print sources which may or may not contain significant coverage; we have no way of knowing one way or the other unless someone can track down a copy of the sources.
Finally, as for WP:NACTOR, she plays the leading role in Ranking of Kings and a major role in She Professed Herself Pupil of the Wise Man. I've never heard of either of these, but apparently they're semi-popular; certainly not household names, at the very least. The jawiki page also lists her as having roles in Yo-kai Watch and Crayon Shin-chan which are definitely household names, but considering the dearth of coverage regarding these roles (jawiki doesn't even source them), I assume they're extremely minor.
In light of everything, and considering the difficulty of finding sources in a foreign language, I will give the benefit of the doubt and !vote to keep. Mlb96 (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. North America 16:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

1972–73 Paris Saint-Germain F.C. season (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)

Club was not in a professional league, per Knowledge (XXG):NSEASONS. Sakiv (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

C.W. Jick Myers (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)

Survived PROD, so we're here. The source is the only non wiki mirror I can find, and the position it confirms provides no inherent notability. Star Mississippi 15:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect to Chesterton, Indiana#Education. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Fairhaven Baptist Academy (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 is an unsourced article (for close to 6 years now) about a private K-12 school in Indiana. It exists, that's about it. The school doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG at all as I'm not able to locate any significant coverage of the school, outside the mention of snow closures. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

*Delete all I could find about this were some trivial name drops in school directories. They are also mentioned in the article about teachers having guns, but by itself the reference isn't enough to show the school is notable. Really even if it was combined with other references it probably wouldn't be. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure I have no problem with that as an alternative. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Fine by me. Jip Orlando (talk) 14:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. I'm fine with that. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you all for supporting a redirect as an alternative to deletion! Cunard (talk) 06:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Liz 05:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Poraha Crystal (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 character from Sing 2, can be dealt with over at that article or s usual List of characters of ... article, definitely not notable to have a separate article. AryKun (talk) 12:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. It's obviously snowing. No need to draw this out and waste editors' time. Randykitty (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

List of video game franchises with baseball bats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Absolutely nonsensical list, it would make as much sense to have a list of books that mention water or list of movies that show a car. While maybe a list of video games about baseball might be defensible (although questionable), this is completely useless. AryKun (talk) 12:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete - completely non-notable and nonsensical cross-section of traits. I have no idea why it would be of interest to read or even write such an article. Sergecross73 msg me 13:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete: The list's definition makes it two unrelated lists combined: a list of games using baseball bats as weapons, and a list of games using baseball bats to play baseball (or something similar). That means it's useless both to a hypothetical reader who is interested in misappropriation of sports items for violence, and a hypothetical reader interested in games about baseball. And both of these hypothetical readers will probably do better to use Google anyway. Elemimele (talk) 13:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete It is very surprising that this got approved through AfC by User:AssumeGoodWraith given that it is a textbook indiscriminate list without any sourcing whatsoever, it casts doubt on their reviewing ability if they seriously thought that was a good idea. Suffice it to say that even if it was sourced and fully expanded, it would remain too trivial to merit a list (or category, for that matter), just as a hypothetical list of games containing chainsaws or water guns would be. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete Gotta be honest, didn't review this thoroughly enough. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 14:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete I had to do a double take to make sure I wasn't imagining the article existed. This should be a SNOW delete. Spf121188 (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Seriously. Why did I think this was a good idea. Mobius Gerig (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Daktari Ranch (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)

Duplicate of the Daktari Ranch affair article, any notable information can be merged into that article. The article was created relying heavily in self-published sources. See also Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Robert Alonso. NoonIcarus (talk) 12:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:MMABIO notability criteria, he doesn't have any fights in a top tier promotion nor has he been ranked inside the world top 10 of his division by FightMatrix or Sherdog. WP:GNG is also failed, appearing on Bellator's short lived FightMaster isn't nearly enough to be considered significant coverage. ♡RAFAEL♡ 11:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. Modussiccandi (talk) 13:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Yara International School (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)

Previous articles on this topic by the same author have been deleted twice at AfD: in February 2018 and (under a name variant) in March 2021. Given these two prior decisions about notability, it seems appropriate that this newly-created instance be brought to AfD (though I did also consider Draftifying for AfC). Regarding the present instance, it is providing all the information which would be expected to be presented on a school's website: names and roles of teaching and non-teaching staff; curriculum; slogan; and a wall-of-text list of what appears to be every inter-school or external event with which the school has been associated, along with local media coverage of these events. Perhaps such coverage can be regarded as contributing towards WP:GNG but, conversely, participating in inter-school sports days, essay-writing competitions, health awareness weeks, and sponsored walks is utterly mundane and, in my opinion, far from being content appropriate for an encyclopaedia, so I see no reason to overturn the decision of the previous AfDs. AllyD (talk) 08:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@AllyD: Whatever happens here, thanks for your work and vigilance. And if kept, congrats for triggering the improvement. North8000 (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Can we slow this down? (was pinged by the editor) Article (by a newer editor) has a lot of issues but wp:notability is the main question. While not meeting either GNG or SNG slam dunk, it think that it already meets the wiki norm for schools. And this is without the editor even understanding how to establish notability, i.e. find and present the suitable sources. I'm going to advise the editor on this and then we can see if they can shore up GNG sourcing a bit. North8000 (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
I posted at their talk page. North8000 (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
@North8000: There is no "wiki norm for schools". We don't accept circular reasoning here, nor is there an SNG that presumes schools are notable. There is only a clique of editors who repeatedly voice ILIKEIT opinions in these cases. The fact that the article's creator is now hoping to CANVASS on your talk page doesn't help. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
You linked to the wiki norm for schools while telling me that there isn't one.  :-) North8000 (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
IMO, when applicable, geographic places sometimes influences it as well. North8000 (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
I use to really dig the idea of schools having some kind of notability as geographic places depending on the size of the campuses. I gave up on it eventually though, but I can see still where it might have merit in some cases. Especially with university campuses. Except there should be enough in-depth coverage of universities for a standard of notability based on geography to be pointless. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Had you read the link you'd note: "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be added to the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, as it is an accurate statement of the results but promotes circular reasoning." Schools need to meet NORG or GNG. Are you ignoring this consensus view? Chris Troutman (talk) 02:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
You're starting to cross the line here. I agree with what is at the link, and have never said otherwise. What's this "had you read the link?" crap? And with questions which imply I said otherwise like "are you ignoring....?" and others. So you are pretending that I said things that I didn't say, and are ignoring things that I did say.North8000 (talk) 03:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
What really matters here is determining whether or not the school meets the customery level of WP:GNG compliance for schools. Since the editor has no understanding of what GNG means, nobody has attempted that or worked at evaluating that. I'm basically explaining it to them and telling them to look for GNG suitable sources. The we can decide after that attempt is made, or after somebody else makes that attempt.North8000 (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • North8000, I agree that notability is the key issue, but don't understand the mention of this as being an "Article (by a newer editor)", as the creator of this article has been editing here since 2017, and has created 230 articles? AllyD (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
They have only ~2000 edits and in the space of a couple days have shown themselves to be innocently clueless on notability, canvassing and images. To me that's a newbie.North8000 (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
But probably the only thing that matters regarding that was that nobody who has an understanding wp:GNG has a made a check for suitable sources. And I'm trying to get the editor to understand and do that. North8000 (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

*Weak delete or draftify I don't think the article is good enough to warrant being in mainspace at this point since a lot of the references are extremely poor. I'm willing to give the article creator the benefit of the doubt that they can turn it into a semi-workable article at some point though. Since there are references. The article creator just needs to put more time into learning which ones work for notability and which don't. That said, someone could probably argue for keeping it and doing the cleanup in mainspace. I think it would just be better done as a draft where there isn't pressure to work on it or risk it being sent back to AfD again. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment : I have pointed out three references from the article, each from Arab News, Saudi Gazette and specifically PressReader (although its an Arab News article and its printed form can be accessed here) which are completely dedicated to discussing the school. Besides, eight more references of the same kind are included in the article whose very headlines contain the school's name. Kindly have a look ! (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8) Derivator2017 (talk) 08:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Here, I got another Arab News article, written by its deputy managing editor Siraj Wahab that categorizes Yara International School as "Among the most popular CBSE-affiliated schools" in Saudi Arabia. Derivator2017 (talk) 12:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep or, alternatively, draftify in user space for improvement I think the 2-3 of the 4 references that the editor just noted from the 70 references in the article are GNG suitable, to the customary extent. Article needs a lot of work. Not just in the usual "building" sense, but in that ocean of factoids that need wikifying. I'm on the fence on whether that should be done in user/draft space or in article space. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
    I think that can be done in the article space itself. A lot of my articles were trimmed, concised and wikified by veteran editors who thought the information wasn't fit for encyclopedic content. Derivator2017 (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
    It looks like you've made significant improvements in that respect North8000 (talk) 14:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
    @North8000: Thanks a lot. Although I am still trying to "wikify" it. Perhaps It'd be great if you could suggest me something. Derivator2017 (talk) 09:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
    That's a topic that is pretty big and not directly relevant here. I'll make one note here and that would be happy to respond to further questions at the article talk page. You've already started on this area but the current "Relocation to ad-Dirah neighborhood" section is just an immense amount of factoids. Try to break it up into more sections and with more "summary" type material / statements from the 3-4 sources that you specifically noted in this AFD. North8000 (talk) 13:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Adamant1: Thanks a lot for your remarks. I am still trying to work on it. Please feel free to suggest me anything. Derivator2017 (talk) 10:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Martyrdom in Sikhism. Tone 13:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

List of Sikh Martyred (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)

Topic already covered at Martyrdom in Sikhism, the current page is an unnecessary fork with no references. AryKun (talk) 10:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator in response to significant page improvement efforts and demonstrated notability. (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Guido Henkel (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)

Lots of red flags for a WP:SELFPROMO article. Littered with puffed up accomplishments and suspiciously specific and unsourced biographic details---an editor named "Guidoman" pops in often to announce new developments in Mr. Henkel's life. In terms of sourcing, it's a mix of self-published/primary sources, secondary sources confirming the existence of products he's worked on with only minimal (if any) mentions of him, and unverifiable dead links. I do not think they amount to significant coverage. The relevant guideline is WP:CREATIVE. Out of the four possible criteria, he could only possibly qualify under #3, "played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work". He has a lot of credits over a long career, that's not in doubt, but I don't see any sources that establish him as a central figure in the creation of those works. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Hm. WP:AUTHOR => "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."
In the works list that Axem Titanium left I see eight notable games he worked on, at least three more are notable but don't have an article in en:WP yet (but in de:WP, with good sources), and with just one Google search I found sources for two of the games Axem Titanium deleted from the list.
What's this AfD about? Quality issues? That's the way to deal with quality issues? Weird. Kind regards, Grueslayer 11:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I am not contesting that the subject is credited on notable games. I am asserting that his contributions do not constitute the "major role" that WP:CREATIVE requires. One can have a minor role in creating as many games as you like but so long as those roles are minor, they do not confer notability. To the extent that sources refer to him in the context of game development, it is not in his capacity as a creative. Obviously, this AFD is about deleting an article on (what I believe is) a non-notable subject, otherwise I would have used one of many alternatives to deletion. Your insinuation otherwise is frankly uncalled for. Axem Titanium (talk) 12:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I beg you pardon? That actually made me curious and I gave the games list a quick look (Mobygames only...) to see if he played a minor role somewhere. That is indeed the case, for Jagged Alliance he "only" did the music, and The Oath should be deleted from the list (only credited for the manual). But otherwise? Producer or designer. What could be more major? Kind regards, Grueslayer 12:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, one of many designers or programmers who worked on these games. Usually the director or lead designer is the one we label the "major role". Video game producer is not principally a creative role---it's more like a product manager who manages and allocates resources on a project. Axem Titanium (talk) 12:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I find it appalling that such obviously biased comments as "it is not in his capacity", "puffed up accomplishments", "suspiciously specific" and "pops in often to announce new developments in Mr. Henkel's life" were used in this supposedly-neutral discussion about the deletion of a Knowledge (XXG) article. I do not doubt that user Guidoman is the subject himself (causing a COI), but one should remain neutral and polite in discussing any person or article. Merely because one edits one's own Knowledge (XXG) article does not make the topic of an article less important. Putting someone down (in such a condescending manner as noted above) is not a way to intelligently and neutrally review an article. The article could certainly use a re-write and better sourcing, but I see no puffery anywhere. I simply see a lot of facts put into sentences. There is no flaunting or bragging of any irrational or embellished accomplishments (the word "puffery" is far too often used on Knowledge (XXG) to degrade a topic in review). I believe that if this article is to reviewed, it should be on the basis of lack of proper sourcing. There are better ways to deal with articles lacking proper sourcing than deleting them.
Things of Note:
  • There are 98 results matched for the exact term "Guido Henkel" on the Internet Archive's printed text archive (mostly video game magazines), spanning from 1988 to 2021. Upon quick glance, one article from Computer Gaming World precisely states "Guido Henkel, designer of the Realms of Arkania series", while another in Next Generation lists him as the director of Planescape: Torment (contradicting Axem Titanium's comment about "not being in his capacity" and not holding "principally creative roles"). These archival entries should all be reviewed and taken into consideration as proper sources before the article can be determined for deletion.
  • First of all, half the hits in this search are false positives to a 19th century Count "Guido Henkel von Donnersmarck", so those are obviously not relevant. Our Guido is a designer of Realms of Arkania, more accurately one of several programmers on various entries in the series. The Next Generation result is actually from an advertisement that parodies a movie poster. It's not actually reporting from the magazine. In fact, no one is credited as director for Planescape Torment and Guido is credited as one of two producers. Chris Avellone, as writer and lead designer, is widely considered by reliable sources to be the main creative force behind Planescape. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Henkel is mentioned several times over the years in articles of notable newspaper. It appears that he was interviewed (though not in length) or quoted a number of times with regards to his website DVDreviews.com between 1999 and 2002. Have a quick look on Newspapers.com.
  • I don't have a subscription to Newspapers.com so I can't actually see the results here. If you do, please share. Importantly, it would need to be significant coverage of DVDreviews.com itself that establishes notability of the website, not merely reprinting reviews from the website. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Looking up "Guido Henkel" (in quotes) in Google and Google News also reveals a large number of interviews and feature articles published on both notable and reliable online sources. I do not think that "non-notable" applies given these results.
  • There are also reliable sources that confirm that he was a guest speaker at major conventions like Game Developers Conference and Fangoria's Weekend of Horrors. It is not within the aim of these conferences to invite non-notable guest speakers, as their goal is to attract the largest possible audience. These simply need better sourcing.
--OrangeZestAir (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't know where you got the impression that AFD is a place for neutrality. Editors obviously come here arguing for a position either for or against deletion. WP:NPOV is a policy that applies to article content, not discussions. COI editing does not automatically make the subject less important but it does mean that any claim to notability made in the offending text must be scrutinized to a greater degree than it otherwise would with the presumption that it has been puffed up. I responded to your bullet points above in-line. Also, buddy, did you log into the wrong account? Axem Titanium (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


Keep. Artist is prolific at the very least in the video game industry since the 1980s. As pointed out above, the subject has been featured and interviewed in many reliable and notable sources. Here are my own findings. All signs point to a keep.

  • 5-page interview with Atari Magazin (1988) about his company and the development of Hellowoon and Ooze Link
  • 2-page interview with Aktueller Software Markt Magazine (1988) about his work in the game design industry Link
  • interview with Power Play Magazine (1991) about his work at Attic Link
  • 2-page feature in Aktueller Software Markt Magazine (1992) about him and his company Attic Link
  • 3-page interview in PC Joker Magazine (1992) about his development of video games and his company Attic Link
  • 2-page feature article in Power Play Magazine (1992) about him and the video games he developed Link
  • feature article in PC Games (1993) covering his career and company Attic Link
  • 2-page feature in Aktueller Software Markt Magazine (1994) about him and his video game developing company Attic Link
  • 2-page feature in Amiga Joker Magazine (1995) about him and his company Attic Link
  • 7-page interview with Power Play Magazine (1996) covering his contributions as a video game designer and developer, his company Attic and his musical career Link
  • feature article in PC Player (1998) Link
  • 2-page interview with GameWeek Magazine (1999) Link
  • 3-page interview with Joystick Magazine (1999) covering his many contributions to the gaming world since the 1980s Link
  • interview with PC Player (1999) Link
  • 2-page feature in PC Joker Magazine (1999) covering his contribution to the development of Planscape: Torment Link
  • interview with PC Games (1999) Link
  • a feature with Chicago Tribune (1999) about his new company DVDReview.com and Easter eggs on DVDs (Henkel's name is mentioned 14 times). Link
  • interview with IGN (2001) about several of his companies and video game development Link
  • listed in the official Game Developers Conference pamphlet/event program as a guest speaker (2004) Link
  • interview with Atari Legend (2006) covering his many contributions in early video game designs and the companies he was part of Link
  • 3-page interview with PC Games (2007) Link
  • 5-page interview with DSA-Game (2007) about his work in the video game industry Link
  • interivew with Die Nordland Trilogie (2007) about his early days in the video game industry Link
  • interview with Geeks of Doom (2011) that discusses many of his author and video game contributions Link
  • interview with RPG Codex (2012) focusing on his contributions to Reals of Arkania Link
  • interview with The Nerd Cave (2013) covering Realms of Arkania: Blade of Destiny and Neverwinter Nights and more Link
  • interview with Rock Paper Shotgun (2013) covering his contributions to Realms Of Arkania, Planescape: Torment and Deathfire: Ruins Of Nethermore Link
  • interview with SlimGamer (2013) covering his development of Deatfhire: Ruins of Nethermore Link
  • 2-part interview with Ink-Wrapped (2014) covering his contributions as an author Link Link
  • interview with Licht Spielplatz (2014) about his development of Spirit of Adventure and more Link
  • interview with Videospiel Geschichten (2017) covering his work at Attic and Thalion Link
  • interview with Elektro Spieler (2019) covering a vast number of topics including his contributions in the video game industry Link
  • a feature article on Gamers Global (2019) about some of his contribution to the video game industry Link

--Fallingintospring (talk) 00:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep, mostly per Fallingintospring's exhaustive source listing. I was actually considering nominating this for deletion myself as well, and it looks like I missed a lot of sources because they were German language. IMO, they seem to easily clear the notability hurdle. That said -- Axem isn't wrong here, this article is WP:SELFPROMO to its core in its current state, but it should be aggressively cleaned up instead of deleted. It seems large parts of the article were edited by the subject himself (User:Guidoman) which means all of it obviously needs to be reviewed strenuously. Nomader (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I would support WP:TNT on the basis that there's really nothing salvageable about the current article. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Hmm... lemme see what I can do here. Nomader (talk) 05:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
        • I strongly disagree with WP:TNT; I see it as User:Axem Titanium's last attempt at getting his way. I could fix up the page in no time with the sources that I found. In fact, any one of us here could have done so in just about the same time it took to have this debate! Let's be productive!--Fallingintospring (talk) 06:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
          • I think that's what Axem's implying here, that we should improve the article by starting it over. I've already started a userdraft here so I can take my time and be meticulous about improving it, and I'm trying to cut down on a lot of the fluff language that's there and get to the nitty gritty of the bio here. The only issue I'm going to have is that I obviously don't speak German, so if you'd be willing to pitch in with help on sourcing some of the things once I've taken a pass at a rewrite, would love your help here. Nomader (talk) 06:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
            • @Nomader: Sure man, I'd be happy to help you out! I just didn't want everything deleted because there's a good amount of information on there now that would serve as a good starting point. I was under the impression that TNT meant going through with the deletion, then someone having to re-submit a brand new page. That's not the case? You'll be working on this new draft over the current article?--Fallingintospring (talk) 06:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
              • @Fallingintospring: Yeah, exactly! That's definitely not the case-- I've seen Axem work before and he's not here to just blow random articles up for nothing (and neither am I). I'm going to move pretty quickly (I tend to do a bunch all at once) and try to fix whatever I'm able to either translate myself using Google Translate (which obviously isn't perfect) and English-language sources, and I'm going to leave statements in for now that I can't find sources for, but I imagine there have to be sources for somewhere in that pile of German language interviews and profiles you dropped on this AfD. My goal is to have something that's at least a bit better (and makes it clear to us where we need to improve it) by the time I'm going to bed tonight, so we can discuss it on the talk page with editors openly... but it's easier to sometimes write a draft on the side so you aren't destroying what's currently there, if that makes any sense. Nomader (talk) 06:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep I forgot to officially vote before; my reasoning is listed above, although a cheap attempt was made to discredit my findings and to slander me and my past edits... I really don't see how that's relevant nor helpful to this deletion review. Let's stick to the topic at hand shall we? @Grueslayer: are you voting on this? --OrangeZestAir (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep Thanks for the ping; as this AfD is a waste of time I don't follow it. Per my arguments above. Kind regards, Grueslayer 20:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean up (source, de-peacock) appropriately using the sources here. Chicago Tribune piece is a great find. Jclemens (talk) 06:56, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment I've just uploaded a new version of the page -- and only used a few sources in doing so. Basically just heavily cleaned up what was already there, and then added a few sources in before I passed out. @Axem Titanium:, I think you're good to withdraw this nom now if you're good with the cleanup efforts I've tried to make here (still a lot of "citation neededs" in there, so would get it if you aren't). Nomader (talk) 07:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 15:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

SpringML, Inc. (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)

Nomination per reasons in WP:SERIESA. This is a highly promotional article about a fairly minor company about which most sources are PR; can't find much to satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. This is the author's only contribution to Knowledge (XXG) thus far. FalconK (talk) 10:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Hi FalconK FalconK (talk), I am glad you are helping me in my journey of creating the company page and making it more reliable. For the reason - WP:SERIESA, my team & I have tried our best to remove all the links that direct to SpringML’s website. SpringML continues to contribute to the IT and cloud industry, understanding the solutions written on the page are mentioned in a single line and may be found very brief. We are working on elaborating the text by (date) so as for readers to understand the solutions provided in-depth which could resolve the problem WP:ORGDEPTH and for WP:ORGIND I am willing to change the tonality of the content and make it less promotional and more informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiauthor37 (talk • contribs) 09:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

It's not that, though I appreciate it. It's that the company, in business though it is, doesn't appear to have done anything that might merit significant 3rd party coverage in reliable sources. Check WP:CORPDEPTH again. If the purpose of the article is to allow readers to understand the solutions provided by the company (it's not your own company, I hope?), well, that'd be advertising. FalconK (talk) 10:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

     Hi, @FormalDude and @FalkonK, the links that are insufficient to provide trustworthiness have been removed. My team and I do not own the company, we are here to mark its achievements and contribute to public knowledge. SpringML since 2017 has come up with solutions that have helped many governments in the US adapt and implement the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiauthor37 (talk • contribs) 04:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Stephen Luttrell (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 Luttrell meets either WP:PROF or WP:GNG. h-index of 18 is pretty low, and there's nothing else I can find to indicate warranting an article. PianoDan (talk) 05:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's have some more input here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 09:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete - While Luttrell has done interesting work in an area of pre-deep-learning AI that continues to be interesting now, the content we have on him isn't good, there's no SIGCOV, and there aren't prospects to flesh the article out to something worth having. I plan to add a pointer to his work to our article Helmholtz machine but the case for a stand-alone bio is too weak. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. He appears to be working more in machine learning than in physics. This is a very high-citation area and Luttrell's citation record doesn't stand out. With no other evidence of notability, it's not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There is a majority of "Keep" comments here but a significant amount of them are WP:ITSNOTABLE (or worse). Rather than re-list this again it may be better to revisit it in the future. Black Kite (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Does not meet WP:EVENT ie. does not have lasting major consequences, affected a major geographical scope, or has received significant non-routine coverage over a period of time. This wikiarticle has been created way too soon, as news is still breaking about this, it may be appropriate to draftify this article to see what develops. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:ATA#CRYSTAL Pilaz (talk) 12:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Unsorced and about a recent death, so currently elugible for BLPPROD. PamD 06:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. The "article" as it stood at the time it was tagged could almost have been WP:SPEEDY and definitely WP:PROD. However I found it from a Google search for her name, and the event has been in national (I am not in the same state) news for a number of days before her body was found. I would have set about adding to it myself, but WWGB has beaten me (thank you) to the initially confirmed facts, anyway. --Scott Davis 09:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm pretty new to Knowledge (XXG) and felt that a topic like this deserved a wiki article, and started one in the hopes that it could later be expanded. Coolabahapple has a good point that the article was made too soon, and I think draftifying (which I assume means deleting) is probably the best cause of action until more develops. Medalpager (talk) 09:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Draftify means move it to draft space, ie, no longer published, so that you and others can keep working on it as appropriate. Aoziwe (talk) 12:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
oh ok, good to know. Medalpager (talk) 09:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Apart from the initial surge is it going anywhere? There will no doubt be some more on occasions of court appearances, but that in all likelihood will be very routine. Aoziwe (talk) 06:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
WP:EVERYONEELSE. Pilaz (talk) 12:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Not sure how an article being added to a list makes the subject of the article notable? Normally an article's subject is notable regardless of any list existing, and before it is added to a list? Aoziwe (talk) 05:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
WP:EVERYONEELSE. Pilaz (talk) 12:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Scott Davis. I think it just needs a bit more sustainment and something to indicate it is more than a passing news event (of course a sad and tragic one). I think that when it was first created it was a case of WP:TOOSOON. There was, however, encyclopaedic content, with potential for more, so I thought the work should be kept rather than deleted, hence draftify, so that it could be added too easily and republished. The cause of death, while certainly important, only added nine words to the article, so the article is not showing signs dramatically increasing. It might be getting there, and if this AfD gets relisted, it may well be a keep after then, but potential notability is not notability. It is a fine grey line now. Aoziwe (talk) 09:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 09:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:ITSNOTABLE. Pilaz (talk) 12:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus does not lean in the delete direction, issues with content can be fixed through editing. Tone 13:04, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

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

OK, here we have a weird case, in which part of the US government seems to have misled another part into creating a phantom town. The historical Harmon, as far as I can tell, was nothing more than a siding which may have been used for car storage in the early 1970s and which disappeared shortly thereafter; the earliest topos I could find show a few scattered buildings, but they don't show up in aerials at all and the pattern looks more like a farm than anything else. At any rate, in 1997, log after everything else was gone, a development was started up by the road, and in 2005 the county dug out a lake and a rec area across the road. A few years later, another development of estate homes sprung up north of the lake. So along came the census, and for whatever reason decided some or all of this needed to be recorded as a census designated place, and they called it "Harmon". I couldn't find a name for either of these developments, but it's hard to imagine that either was called just "Harmon"; someone with access to the Bismarck Tribune might be able to look at old real estate sections and find out. Regardless of that, there's just no connection to the old rail spot. We have almost never found notability in a subdivision, and while CDPs are typically taken as notable, it's because usually they do represent the Census's attempt to put boundaries on unincorporated towns and even cities in order to give them a population count, not because it represents some legal recognition; it's the places themselves that are notable. Two subdivisions outside Bismarck are not notable. Mangoe (talk) 01:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

And while I'm at it: before someone says, "but it is an unincorporated community", well, so is the subdivision I grew up in, and heck, the Episcopal parish I attend is, from someone's perspective, an "incorporated community". It's not good enough to say it's a community. Mangoe (talk) 01:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete I have looked and looked, and here's what I've got. There is a place called Harmon Lake in the nearby town of Mandan, North Dakota that seems to be very close to the place identified as Harmon, which could be another source of the name or the name of the lake could come from the siding. Furthermore, according to the Morton County Planning & Zoning Commission there is an approved planned subdivision known as Harmon Village in Morton County, approximately where Harmon is located per its coordinates on the wikipedia page. Having said that, I think that it's possible that due to GNIS calling this location Harmon and it coming onto google maps likely caused the subdivision to gain this name. It is important to note there are already houses in this place though, so if they refer to themselves as being from Harmon that + CDP could push it over the line. Also, for what it's worth, there is an article that mentions a plane crash happening near Harmon, but that does not really mean anything and likely is from it being on google maps as Harmon. TartarTorte 02:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. "Harmon Lake Recreation Area". www.mortonnd.org. Retrieved 12 January 2022.
  2. "The Morton County Planning & Zoning Commission Agenda for September 27, 2018" (PDF). Retrieved 12 January 2022.
  3. Griffith, Michelle. "Feds release probable cause of North Dakota plane crash that killed 3". The Dickinson Press. Retrieved 12 January 2022.
  4. Emerson, Blair. "Air ambulance 'broke up in-flight,' NTSB preliminary report says |". www.fccnn.com. Bismark Tribune. Retrieved 12 January 2022.
  • Keep This is a bit of an odd situation. I looked through the Bismarck Tribune's archives, and there isn't a whole lot specifically about the community of Harmon. There was a train crash near Harmon in 1951; the contemporary article calls Harmon a village, and a 2006 article about the only victim's son describes it as "scattered rural homes on small acreages near where the little town of Harmon once was". There are also lots of articles about the development of Harmon Lake Recreation Area, to the point where I think it would pass GNG in its own right, but the lake is a different topic and none of those articles described Harmon Lake as a community of any sort. That brings us back to the CDP designation. I'm not sure why the Census Bureau chose to designate Harmon as a CDP specifically - even within North Dakota, I'm pretty sure there are larger and more cohesive communities that still aren't recognized by the census - but since they did, it means there's now a lot of demographic and geographic data about Harmon which can be used to develop an article. I think that the coverage provided by the census, combined with the newspaper evidence that the Census Bureau didn't make up this place out of whole cloth, amounts to notability, but I agree that this one's borderline and rests heavily on the CDP designation. (There's also Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/King Arthur Park, Montana as precedent, which seemed to conclude that CDP status counted as legal recognition for a place that was unambiguously a modern subdivision, but since that AfD was two years ago and predates some of the changes in our consensus on the notability of populated places, it only holds so much weight.) TheCatalyst31 03:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
As I said above, I've always been unhappy with the idea that CDPs are by nature notable. For one thing, early on there were a bunch of combined CDPs where for whatever reason they took two towns and lumped them into one CDP. Apparently that turned out to be a bad idea, because in every case I've come across they more recently split them up. We've had articles on some of these combined CDPs, but we shouldn't, as the two parts are as a rule notable in themselves, and currently are represented each by its own CDP. Then there are other cases similar to this one, where it isn't clear why one development gets a CDP and another does not. As far as the newspaper references, permit me to direct you to this news item, headlined "Silver Spring man killed in Laurel crash". In fact the location of the accident could be better described as Scaggsville, and the spot is some four miles from the Laurel city limits down MD 216. But apparently since Scaggsville addresses are in a Laurel zip code, the reporter just got it wrong. It's also unclear whether the victim actually was from Silver Spring proper: there are a host of CDPs representing what were once distinct towns until the suburbs all grew together, all of which have "Silver Spring" addresses. That's why I don't put a lot of weight to these passing references used to locate places or events in news stories. If it's actually a story about the town, that's one thing, but the point of a story about an accident is to tell you about the event, not to describe the local geography. Mangoe (talk) 04:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This is not about a combined or hyphenated CDP, which has been noted elsewhere is of the type that no longer exists and so doesn't really pertain to this discussion. It is not really Knowledge (XXG)'s place to divine why one place is CDP another not, that is up to Census Bureau. Djflem (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep A fairly settled precedent and aspect of the gazetteer function of Knowledge (XXG) has been to consistently maintain articles on all American CDPS, which makes Knowledge (XXG) better and more complete as an encyclopedia, rather than willy-nilly in it's coverage.Djflem (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - Neutral on whether this should be kept or not, but there is no such thing as a "A fairly settled precedent and aspect of the gazetteer function of Knowledge (XXG) has been to consistently maintain articles on all American CDPS". There isn't even an agreed "gazetteer function" of Knowledge (XXG). FOARP (talk) 10:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's enough additional information besides the mere designation in a list. or map. DGG ( talk ) 18:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm of the opinion that being recognized as a CDP counts for legal recognition. ~EDDY ~ 15:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. Liz 05:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Martini Ranch (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)

Requesting that this be merged perhaps with Bill Paxtons page. I have tried to find ways to support that this page meets Knowledge (XXG) general notability guidelines for musical groups, but the more I try the more I am swayed in the other direction.

1) I have been unable to source information on Martini Ranch aside from their sole album on sites like Discogs, Allmusic. The second album listed does not appear to be Martini Ranch per se so I think fails Knowledge (XXG):Notability_(music) criteria 5. 2) Unable to source any song on the album or the album itself (Holy Cow) on any music chart from any country, criteria 2. 3) The link to the official website under external links does not appear to be relevant to this band. It appears to be in chinese, does not translate under google translate, and appears to be some sort of advertising site, but I am not certain of this. 4) I scoured billboard magazine issues between July 15th 1988 and December 1988 and found only 1 semi-substantial reference to martini ranch, noting only that the song Reach from Holy Cow was under heavy rotation on Night Tracks, a 14 hour per week broadcast show, for 1 week. page 54 (pdf page 70). The only other mention of Martini Ranch is page 46 (pdf page 68) where there is a brief mention of Martini Ranch being in an interview segment for The Beat Goes On. Uncertain whether this is video, audio, or print. 5) I can't find that it necessarily satisfies any of the other notability guidelines.

Please keep in mind that I simply wish to open discussion - for and against the notability (sourced of course). If reliable sources can be found to support it then I am not against keeping it. On my end however I have come short of this, and so am proposing deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckorr2003 (talk • contribs) 16:37, January 19, 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment This discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and not transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion on the article itself at this time. @Ckorr2003: If you wish to nominate other articles for deletion in the future, please take care to fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. --Finngall 16:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 09:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Happy to restore to draft space if desired. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 00:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

FDA Special Protocol Assessment (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:PRIMARY, seems to be a non-notable division. Originally proposed by User:TenPoundHammer. PROD was objected to at last moment. Rockstone 00:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 09:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Big o list (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 clear scope or any indication of what the list is about. No refs, and the apparent topic also seems like it is untenable as a Knowledge (XXG) article. AryKun (talk) 08:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AryKun (talk) 08:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 08:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete — No scope what-so-ever to find what the list if about. Might even fall under WP:CSD#A1 – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. Knowledge (XXG) is not a WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Ajf773 (talk) 08:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak delete but a comment: so people know what this list actually is: It relates to Big_O_notation, and is closely related to the table at Time_complexity#Table_of_common_time_complexities. That table is organised as a set of different complexities of time, i.e. if you double the number of samples, and the time taken to process them goes up by a factor of 2, then the algorithm is working in linear time and is classed as O(n), but that table (in big-O notation) has examples of algorithms that work in certain times. This table (here in the AfD) is the other way round: it's a table of algorithms, giving the times (and storage-spaces) in which they work. There might be some value in such a table, but I'm inclined towards delete at the moment, because (1) there are so many algorithms that the table is going to end up truly enormous; (2) the O-notation times of notable algorithms can be described at the algorithm's own article; and (3) because as the table acknowledges, many algorithms can work in various different O-notation times depending on how the data being processed, and on the exact implementation of the algorithm (QuickSort is a good example of this). This makes it difficult to define what data to put in the table. There is no point in tabulating the worst case scenario if the reader doesn't know what the worst case is, whether it's likely to happen, and whether a good implementation will easily avoid it. There is no information in the current table that needs merging to others. A weak delete because the concept is important, and if the table were better explained, with a more rational approach to choosing its algorithms, I can imagine it being Keepable. Elemimele (talk) 13:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Okay, I've done a re-think on what the table actually is, and substantially re-written things. The table is related to data-structures (and the algorithms required to handle them). We already have a disambiguation page of data-structures at List_of_data_structures, but this is not in table form and doesn't give an over-view of how they behave. The table we are considering deleting is a Big_O_notation description of how a handful of data structures behave. The topic is important to computer-science. I'm still with weak delete because the table contains only a handful of data-structures, and a lot of what I wrote struck out above still applies. But I do think (1) the table could be made into something useful if anyone wants to; (2) it could potentially be merged somewhere (Data_structure?? not sure); (3) I personally think it's outrageous to delete something merely because we're not sure what it is! We should try to find out, and then delete it if it isn't encyclopaedia-material. Elemimele (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
If this page is kept, it should me moved to a better title, and it should be linked from the list of data structures. I haven't linked it, and don't intend to populate it, if it's going to be deleted. Elemimele (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
What I am more concerned about it that are there any secondary reliable sources asserting that "Big o list" (not Big O notation) is a topic for scholarly research? Without that, I'm afraid the topic would not be notable, and Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate collection of information. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
On that I have to disagree with you completely, Kavyansh.Singh. Big-O notation is enormously well-known, basic stuff. It has its own WP article that's totally riddled with excellent referencing. It's used in every textbook on algorithms. Not only does it have its own article, but it's extensively used in most of our articles on algorithms (including Quicksort which I keep mentioning). It is as basic to the study of algorithms as the concept of the Volt, the Amp and Ohm's law are to electrical engineering. Delete this article if you don't think it's encyclopaedic, but to delete it because you don't believe that Big O notation is relevant in scholarly research is utterly, utterly wrong. I'm honestly not trying to be rude, but a certain basic understanding of the subject matter is necessary for a meaningful discussion of the article's deletion. Elemimele (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@Elemimele: I am afraid, there is some misunderstanding. I never questioned the notability of Big O notation, because it is notable. In my previous comment, I explicitly asked "are there any secondary reliable sources asserting that "Big o list" (not Big O notation) is a topic for scholarly research?" (emphasis mine in this case). Do other sources have or use that same list we have here? And apologies if I am in any way wrong, I am not an expert in it. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, Kavyansh.Singh, perhaps I wasn't very clear either. My argument is that the use of big-O notation to describe algorithms, including the important class of algorithms that are used to locate records, delete them and insert them, is a fundamental tool in the research of algorithms. So I personally think that big-O notation is inextricably linked with a subject of scholarly research. Really it comes down to whether we need a list of algorithms describing their efficiency. If we want that list, then it will have to use big-O notation, just as a list of the longest rivers uses km or miles. The big question is whether a list of data-structures by efficiency-of-manipulation is encyclopaedia stuff. I've asked at the computer science wikiproject for more input (I hope in a neutral tone, as I honestly don't mind which way this goes). ~This is proving quite a useful discussion, thank you! Elemimele (talk)
I am still bit reluctant to keep it, as I feel that would be an indiscriminate collection of information until that set of notations has been discussed in other sources. I know notability decides whether article would be kept or deleted, but, if we talk about verifiability: would you be able to provide citations to verify entries in the table? Regardless, thanks for the follow-up; I learnt something new today! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete not sure what this is to be honest. Oaktree b (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think this is a mistitled tabulation of bounds for some basic data structures. But regardless, collecting it in this way without any sources appears to be original research, and the scope of what data structures to include is highly unclear. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
    David Eppstein, Kavyansh.Singh, you've both quite reasonably asked for sources. For information, it could be sourced. Of the four data-structures currently in the table, three have exactly the same information in the info-boxes of their own articles, where the information is referenced. I haven't tracked down "queue". But I am inclined to agree with you both that it's not clear what structures should be included, and whether the table is all that useful anyway. Elemimele (talk) 10:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
    I am not asking for sources for the individual facts, but for the idea of tabulating them like this. Who has published lists of data structures and their time bounds, and what data structures do they collect in their published lists? Otherwise what you have is original research by synthesis. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
    @David Eppstein: Yes, such a thing has been done. This is just a blog, so it's not a great reference: but contains a table very similar to the one in this article, just with a lot more data-structures. Here is another: . And here is a third: . There are many other places where the read/search/delete efficiencies of different structures are described successively, which is something reasonable to summarise with a table, e.g. here . That the subject is also found in serious independent secondary sources is also clear, from this Springer publication: whose title is "Efficient Algorithms and Data Structures", and which launches straight into Big-O notation. This is not my professional field, so I can't guarantee to find tables in sources with the respectability of the Springer one, but the fact that I've found three such tables on the first page of a Google search suggests strongly that the concept is not original research or synthesis, but is something that other people are doing on a regular basis. My Google search was for "efficiencies of data structures". Elemimele (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
    Actually I'm now wondering whether the table is in any case doomed, because it is so, so similar to the tables in those sources. It would be impossible for a complete table to be anything different to what ScientistBuilder found at www.bigocheatsheet.com, meaning that (1) it runs the risk of looking like a copyright violation, and (2) we could simply use the bigocheatsheet site (or similar) as an external link in any relevant articles on data-structures. Elemimele (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
    Is there a way to add data sources that are not in bigocheatsheet to create a synthesis and not an outright copyright violation? ScientistBuilder (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. Something like a Category:Data Structures with Linear Time Access et sequentia could be appropriate, but not this. FalconK (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete This could be a canonical example of something that falls under Speedy Deletion Criteria A1. There is insufficient context to identify what it is about, beyond something to do with Big(O) notations... -- Rockstone 01:09, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
    The goal of the Big O list was to provide a helpful reference for Computer Science students studying different data structures. There is a website https://www.bigocheatsheet.com/ that has a list of run times and my goal was to do something similar to that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScientistBuilder (talk • contribs) 17:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
    I realize that some data structures do not have clearly defined big o notation and so a table may not be possible. I also realize that Knowledge (XXG) is not a textbook. ScientistBuilder (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very notable. HelpingWorld (talk) 02:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Merge into Big O notation and/or Analysis of algorithms where it would make an interesting section on practical examples of using Big O notation to convey information.Gusfriend (talk) 05:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted per CSD G11 Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Wizard Pharmacy (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)

In light of the fact that this article was created as a result of undisclosed paid editing (see note by GeneralNotability), I decided to re-review its sources. On second review, I feel that Wizard Pharmacy is WP:Run-of-the-mill and fails WP:NORG. Its sources are most from pharmacy organizations in Australia—AJP, Pharmacy Daily, The Pharmacy Guild of Australia, Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. Otherwise they are puff pieces, repeating press releases—Kalgoorlie Miner, Starlight Fundraisers. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) 08:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Eddie Hall (racing driver) (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)

De-PRODed without explanation. Unable to find significant coverage of the subject of this WP:BLP from independent reliable sources. Article does nothing to establish significance or notability. WP:BEFORE searches only return information about the strongman (who seems to be the primary topic for the article title) or about Edward Ramsden Hall. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 08:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  • That is correct they are the newspaper sources already listed (that and a similar article in the Gazette). I've added more sources relating to his books as there seems to be more details on him in the British Library and on Amazon FactFinderGeneral 14:57, 27 January 2022 (GMT)
  • So far as I can see they are two identical four-sentence-long articles which consist of very little more than "local man has book published" with a brief description of who he is. Even if this were considered more than WP:ROUTINE coverage they would only count as one source and they wouldn't establish him as being notable for more than WP:ONEEVENT. Nothing else seems to be independent of the subject. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • That's fine, you guys have much better knowledge of Knowledge (XXG) policies than me. As an impartial contributor I just think it would be a shame to see a 15 year old wiki article removed based on the individual no longer being viewed as notable enough, hence my position on Keep FactFinderGeneral 09:12, 28 January 2022 (GMT)
  • Thanks, obviously it's up to the administrators to make a decision and it's all good learning for an occasional hobby editor such as myself. As this kind of sets a precedent for me, I'd suggest this similar page should also be considered for deletion https://en.wikipedia.org/Scott_Martin_(racing_driver) as there is even less claim to significance. This has been a good learning experience for me and perhaps I could call on HumanBodyPiloter5 and 5225C for guidance in future? FactFinderGeneral 16:08, 31 January 2022 (GMT)
  • I agree that that article lacks a claim to significance and if it were to be nominated for deletion I would !vote for it. I would also be happy to answer any questions you have at any time. 5225C (talk • contributions) 13:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete – No claim to significance and unable to meet the GNG with the few sources available, which in my opinion are of questionable quality. 5225C (talk • contributions) 04:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. A 4-sentence blurb is not SIGCOV, and if that's the best we can find then he definitely does not meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete - Appears to fail GNG. I wouldn't be surprised if at least some of the article was written by the subject or someone working for them, as he seems to have a very high opinion of himself. From the website description on google of his personal site "...the world famous racing driver" and from which describes some of his extremely minor achievements, followed by "Since then he has gone on to become a legend of the highest order". A7V2 (talk) 23:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep - Eighteen seasons in a notable British karting championship with multiple titles , and legitimate newspaper coverage and bibliography. User:MyanMar2022 09:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Notability is not inherited, and the subject has not received independent coverage. As discussed above (and below), his newspaper appearances are questionably legitimate and certainly not significant. The bibliography doesn't count for anything in a deletion discussion. 5225C (talk • contributions) 13:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete Unlike said above, that karting championship doesn't meet any of the WP:NMOTORSPORT criteria. I've also checked the sources, and 1st one (said as "legitimate newspaper coverage") is just a short blurb of few sentences (meaning not WP:SIGCOV), and the rest are coming either from unreliable sources, or are listings of his books and events. My searches brought up nothing for him or his books. Bibliography means little unless there are reviews of the said book in reliable sources in order to meet WP:NAUTHOR, which there aren't. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The Hunger Games#Setting. ✗plicit 14:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Fictional world of The Hunger Games (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 weakly-sourced plot summary with no attempt whatsoever to establish real-world notability. I see evidence that there may be academic analysis of the setting, but that would require a rewrite almost from scratch. How would I judge this from Google Scholar results? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Consensus delete, as already covered in the other article. A redirect at this point is probably not the best option. Tone 13:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

February 2021 Gijet massacre (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)

Event does not pass WP:NEVENT or WP:GNG, primarily because the event as a massacre cannot be verified with any reliable sources. This article is dubiously sourced. Current version has 9 references: Annys/Atlas is WP:SELFPUB, Tasha is trivia, Reuters is the only one of consequence, and the remaining 6 (World radio, Euronews, CBC, Guardian, France24, Tibebu) don't mention the incident at all and are WP:COATRACK.

The only good citation (Reuters) covers the discovery by satellite imagery of 500+ buildings which had been set on fire and destroyed (not by shelling/bombing). It doesn't mention anyone killed. The number "195" was inserted by a now-blocked editor using as a source the 'Atlas' (Annys) document which only mentions it as a single line item in an appendix of a document self-published on ResearchGate. This event doesn't need to be a standalone article (fails WP:NEVENT), and the relevant content and citation are already included in the Timeline of the Tigray War series.

This article was part of a group of 106 almost-identical articles created by a now-blocked sockpuppet and were the subject of a prior AfD which was closed as "procedural keep" because 106 articles were too many bundled together for other editors to be able to effectively evaluate them in a single AfD. (43 of the original 106 have since been deleted, and another 28 turned into redirects.) Platonk (talk) 07:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Peterkingiron: There are already such articles as you suggest (see this navbar). The problem with these 106 'massacre' articles is that they were sourced by the editor's own self-published off-Knowledge (XXG) documents. He also invented these massacre titles; they are not used by the general media. If the media had been using the term that matches this article title, then I would have performed a blank-and-redirect rather than AfD. Prior to nominating any (or several) of these 106 articles for deletion, I will have already checked and updated Timeline of the Tigray War and Casualties of the Tigray War, which is where the information should have gone in the first place, not a standalone article. If there are no reliable sources for the event, then you probably won't see them mentioned in those two articles. Platonk (talk) 04:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus delete, as already covered in the other article. A redirect at this point is probably not the best option. Tone 13:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

May Weyni massacre (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)

Event fails WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG. Current version has 9 references: Annys/Atlas and TGHAT are WP:SELFPUB, SkyNews is the only one of consequence, and the remaining 6 (World radio, Euronews, CBC, Guardian, France24, Tibebu) don't mention the incident and are WP:COATRACK.

The only good citation (Sky News, which I just added) mentions the town, date and 80 casualties. A single article does not pass the bar for NEVENT, and stripping the article of the SELFPUB and COATRACK citations (and their content) would leave about two sentences — which is included already in Casualties of the Tigray War and Timeline of the Tigray War series.

This article was part of a group of 106 almost-identical articles created by a now-blocked sockpuppet and were the subject of a prior AfD which was closed as "procedural keep" because 106 articles were too many bundled together for other editors to be able to effectively evaluate them in a single AfD. (43 of the original 106 have since been deleted, and another 28 turned into redirects.) Platonk (talk) 07:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Several reasons that is not really a workable idea. (1) Circular redirects are not acceptable. (2) The content and citation are already there. (3) There are no internet search engine results for "May Weyni massacre" except to this Knowledge (XXG) article and all the scraped copies of this Knowledge (XXG) article. The reason for that is the now-blocked editor invented all 106 'massacre' titles himself; they were not born from media coverage, he was using Knowledge (XXG) for his own WP:ADVOCACY. Meaning that no one would be searching Knowledge (XXG) for "May Weyni massacre". Please read WP:Redirect § Purposes of redirects, and then answer: What would be the purpose of keeping a redirect by this name? Platonk (talk) 18:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
(1) Any AfD resulting in a redirect must have any preexisting links back to the original removed to avoid circularity. (2) The fact that the content and the citation are already at the target article is why I proposed a redirect rather than a merge. (3) Having read the Sky News reference you supplied and which I linked above, I suggest that "massacre" is a reasonable, more common language and, thus, useful search term for a prospective reader searching for information on the reported extrajudicial killing of 80 local inhabitants of that particular village. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  • redirect to a more general article on the war (such as that suggested). There is a civil war in progress in Ethiopia, in which some very unpleasant events (to say the least) are said to have taken place. We need one article on that war, or a series on different stages of it, with one overall outline article, not a series of them on individual events however atrocious. This series of massacre articles should not be allowed to remain as individual articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
@Peterkingiron: There are already such articles as you suggest (see this navbar). The problem with these 106 'massacre' articles is that they were sourced by the editor's own self-published off-Knowledge (XXG) documents. He also invented these massacre titles; they are not used by the general media. If the media had been using the term that matches this article title, then I would have performed a blank-and-redirect rather than AfD. Prior to nominating any (or several) of these 106 articles for deletion, I will have already checked and updated Timeline of the Tigray War and Casualties of the Tigray War, which is where the information should have gone in the first place, not a standalone article. If there are no reliable sources for the event, then you probably won't see them mentioned in those two articles. Platonk (talk) 04:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 23:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Jason Perry (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)

Non-notable local politician. Not enough independent reliable source coverage to write a substantial article about him—the page currently includes no independent reliable sources. Fails the WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Ralbegen (talk) 13:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Press releases aren't indepedent reliable sources. Most council leaders aren't notable enough for Knowledge (XXG) articles, let alone council opposition leaders: it's a matter of meeting Knowledge (XXG)'s notability thresholds. If he becomes mayor of Croydon, he will most likely be notable enough for an article. Not yet, though. Ralbegen (talk) 14:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
This seems to be a rather rude and dismissive response frankly, in particular the first sentence. I've included two separate sources just as an example, one being an interview with MyLondon - which is one of the largest local news sources in London (part of Reach PLC), the other being the Croydon Guardian, one of two major local papers (along with the Croydon Advertiser which is part of MyLondon). I would agree that "most" Council Leaders aren't notable enough - but "most" British Councils are not bankrupt - only two are, and Croydon is one of Britain's largest Boroughs (15th to be precise), and will be the 2nd largest mayoralty in the country (after Bristol), the largest Mayor & Cabinet system in London and is home to nearly 400,000 people and facing the biggest financial collapse, of any British borough, ever.
Croydon has barely been out of the news in London since it's total financial collapse - hence the intense spotlight on the mayoral contest and council control ahead of next year and candidates which already are and increasingly will be prominent. Trimfrim20 (talk) 15:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I apologise if my comment appeared rude and dismissive, I'm happy to explain more thoroughly. The Croydon Guardian article that you linked to is transparently a press release. An interview about a local councillor having Covid does not especially contribute towards making that councillor notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia entry. There are lots of interviews with people who have had Covid, and those interviews don't make any of them notable. None of the facts about Croydon that you've listed here relate to the notability of Jason Perry—or to Hamida Ali or Tony Newman, who don't have articles either. Council leaders (and council opposition leaders) can be notable, but only if they pass relevant notability guidelines. Passing mentions, press releases, a Covid interview, and routine election coverage aren't enough to write an adequately sourced article about. Ralbegen (talk) 16:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Ralbegen, that makes far more sense! There are definitely issues locally with independent press which has entered a rapid decline in the past decade - and as a result if it's not in MyLondon it doesn't happen! InsideCroydon covers Cllr. Perry extensively but is a hyper-partisan blog written by a local Labour Party member. Maybe a reasonable compromise is to move the article to draftspace until additional sources are added, and then publish at a later date? I think we can probably both agree that as the campaign heats up (particularly now the Labour candidate has also been selected) there will be far more press coverage (probably by regional and national press as well as London) and at that point there may well be a good case for widespread notability. I think we can both agree that Mayor's tend to have a significantly higher profile than Council Leader's, and as a result a Mayoral Candidate would arguable be more notable than a Council Leader! Think there arguably is a case for an article specifically related to the financial collapse of the council which would discuss Cllrs Newman and Ali (and others) in detail.
Would you be happy to withdraw the nomination and have the article moved to draftspace as a reasonable compromise? Trimfrim20 (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I think the discussion has to take its course over seven days, but I don't think there's anything that'd mean creating an article in draftspace about Perry would be a bad idea. Election coverage is better kept to the election article rather than making articles for individual candidates, and it's usually considered to not contribute towards candidates' notability. If Perry becomes mayor, then I'd expect he'll receive an amount of reliable source coverage that will pass the GNG, and having a draft article ready about him might be useful. Until then, (proportionate) material is probably best kept to 2022 Croydon London Borough Council election. Ralbegen (talk) 17:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Ralbegen - I live in the borough, and have to be honest that I think the spotlight on this race will only increase. I think if elected Mayor the case for an article would be indisputable given the directly-elected nature of the role (and given the role will likely be of a similar profile to Marvin Rees, Mayor of Bristol), but I think press attention in the meantime may well pass GNG on its own. We shall wait and see! As nobody else has commented you can withdraw the nomination using the process at Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion#Procedure for non-administrator close (nominator withdrawal). If you're happy to do that I'm happy to move to draftspace, but obviously wouldn't be the right thing to do while the nomination is outstanding! Trimfrim20 (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 06:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete. Borough council isn't a level of office that confers an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL, but the article features neither the depth of substance nor the volume of sourcing needed to get him over the bar. Bearcat (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
    It’s an interesting point. I think there is the relevant content out there but I’ve not yet had a chance to add it to the article as I’ve been unwell the past few weeks. I’d previously suggested moving it to draft to get those more detailed sources added but nobody seemed to respond to the suggestion. Trimfrim20 (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz 05:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

List of Grizzly Tales for Gruesome Kids 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)

Unreliable (and dubious) sources with contradicting information in some and lacking evidence in others. It's been hard finding better but it's turned out impossible. —MonkeyStolen234 (talk) 15:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 06:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was merge to Pack (canine). Sandstein 09:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Attachment behaviour in wolves (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 article has an overlapping topic with Pack (canine) and is less well written overall. I propose merging some of its high-level content into Pack (canine), deleting the content that just echos data in cited works, and redirecting links as appropriate (though as far as I can tell, only two other articles ever linked here). Rriegs (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 06:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect to International recognition of Kosovo. Tone 13:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Kazakhstan–Kosovo 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)

There are no relations between these countries, as Kazakhstan does not recognise Kosovo. This fact is already covered in International_recognition_of_Kosovo#Entities_that_have_not_recognised_Kosovo_as_an_independent_state. As per Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Cape Verde–Kosovo relations. LibStar (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Really, the only cost that the article and the description in International recognition of Kosovo might drift out of sync. But, the cost of a redirect is also very small; the page name will still exist, ready to be expanded in case new reliable sources become available to motivate a stand-alone article on the subject. Suriname0 (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 06:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Liz 05:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Imbaseneyti massacres (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)

Event does not pass WP:NEVENT or WP:GNG, primarily because the event cannot be verified with any reliable sources. This article is dubiously sourced. Current version has 10 references: Annys/Atlas and TGHAT are WP:SELFPUB, EEPA is a false verification, #3 is just a footnote, and the remaining 6 (World radio, Euronews, CBC, Guardian, France24, DW) do not cover this event and are just WP:COATRACK.

This article was part of a series of 106 almost-identical articles created by a now-blocked sockpuppet and were the subject of a prior AfD which was closed as "procedural keep" because 106 articles were too many bundled together for other editors to be able to effectively evaluate them in a single AfD. (43 of the original 106 have since been deleted, and another 28 turned into redirects.) Platonk (talk) 05:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Peterkingiron: There are already such articles as you suggest (see this navbar). The problem with these 106 'massacre' articles is that they were sourced by the editor's own self-published off-Knowledge (XXG) documents. He also invented these massacre titles; they are not used by the general media. If the media had been using the term that matches this article title, then I would have performed a blank-and-redirect rather than AfD. Prior to nominating any (or several) of these 106 articles for deletion, I will have already checked and updated Timeline of the Tigray War and Casualties of the Tigray War, which is where the information should have gone in the first place, not a standalone article. If there are no reliable sources for the event, then you probably won't see them mentioned in those two articles. Platonk (talk) 04:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz 04:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Aisen Ishak (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 and WP:NFOOTBALL. Simione001 (talk) 04:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz 04:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Wheels of Fortune (film) (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)

Zero reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and a general lack of notability. Fails the guidelines set at MOS:FILM. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 03:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing. I made a lot of articles when I did not know anything about Knowledge (XXG)'s policies. After editing for over a year, I realize that I have created a number of pages that fail WP:NF and WP:GNG. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 04:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz 04:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Denzong Peoples Chogpi (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 political party. They fought in one election, but didn't win any seats. Besides wiki mirrors and the election result, I was unable to find any other sources. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 23:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

2021 Youth Hunger Strike in Arizona and DC for Democracy (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)

Sorry to relitigate this, but this was a two-participant AfD where the only Keep vote was from the article's creator. This article doesn't show persistent coverage or significant impact, without which it's just another protest (albeit one that made the news). It's a one-off story—it's a really, really interesting and inspiring one! But without reliable, secondary sources explicitly showing real-world impact or lasting coverage, this doesn't meet inclusion criteria. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 18:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit: I should remind all of those looking to get involved that you're not just looking for significant coverage, you're looking for persistent coverage in deciding whether this article should be included. Lots of incidents, protests, and negotiations make the news; for political theatre and events to make as standalone Knowledge (XXG) articles, they need either impact or coverage that extends not insignificantly beyond the event. This could even be merged into John Lewis Voting Rights Act as part of the larger story, but unless someone can show lasting coverage in its own right, merely passing WP:GNG is not enough here. To quote WP:PERSISTENCE: a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The first strike wasn't just covered all over the news, including on Washington Post, but it had created the impact of keeping the most significant voting bill since 1965 alive. The Senate will start to debate the bill on Tuesday 1/18. The youth has started their second hunger strike to call attention to the bill. The number of strikers has grown from 20 to 40. Whether the bill will eventually pass or not, these strikes had made a significant impact.

Please check out the coverage of these events on the reference list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.239.179 (talk) 04:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I know no one like endless relists, but since the first AfD closed as no consensus, and the two recent comments are from the last 24 hours, let's give it one more week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ajpolino (talk) 03:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete this is a promotional article about an ongoing promotional effort by college students. If it becomes genuinely newsworthy, it can be re-created. The references are mostly about national news headlines unrelated to the group. It is also likely that somebody working with the group is improperly contributing to this article. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 04:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz 03:46, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

15 February 2021 Addi Geba massacre (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 am also nominating the following related pages:

27 February 2021 Addi Geba massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
May Kinetal massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Indafelasi killing spree (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Four standalone articles which do not pass WP:NEVENT or WP:GNG, primarily because the events cannot be verified with any reliable sources. These 4 articles are part of a series of 106 almost-identical articles created by a now-blocked sockpuppet and were the subject of a prior AfD which was closed as "procedural keep" because 106 articles were too many bundled together for other editors to be able to effectively evaluate them in a single AfD. (43 of the original 106 have since been deleted, and another 28 turned into redirects.)

These are unnecessary articles of alleged events sourced identically to each other. The first three sources include: (1) an article posted on an advocacy blog website tghat.com (self-published), (2) a victim list spreadsheet at the end of a document self-published on ResearchGate, and (3) an AP News article which mentions only one of these four locations but has no dates nor casualty count nor any specific 'massacre' event to corroborate any of these 4 Knowledge (XXG) articles (doesn't verify). The other 6 citations (World Radio, EuroNews, CBC, Guardian, France24, DW) are WP:COATRACK because none of them mention these events at all, and were copypasta'd to each article to fill them out and make them appear notable. Platonk (talk) 03:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Peterkingiron: There are already such articles as you suggest (see this navbar). The problem with these 106 'massacre' articles is that they were sourced by the editor's own self-published off-Knowledge (XXG) documents. He also invented these massacre titles; they are not used by the general media. If the media had been using the term that matches this article title, then I would have performed a blank-and-redirect rather than AfD. Prior to nominating any (or several) of these 106 articles for deletion, I will have already checked and updated Timeline of the Tigray War and Casualties of the Tigray War, which is where the information should have gone in the first place, not a standalone article. If there are no reliable sources for the event, then you probably won't see them mentioned in those two articles. Platonk (talk) 04:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Sertraline#Side effects. Liz 03:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

List of adverse effects of sertraline (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 propose merging this article with sertraline, or deleting it. I don't think there needs to be a separate article specifically for the adverse effects of any drug. Rockstone 03:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Is there any reason I couldn't be bold and do it myself? -- Rockstone 04:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, I think once this AfD exists it's improper to redirect it until this discussion resolves. AfDs havea prescribed end date, and aren't kept open indefinitely so it will eventually be resolved. And there is a pretty clear consensus establishing so I wouldn't be too worried. Knowledge (XXG)'s job is never done, no reason to move hastily :) — Shibbolethink 16:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz 03:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Tawny Roberts (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 with no significant coverage found besides trivial mentions and promotional adult-industry award sources. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU 05:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. It could not be shown that the subject is notable. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 23:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Holy Orthodox Metropolis of Australia & Oceania (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 subject does not meet WP:NCHURCH. I have not found anything about this denomination. Its OrthodoxWiki article and older versions of the WP article have an official website, but it is now dead. The article was created in 2013, and no source on it seem to have ever been provided on the WP article.
Therefore, I think this article should be deleted for its clear lack of notability and lack of WP:Verifiability. Veverve (talk) 02:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@Peterkingiron: This appears to be something superior to an archdiocese of a small denomination: according to which RS? And which denomination? Veverve (talk) 14:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep There is sufficient available to show that the subject EXISTS (ie the described entity used to exist), but there is not enough that I can readily find to satisfy GNG. However, there is also evidence that it was multiple congregations, and that it was a small but significant part in the history of Greek orthodoxy in the region. It should be a redirect to a section in something like History of Greek orthodoxy in Oceania, but such an article does not exist. The article itself is not misleading, and could be improved very slightly, and AfD is not about cleanup, so until there is a proper History of Greek orthodoxy in Oceania for it to be redirected to, it should stay. Aoziwe (talk) 08:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
@Aoziwe: there is also evidence that it was multiple congregations, and that it was a small but significant part in the history of Greek orthodoxy in the region what RSs are you relying on? Veverve (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
For example, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here. While there might be some question about the reliability and point of view in the detail in the two latter sources, they do support ... a small but significant part .... I am not claiming GN or SN from these, just that there is content here that should not be deleted at this time. Aoziwe (talk) 12:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
@Aoziwe: First (orthochristian) is WP:PASSINGMENTION, second (orthodoxchristiantheology) is a personnal WP:BLOG, third (adelaidenow) is PASSINGMENTION, fourth (aulocalsearch) is a directory of any association registered in Australia, fifth (greekherald) makes no mention of this denomination, sixth (neoskosmos) gives a small mention (a few details are given), seventh and eight (gocia) are a personnal BLOG. In total, you have one WP:RS giving a small coverage of this denomination 10 years ago. This does not support WP:NCHURCH to me, and by far. Veverve (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
I think we in part are in furious agreement. I stated that I was claiming neither GN nor SN. I think there is encyclopaedic value here and it needs to be kept somewhere. Aoziwe (talk) 09:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete or Redirect This can't be an article on its own. It exists, and there is nothing else there. If you can find consensus to add at least one referenced sentence about their schism on Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia then it's fine as a redirect, otherwise it should be deleted. It's not notable; just because a group of people call themselves an archdiocese does not mean they meet the Knowledge (XXG) SNG. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 04:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Continued: @Aoziwe: if there ever was an encyclopedic values to this subject, there would be some RSs talking about it at lenghth. Currently, there is only one RS that discusses it barely enough for it not to be a PASSINGMENTION. Veverve (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There seems to be a waek, rough consensus that Shoreland Lutheran High School is notable and should be kept. The consensus on Wisconsin Lutheran School is a bit more muddy. I think nominating them together in one AfD made it more difficult to discuss them. I'd recommend perhaps renominating Wisconsin Lutheran School on its own to have a more focused discussion. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 23:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Wisconsin Lutheran School (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 am unable to identify any in-depth, independent coverage that would meet WP:ORG. As an ATD, I considered a redirect to Wisconsin_Evangelical_Lutheran_Synod#Education, but it's not mentioned there, and don't believe inclusion would be DUE given the breadth of the education system the Synod supports. I also considered a merger with Shoreland Lutheran High School, however that has its own WP:ORG challenges and so this bundled nomination. These schools exist and serve the Lutheran population, but they date from a very different time in school notability and I don't think they meet current criteria.

Shoreland Lutheran High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Star Mississippi 03:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment – Adamant1, I acknowledge your personal preference for "one regional or national story", per WP:AUD. However, that WP:NORG criterion does not apply to non-profit educational institutions – see the 2nd sentence of the first paragraph of NORG: The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams. The alternate criteria for specific types of organizations is WP:NSCHOOL, which says For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations, so for-profit schools must meet WP:AUD. But Shoreland Lutheran High School is not a for-profit organization, it's a non-profit (a 501(c)(3) organization), and is thus exempt from the criterion you prefer. The appropriate notability guideline is GNG, which it does meet. Cordially, Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep Shoreland Lutheran High School and redirect the elementary school. The high school clearly passes WP:GNG with regional coverage. It's unreasonable to expect national coverage which would only appear for a scandal or a shooting, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm perfectly fine with regional coverage. From what I saw it was all local though. It's possible I missed a regional source when I was looking through though. That said, I think sports teams winning regional/national championships or there being notable alumni can get national coverage. Admittingly I'm not super up on articles about schools in America, but from what I've seen there's plenty local schools in India that are covered in national news outlets. The problem is if we go with purely local coverage then it creates a de-facto standard where every school is inherently notable. Since there's almost zero chance of a school not getting local coverage. Which I don't think is in the spirit of the guidelines or consensus. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
A February 2017 RFC: Should secondary schools whose existence is verified by reliable, independent sources be presumed to be notable? shows an extensive site-wide debate with responses nearly even (with a 13-11 ratio favoring the "oppose" position) that resulted in the compromise school notability criteria we have today. Prior to that RFC, our criterion for school articles was evidence of existence, and the compromise was to require all schools to meet GNG or NORG. It's a lengthy RFC, but fairly early in the discussion, editors indicated for-profits should meet the same standards as business organizations, but non-profits should meet GNG criteria. If you haven't time to read the entire discussion, I recommend the summary of the close at the top of the RFC. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz 03:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Committee of the Jewish Community of Hebron (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:N, and I can't even document that it is real at all outside of WP mirrors and copies. There had been four sources here, a NYT article that never once mentions a committee, a link that neither it or the archive of it provided any help in finding what the original article may have been, and a JPost article that never once mentions a committee or a regional committee. If there is some formal committee for the Israeli settlers in Hebron they arent discussed in any of the sources cited, and Ive only been able to find a lulu.com published book that mentions this group. Fails WP:N if not entirely WP:MADEUP Nableezy 03:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete. This committee probably exists, with what degree of official sanction I don't know, but it isn't a topic for an article. What should happen is that the large section "Israeli settlements" in Hebron should be moved out into a separate article, then anything about a committee can go there. That would also partially help the extreme imbalance that Hebron has now. Zero 06:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Isaac Hasson (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 article is not notable, and lacks any references. It mostly attibutes to IMDB. Severestorm28 01:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Liz 02:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

John Milligan-Whyte (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 article covers a subject who does not appear to have done anything notable. The main achievement cited is that the subject authored a document on grand strategy for the US-China partnership - however, there is scant evidence that this document has influenced any policies, any policy makers, or any public discussions on matters relating to the title. The vast majority of external references link to documents authored by the subject or his wife, or to organizations led by the subject and his wife; the remainder do not substantiate the claim. Independent web search does not reveal any independent sources citing the subject or his achievements. Finally, the article was created and expanded in 2011 by one account and a series of IP addresses that have only contributed to this article. On this basis, I propose that the subject is not notable, and that the sources for his claims are not verifiable. The article should be deleted. Innocent76 (talk) 02:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because the subject (Dai Min) is the wife of the original AfD subject (John Milligan-Whyte), and the article for Ms. Dai references the same activities and achievements, with exactly the same flaws in sourcing:
Dai_Min (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz 02:32, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Chan Hon Goh (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 article may contain unreferenced sources and many peacock terms which promote a subject. Vitaium (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Liz 02:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Double Identity (Haddix novel) (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 references, article has multiple issues. Fails WP:NB. Severestorm28 02:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Liz 02:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Nate Ruegger (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 nobility, no decent sources found in WP:BEFORE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Roosevelt dictatorship (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 article seems to be a single, large violation of WP:SYNTH framed around disjointed passing remarks and esoteric screeds. The numerous sourcing and weasel word issues only further emphasize the need to swiftly remove this article from the wiki. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 06:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 06:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment. I did some clean-up on the article ages ago (side note: it never should have been approved for DYK, if you think the current version is bad, it was 100x times worse before with rampant SYNTH and citations that did not actually verify the content they claimed to). The reason I didn't nominate it for deletion myself in 2019 was because the Alpers book ( https://books.google.com/books?id=AaWrbJf3EKcC ) is actually on point, and slightly deeper than random opinion pieces or contemporary news articles, so there's a "real" topic here, if a sliver of one. The ridiculous tag-bombing of the lede is silly - I rewrote a version of that myself, and it's based on Alpers (who was inexplicably removed as a reference since), who unlike all the SYNTHy stuff actually is a reliable source. That said, is it due weight to discuss a brief set of proposals that lasted for like 6 months? For comparison, this is like a separate article on exactly what QAnon was proposing in November 2019-March 2020, and calling it Trump dictatorship or something. I think that there's enough of a "real" topic that it should be merged at worst (we do, after all, cover QAnon and its beliefs), but I agree that for a long time, the article wildly overstated its case (it's not a Roosevelt dictatorship, it's really an article on public attitudes in the 1930s, an era when faith in democracy was wavering). I had taken to ignoring the article due to its extreme messiness, but all the tag-bombing doesn't help the case here. SnowFire (talk) 07:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I've gone ahead and restore the Alpers reference that was inexplicably deleted and some of the tag-bombing. Like I said, this is a real topic, but even Alpers himself is very clear that it did not succeed, so it's an article about something that Didn't Happen but comes up as a What-If sometimes. Maybe the article needs a move more than deletion? Proposals for American dictatorship in the 1930s, idk. The current title is punchy but definitely misleading. I would also be fine with a merge if a good target could be suggested. SnowFire (talk) 08:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete not ever opinion that gets circulated around needs an article in Knowledge (XXG). There is no evidence of real substance here. The substantive issues are much better covered in other articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete I think we would be hard-pressed to find a single U.S president who was not, at some point, accused of dictatorial inclinations by the contemporary press. This article leans hard on such sources, as well as synthesizing. The Alpers's source is fine in of itself but would be better utilized on another article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: this would be at home in an article on something like Dictatorship movements in the United States. This is not the first or the last of these. BD2412 T 07:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I found two more books that go into this in some depth, including analysis of speechwriting notes by Raymond Moley and a discarded draft of an FDR speech to the American Legion. Far from synthesis, it appears that there is genuine historical analysis of how far people were willing to take the idea of having a dictator, and what they thought that it meant. The real problem here is the title. We all know, with the benefit of historical hindsight, that there was not an FDR dictatorship; so the title misleads. But there was genuine political discourse around the subject at the time, and I even turned up a third book that noted how odd that may seem to a modern audience. There is a subject to cover, and political historians have covered it.
    • Alter, Jonathan (2007). The Defining Moment: FDR's Hundred Days and the Triumph of Hope. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 9780743246019.
    • Houck, Davis W. (2002). FDR and Fear Itself: The First Inaugural Address. Texas A&M University Press. ISBN 9781585441983.
  • Uncle G (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
    • The article used to discuss Jonathan Alter's work if you check the archives before being removed (not removed by me, to be clear), but disagree with the emphasis on a draft of a speech. Drafts are just that: drafts, aka stuff that did NOT go live, so drawing conclusions from them about what might have been is sketchy. I think we can exercise some editorial discretion and not give Alter's work undue prominence here, I think his beliefs based on the draft aren't really supported by many others. SnowFire (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Potential keep -- If true (and I do not know), it is significant, but it should be called Proposed Roosevelt dictatorship, since it did not happen. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Mild delete -- Recommend adding smaller summary to other pages. Gusfriend (talk) 09:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete title is utterly misleading and SYNTH; other than as political hyperbole and fringe theory, totally WP:UNDUE. No doubt, there is sourcing of discussions during the transition around the expansion of executive power, but nothing that could not easily be covered in Presidential transition of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑